Yeah, like that time latent nationalism was whipped up during WWII or how like, the whole nation grieved over 9-11; come on people, you stinking nationalists!

Really, the idea that a social force, by dint of existence, is negative is an odd one. Of course, this whole post is peppered with snide, derogatory comments-- "gun-toting 'extremists'" & even the choice of the term "banal"-- so I shouldn't be too surprised. Marginalizing anyone who doesn't agree with you whole cloth is dogma, not ideology.

Or how about that time when nationalism was whipped up and used to pave the way for invading Iraq, in spite of the fact that the country had nothing to do with 9-11 and the Bush administration was lying through it's teeth? And that the rest of the world accepted this before the average US citizen?

Oh no, nationalism is always wonderful. All the time. Go team.

I apologize for being so snarky, but your comment really hit a nerve, mordicai. After being mired in a war the is killing countless numbers of civilians, maiming tens of thousands of young soldiers both physically and mentally, and gutting the US economically, I'd like to think that people can agree that there are, at the very least, a few problems with nationalism. Nationalism can have some intensely negative effects in the world, as is evidenced by using a sense of unity and "my country first, right or wrong" as a justification for engaging in what amounts to international belligerence.

I suspect that the whole point of bringing up "gun-toting, flag-waving extremists" is to remind the readers of this blog that no one is immune to the effects of nationalism: not even the progressive readers of this blog who might think they somehow are above such things. Nationalism effects nearly everyone in a society regardless of their political persuasion and that nationalism can be used as a tool to persuade the average citizen, regardless of political persuasion, to participate in intensely risky group-think.

"My country, right or wrong" is like "My father, sober or drunk." I forget who originally said that, but it wasn't me.

I find it a little funny that money is used to reinforce the abstract notion of 'nation' since money itself is an abstraction of 'value.' I also think it's interesting that the word 'abstract' came from a latin verb that means "to draw away," which in this context might be referring to one's attention; nationalism draws our attention away from the startlingly few people that make hugely important decisions in our collective name, and ensures that if you question their agenda you're portrayed as someone who hates America. It seems an abstraction is very close to a distraction.

I guess that's why the "United States of America" invaded Iraq, not a relatively small group of ostensible conservatives who were really self-serving extremists. They were so good at equating their agenda with "security," "freedom," and "protecting America" that even most of the "liberals" in Congress had to go along with the charade.

What I want to know is, how long before nationalism is a moot concept thanks to the internet and related technology?

What I want to know is, how long before nationalism is a moot concept thanks to the internet and related technology?

Hmm, let's see. My guess would be forever?

I'll side with mordicai here. My guess is that the majority of people who were troubled by the destructive nationalism that enabled the Iraq War invasion had no problems being excited by Barack Obama. Obama supporters (and I am among them) think that he will restore America's global image, turn around the American economy, and eliminate un-American policies such as torture. They think that he represents the American dream and that his Presidency will improve historically troubled American race relations.

But nationalism is dead! In a few years we won't even have countries any more!

Timberwraith - I thought Iraq was about 'oil' not about 'nationalism'. Yikes, it must be hard to keep all our silliness straight.

Only thing worse than 'banal nationalism' is 'banal anti-Americanism'... boooring....

Only thing worse than ‘banal nationalism’ is ‘banal anti-Americanism’… boooring….

Nationalism certainly isn't restricted to the United States and can function in concert with any number of other forces that make war possible, including but certainly not limited to the desire to exploit the natural resources of other countries.

When I said that nationalism affects everyone, I wasn't limiting that to US citizens. It's a human phenomenon: in group/out group behavior expressed at the level of a nation... any nation.

Who invited the blindly jingoistic conservatives?

Jesse, is Barack Obama a nation?

SarahMC, I used the word "America" or "American" five times in my comment. Too subtle for you?

Yeah man, my opinion is different, I totally must be blindly jingoistic-- oh hey, lets see if you can layer on any more neat ad hominem?

Timberwraith, I'm not in any way urging people to blindly act in foolish ways, least of all because the government says they should; you are absolutely right that national power can be exercised for ill. What I am saying is that it isn't baldly wicked either.

Jesse brings up an excellent point (had me at "side with mordicai!") regarding the Obama fervor. It isn't bad to be amped up about America kicking ass diplomatically! Go USA!

While I think that the concept of nation isn't something good, I think it is naive to believe we can live without it.

I think it is okay to criticize any idea, but let's not make it derrogative (quoting mordicai "Marginalizing anyone who doesn’t agree with you whole cloth is dogma, not ideology") and let's at least present an alternate idea of how things could work.

I have too many questions about the term's derivation and observations about the examples shared here to reply here. I'm going have to find the book and read it.

I will confine myself to these few comments (sorry, I thought these would be short!):

1.) The use of a commercial identity mark and currency as examples of "banal nationalism" seem simplistic. Corporations will adopt almost any image if it will sell product. Currency is a medium that is nation-based (at the moment). Visually, the use of national or regional markers on currency is a practical matter - it must be differentiated currency of other countries. The Euro is a common currency for a number of countries. The images on that currency pull from the shared architectural history of those countries. It is still far from generic.

2.) To call someone jingoistic for disagreeing with a post is lazy. Noone's post here is jingoistic or even nationalistic. However, there is disagreement with the premise of the post/book. This is fine.

3.) Re the direction of the thread: The pervasiveness of images/actions throughout our culture associated with US national identity used or referenced in corporate identity systems, on currency, mandated by Congress, etc. is not the same as propaganda. Billig *seems* to be equating the pervasiveness of national imagery with propaganda. They shouldn't be conflated.

As you all know, propaganda co-opts national images - and invents new associations (usually negative, discriminatory, etc.) - to support a specific message or messages. Given the proper message and propaganda, patriotism can be converted to nationalism that, in turn can be pushed to jingoism - which is where I think most of the country was taken by the Bush propaganda machine in 2002 - in order to pressure Congress into voting the administration the power to undertake the Iraq War.

And, propaganda only works if all other avenues to information are muffled - or stifled. I went to see the exhibit "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda" (http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/) and was reminded that, as pernicious, as negative, and as well orchestrated as the Bush Administration's propaganda was, it was nothing on the efficiency and hatefulness of Hitler's. It's a powerful exhibit. I recommend it.

doris:
Regarding your 1st comment, part of the banality of banal nationalism is its simplicity (the other being its pervasiveness), so I'd expect manifestations of it to be simplistic. It's supposed to appeal to the masses, so it kind of has to be.

Re: 3rd comment, I don't think the author is trying to equate the two (nationalism and propaganda), although a clear dividing line between them would be very tricky to draw IMO. In one sense nationalism is pure propaganda; a nation is an abstract concept needing constant reinforcement, and an 'abstract' idea, like a nation, doesn't have a physical existence to reassure us of its reality, and constantly reassuring us about the existence of something that is not real is (to me) propaganda. And a fence along a border doesn't make a nation real, either. It's just a fence; the 'border' doesn't exist except in our minds.

Quote:"And, propaganda only works if all other avenues to information are muffled - or stifled. "

The White House and Faux News (among others) would disagree, as would I. Propaganda itself does not deceive anyone. It merely allows us to deceive ourselves more easily.

Watching old Soviet-era propaganda from the USSR's State-run media (or Third Reich propaganda for that matter) is almost quaint since the BS is so blatant, but it worked just fine at the time because people wanted to believe it. It's not any different than how quaint and silly our contemporary American propaganda appears to citizens of other countries who have no personal stake in believing that "The USA is #1!!" Venezuelans are just as bemused by the obvious propaganda they see on American TV as Americans are by the propagandistic speeches of Chavez, yet citizens of both countries generally swallow their own domestic propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Why is that?

I get what you are saying mordicai—pride can be a healthy thing. Using national pride to bring people together and encourage them to work toward a positive outcome can be useful. Nevertheless, this approach doesn’t address the potential pitfalls that surround national pride taken several steps too far. Given that the US has behaved so poorly so recently, that should be a real concern.

Look, I'm progressive and because I'm "on the same team" that helped Obama get elected, I admit that it would be all too easy for me to ignore his negative actions during the next four years. Why? Well, I think that a progressive approach to the nation's problems includes ideas that are superior to other political philosophies. My biases in favor of progressive thinking leave me with certain prejudices that blind me to the negative behaviors of those within my group: progressives, Obama supporters, the Obama administration, etc. Those biases make it more likely for me to see those who are outside of my group as deficient, dangerous, and possibly representing a problem that needs to be controlled.

This kind of thinking is a close relative of the kind of thinking that accompanies nationalism: the notion that "we" are somehow better than "others." When taken to an extreme, it sets the stage for losing sight of the humanity of those outside of our group. Similarly, if you think your country is better than others, you will likely be biased in a way that makes it easier for you to look past your country's poor behavior and possibly look past the very humanity of those beyond your country’s borders.

As I've stated, I do not think any country, group of people, or individual is immune from manifesting the kinds of prejudice and thinking that accompany the worst aspects of nationalism: not me, not you, not conservatives, not progressives, not the United States, not other nations. We are all human and consequently, subject to human foibles.

The negative aspects of in group/out group behavior are probably impossible to eliminate from humanity. I'm not sure how one could do that without altering the very biological substrate that makes us human. Nevertheless, I believe that we can avert some of the problems inherent in nationalism through being honest about how these effects manifest in our own countries, our communities and our personal lives. Admitting to the existence of the problem is an important place to start.

At the very least, challenging prejudice in all of its myriad forms is an important part of this process, for prejudice is a common manifestation of in group/out group behavior and can lead to the worst behaviors in both individuals and nations. Challenging prejudice starts with one’s self. I’m not pointing fingers here. I’m including myself.

I might offer as an alternative to the "go USA" approach the open acknowledgment that we are all connected on this planet: the economic collapse in the US is propagating throughout the world, global warming is changing the ecology everywhere, political instability in the heart of the world’s oil reserves affects the wellbeing of all nations, etc. We are all in this together. We need each other to survive. That’s reality. We need to accept it, openly acknowledge it, and behave accordingly. It would be nice to see that approach adopted in earnest on both a national and an international level.

This isn't nearly as broad as the other comments, but references to sports teams got me wondering:
How often is something that is purely American substituted for "World?"
It's really just an attempt to make what is small (one nation) seem bigger (the WORLD!). But is it really just a coincidence that the World Series is played between teams representing just one country (unless Toronto makes it). Or that champions are often rewarded with a "World Title?" This isn't a major problem or even really a conscious evil, but is sort of the mundane, banal sort of thing that the article is referring to.
And how odd is it that baseball is now playing the World Baseball Classic? Just a few months after the World Series! That would seem to imply more than one world. Which, on a less-than-literal sense, is exactly what it means.

Some of these are a good point, but while the nation is a construct, in our current GLOBAL society, it is a legal construct that needs to be there.  American (cash) money is generally only legal to use within the legal borders of the United States; there is a reason for that to be there.  It is not Canadian money, it is not Mexican money, it is not European money, it is the money explicitly for the United States of America.  In the case of "NFL" and such, that is a statement of fact; that naming convention is no different than the naming of the teams in that league within that league with city names, or identifying teams that play on an international level as "The German Soccer Team" or "The American Olympic Basketball Team."  It's there to indicate a physical/political boundary in which that team or group of teams exist (though some of the league indicated as American do have a Canadian team or two within them, which is odd).  It's certainly less ridiculous to say "This is the American Whatever Sport League" for a group of American teams than it is to say "fifteen American teams and one Canadian team are eligible for the World Series."  As for newspapers and news magazines, that is an indication of what kind of news is being reported.  One assumes that a newspaper talking about "US News" would be reporting primarily on news happening within the US or directly politically relevant to the US, same as one would assume that a newspaper marked "Chicago Tribune" would focus on news in and around Chicago before news in California or New York or China.  This is a good shorthand for people looking for specific news; I wouldn't pick up a newspaper boldly marked "USA" if I was looking for in-depth information about elections in Germany or human interest pieces about education in China.  Those things MIGHT be there, but would not take precendence.  And that is as it should be.  Not out of patriotism, but out of convenience; people care about the events happening in close physical proximity to them more than the same events happening 6000 miles away, and the laws that will directly affect them more than the laws that will only affect people they've never met.  That isn't nationalism, or indifference to other people's lives, it's common sense; if there is an escaped serial killer running around 4 blocks from me, that is more relevant to my life and physical safety than an escaped serial killer in London.

I linked to this post on my own bloggie about the Fourth, here. The thing with July 4 is it's a good time to think about nationalism and what that means for our lives, whether it's the traditional message of freedom and capitalism or whether it's nationalistic frenzy and religious/cultural oppression. It's kind of both a lot of the time, and it's worthwhile to spend some time reflecting on that - at least in between bites of delicious barbecued food.

A great example of what happens when someone/something decides to go against tide is happening right now at Goshen College, a small Mennonite college in Indiana. The anthem was not played before sporting events until 2010, and was met with lots of outrage from alumni (myself included). Recently, the college reversed its decision, which has been met with outrage from right wing news/blogs, as well as from alumni. It's an interesting case study on nationalism, and what happens when some people refuse to go along.

I love how hard everyone on this blog works to avoid offending anyone... except for those "gun-toting extremists" ;-) It's fine, though - under *my* value system you're free to be a jerk :)

I get the problems with nationalism... well, they apply to pretty much any extended form of tribalism, but nationalism is probably the strongest current one running the world, so it's a valid target.

The problem is... what do you replace it with? The world is organized on nationalist lines. It's been the natural progression from families, to clans, to tribes, to city-states, to kingdoms, to nation-states. Humans don't naturally assemble in groups this size - you have to invent some common organizational theory for them to latch onto as "us" or  it all collapses into smaller groups. It's all a fiction, but it's a necessary fiction or we all go back to our next closest organizational unit... which would be what, maybe states? And then you'd just see Michigan vs Ohio propaganda even worse than it is now.

The thing is, these nations are fictional, but they do stand for something. For one, they stand for (ostensibly, at least) the viewpoints of the people living in a geographical area. Given that most would prefer to continue to have those viewpoints, as opposed to being forced to take on someone else's, the arrangement works. And sometimes those views are really important - like modern concepts of natural rights, or even basic functions of law and order.

The problem is not when we think that our nation is better than someone else's... because if it is worse, in a free country at least you are free to emigrate... but when we think it is unilaterally better than someone else's. You can admit to weaknesses in areas while still holistically preferring your local final result.

Or when we get so wrapped up in it (or any -ism) that we conflate the leaders of the group with the values of the group itself. One's nation is more than just one's government, just like your religion is more than what your pastor says. My country, right or wrong -- yes. My president, right or wrong -- hell, no. So nationalism can definitely be misused by those with power, and it is *important* to recognize the bits of it at work in culture... but is it some dark insidious force? Well, give me a functioning replacement to it, and then maybe we can talk.

Any kind of extreme behavior is usually not good.  This is not new.  However, this article seems to have no obvious thesis.
It states that there may be a *problem* with banal nationalism, yet there is no proof. The images shown do not really support this point; the images show no "problem".  A problem would be something such as what "timberwraith" posted. The article's images show things that are pretty common in any first-world country (flags, national anthem, currency, names of national teams).  This creates a sense of unity, which is common in group, tribe and national behavior.  It creates a sense of belonging, and of tradition.  Any extreme of this behavior could be seen as negative...just like eating too many donuts.

Is this a review of a book, or a separate article?

Let's read that paragraph again:

"In his book, Michael Billig coined the term “banal nationalism” to draw attention to the ways in which nationalism was not only a quality of gun-toting, flag-waving “extremists” (p. 5), but was quietly and rather invisibly reproduced by all of us in our daily lives."

This is a criticism of liberals/progressives, not a characterization of those who consider themselves "patriotic" as gun-toting extremists. This paragraph says that while liberals/progressives may see nationalism as a negative trait of "gun-toting, flag-waving extremists" (the strawman-conservative "them" to the liberal/progressive "us"), it is actually reproduced in everybody.  Like ideology, no one is outside it or above it or too smart to fall for it, and if you think you are, like some liberals/progressives/generally-left people may believe they are, then you are the fool. 

Beware!  You're all just one flag display away from frenzied nationalism!  

That girl has the wrong hand over her heart. Let's get her!

Hi,

I'm German (also I had to leave the country for political reasons) and the word: Nationalism (even the banal one) sends me down shivers. I think that banal-nationalism is as well the source for micro conflicts. Covered Chauvenism and Racism, being in the superior group.
Our conscience is so much based on that pillar that most of us, can be turned from banals to canibals. We can refuse, but then we pay the price of not being in "our (socialized) group".
Perhaps if education goes more from national to international - and schools are not the mediators of doctrines anymore (Ernest Gellner, Charles Tilly, Norbert Elias, ...) then perhaps no mass-movement, no "common-cause" can unite us to kill.

Hey everybody! 

Happy fourth of July!

I agree that there is a lot of banal nationalism, but your list was silly. What country doesn't put their countries name on their currency. It would be stupid if they did not. And I don't see naming national sporting teams weird or "banal nationalism." 

What is the alternative to nationalism (specifically, non-ethnic territorial nationalism, as in the U.S.)?  I've yet to see sociologists seriously consider this question.  If you compare the New Nationalism of the early 20th century with how Western nations assimilates new citizens (and formerly-oppressed minorities) today, I think it's safe to say that New Nationalism was far more effective--it's only flaw being it's exclusion to European-descended whites.

We have to bind together as one society, somehow.  Social cohesion does matter, you know.

So tell me: what is your alternative?  And no greeny communitarian localist nonsense, please.  People don't tolerate fiscal transfers from rich regions to poor regions if they don't see themselves as part of one society; just look at Europe.  That's the fatal slaw underlying a lot of this kind of rhetoric.

I think flying flags and reciting the pledge are examples of banal nationalism, but how is naming a newspaper by its city or nation banal nationalism?? Most local newspapers have to say their name in it since they will only be focusing on their city or nation. Now if a newspaper or magazine was truly global and spent equal time on both domestic and global news, then I could see how it would be silly.

Your argument is puzzling, Ms. Wade.  The American flag/national pride *can* justify war and blind hatred, therefore it is problematic.  Trouble is, that wars and blind hatred can be stirred up by many things -- religious zeal (e.g., Jihad), economic ideology which transcends a single nation (e.g., Communism), or even plain old lust for a woman (e.g., Helenic times).  The fact that these cultural forces, too, can and has stirred up "bad stuff" doesn't give us license to go around saying Marx or Islam or beautiful women are problematic and should be scrutinized as deviant.

So long as people question authority and work to make the country even better than it is today there's nothing wrong with flying the flag. Wrapping yourself in it for marketing purposes or other questionable motives is a different story...

Nationalism can be banal by itself I could not agree more, however what I think is the approach to said nationalism from the perspective of the individual person is key. If most of the populace relationship with the nation is banal, that country's nationalism will be.

The United States is not a Nation; it never was. It is an Empire. It has none of the characteristics of a Nation, but all those of an Empire.

There have been and still are different types of nationalisms - liberal, cultural etc - in the history of ideas. These differ according to nations and there is no rational reason to demonize one's love to her nation, to generalize it. Since nation and nationalism is a notion too broad to be strictly framed.

What is the problem with the display of nationalism ? Does it not on a macro level provide a sense of identity, and solidarity? Symbols like the flag and saying the pledge of allegiance function to bring together large ,often heterogeneous, groups as one. It is part of the glue that binds us together. Fanatical adherence to any cause or ideology is problematic, but nationalism is normal extension of expressing group unity and affiliation.

Essays like this aren't just harmless rhetorical exercises, they are the very foundation that irrational anti-nationalists use to create an atmosphere where any sense of nationhood is considered taboo, forbidden, and ultimately banned and outlawed.