What Does The Nation-State Understanding Entails?

National Identity in the Grip of Identities

Dear friends, one of the frequently discussed topics in the context of international relations/political science is the different dimensions of nation states' attitudes towards and relations with ethnic identities and beliefs. The subject in itself has a very broad content. I am aware of the difficulty of writing an article that will be sufficient to discuss the issue within a limited framework. Therefore, I will try to address the issue from the perspective of the nation state, the relationship of nation state structures with sub-identities and the sensitivity of this relationship to being exploited by different power centers. In doing so, I have found it appropriate to make use of the conceptualization of sociologist Doğan Ergun in his book "National Personality in the Grip of Identities"(1). I believe that this conceptualization can shed light on the current debates as it is a conceptualization that deals with the issue in its entirety.

What is a Nation State?

Starting from the 14th and 15th centuries in Europe, increasing trade and the bourgeoisie's rise to power led to the unification of kingdoms and increased their centralized power. However, the demands of the bourgeoisie, which sought relative independence from the monarchy, to limit the powers of the monarchy in terms of individual freedoms and freedom of trade were met in the historical process. Of course, with the strengthening of the bourgeoisie, in addition to limiting the powers of the monarchy, the authority of the church also began to lose power.  This is also a stage in the unnamed power struggle between the state and the church authority, which lasted for more than 1000 years, where the balance broke down in favor of the state.  

The event that laid the groundwork for the formation of nation states was the signing of two treaties in 1648, following long years of war. One of the visible results of these two treaties (Münster and Osnabrück), known as the Treaty of Westphalia, was the emergence of nation states (2).  

The other important consequence, however, was the beginning of the process of establishing, perhaps somewhat symbiotically, the power of the rulers over the ecclesiastical authority. However, this aspect is relevant only in terms of the transformation of sovereignty. Starting with the Westphalian process, sovereignty gradually began to pass from the monarchy to the people. The most decisive events were the French Revolution (1789) and the period that followed it (1789-1792). Although the 1688 English Revolution gave the bourgeoisie the right to representation in the House of Commons, the French Revolution is seen by historians as a more significant stage in the formalization of the nation state. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen seems to have been influenced by the American declarations. Especially in its Article 3: "The principle of every sovereignty is essentially in the Nation. No institution, no person, can save an authority which does not derive expressly from the nation." clearly heralds the establishment of the nation state. However, it is seen that these rights, which initially appeared as general and universal rights of the people, evolved into citizen rights (meaning citizen rights) as a result of the negotiations in the parliament (3).

The nation state is the state that draws strength from the nation formed by the citizens who live within the political borders of the state and who are the real owners of sovereignty in the process in which sovereignty passes from the monarchy to the people. "The state is a political and geopolitical entity, while the nation is a cultural or ethnic entity. The concept of the nation-state overlaps these two in a certain geography and thus differs greatly from the state structures that preceded it."(4) While this is an inclusive definition, we should also note that ethnic identities and beliefs have ceased to be the characteristics that make a nation a nation in the historical process. 

However, it is useful to point out the following. The understanding of nationalism that brought the nation-state into existence is, in this context, a product of the 17th century. Today, the peoples living in nation states have a national identity independent of their ethnic identity and based on their identity as citizens. For example, in France, the national identity of citizens is being "French", in Italy it is being Italian, in Germany it is being German, etc. Similarly, the national identity of citizens of the Republic of Turkey is being Turkish.

What is national personality and how is it related to identities?

Based on the definition of culture, Ergun argues that definitions such as superior and inferior are very wrong in explaining the relations between cultures. Establishing a hierarchy between cultures is methodologically problematic. In his definition of culture, culture as a "learned, motivated immaterial entity" differs from the material definitions made by many scientists. Therefore, he suggests using the terms private, local, ethnic instead of subordinate and national, global instead of supreme. Individuals can be connected to more than one culture, they can be carriers of more than one culture. 

It is necessary to consider culture and civilization together. Civilization is the realization and embodiment of non-material culture. A person, on the other hand, refers to the individual in human societies. In order to get to know the person, we ask about his/her identity. In this context, identity is the qualities specific to human beings. A quality is a characteristic that distinguishes one thing from another. In other words, identity is a characteristic of a person. Since a person can have more than one characteristic, we can conclude that he/she will also have more than one identity. In addition, it is also possible to consider cultures as a concept that gives identity to a person.

Personality, on the other hand, is a psychological foundation in which relations with society play a major role in the formation of the individual. It is the social structure that determines the integration of the individual's personality into the social personality. The social structure is determined by the many dimensions of relations in society. Social personality is formed as a result of the integration of these different dimensions of relations in history, i.e. social personality is historical. In addition, while individual personality is the subject of psychology, social personality is the subject of sociology. While identity is an individual determinant, personality is a dynamic organization. While identity involves a classification, personality is the dynamic organization of psycho-physical systems within the individual that determine the harmony of his/her unique structure with the environment. Here, the concept of Turkish personality is a social phenomenon that emerges independently of ethnic formation. "Personality is a sign of unity; personality is a sign of integrity; personality is a sign of organization. And the source of this unity, this integrity, this organization is culture"; "Personality is an organization of the individual within and by identities" (5). 

In other words, personality is one and identities are multiple. Ideological distinctions can turn into a very dangerous social phenomenon in the absence of historical and national consciousness. This approach, which can turn "socialism into Russian or Chinese socialism, Islam into Persian or Arab Islam, nationalism into Italian or German fascism", will bring about a process in which it will become increasingly difficult to live together as a nation. The term "Turkish identity", which has been used by many scholars, seems to be an unconscious or deliberate choice.

Conclusion

Here I have tried to express the sensitivities in defining the Turkish national personality based on the book by the sociologist Doğan Ergun. Unfortunately, this issue is not sufficiently known even by the politicians in Turkey who should pay the most attention to it. Or, although it is known, the attitudes adopted politically lead to great mistakes. Even the discourse "Turkish, Kurdish, Lazi, Circassian, we are all one" contains conceptual errors. These approaches, which bring the Turkish national identity to the level of ethnic identity, cause ethnic identities within the country to exert pressure on the national identity. Causing ethnic and faith-based identities to erode the Turkish national personality, even if we accept that it is done unconsciously, should be seen, to put it mildly, as a blow to the Atatürk Revolution, which emerged as nation state building. 

Atatürk's greatest achievement was to read the historical and political development of the world very well and to create a nation state out of a fragmented empire. If Atatürk had not been able to make this reading, there is a very strong possibility that we would be living in colonial lands where different cultures were in constant conflict with each other. The equal acceptance of ethnic and religious identities within the state organization is a requirement of a democratic state of law and citizenship. However, it should be the common duty of all citizens to be conscious and to protect our national identity against these attacks by global powers who try to impose on Turkey as a requirement of democracy issues that they would never allow to be discussed in the free environment they have created in their own nation-state structures. 

This should not be taken to mean that there are no problems with identities in Turkey. What I am trying to say is that the discussions are being held on a very wrong ground and in ignorance. It is very difficult for the nation-state to survive and remain as a single entity when the debate is based on ethnic or religious identities. It is clear that this situation will not benefit the citizens of the country in any way. When it is seen to whom it will benefit, perhaps it will be possible to conduct politics on a more moral ground, for the rulers to be more sensitive to Atatürk's Revolution and for citizens to have a sense of citizenship.

Footnotes:

(1) Doğan Ergun, (2000), Kimlikler Kıskacında Ulusal Kişilik, İmge Yayınevi, Ankara.

(2) https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestfalya_Antla%C5%9Fmas%C4%B1 

(3) Ed. M.Ali Ağaoğulları, Sokrates'ten Jakobenlere Batı'da Siyasal Düşünceler, İletişim Yayınları, Ankara, s. 608-611.

(4) https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulus_devlet

(5) Doğan Ergun, (2000), Kimlikler Kıskacında Ulusal Kişilik, İmge Yayınevi, Ankara, s. 170.