Understanding: Banal Nationalism
In the long march of human history, Nation-states are fairly new conceptions. If we say that humans have lived for one year, they have known the idea of Nation-states for like half a day. So when in the year 1995, Michael Billig asked a much-published question: why do people not forget their national identity? in his book titled Banal Nationalism. It brought forth very confused looks from people.
The primordialist theory of nationalism argues that nations or ethnic identities are fixed, natural, and ancient. So a primordialist would argue that individuals have a single ethnic identity that is not subject to change and which is exogenous to historical processes. The primordialist theory of nationalism is now widely discarded — for one it does not hold steady in face of historic examination and on the other, it is borderline racist. So there is a widely accepted consensus that our national identity is not ingrained in our DNA or our very being for that matter. Coming back to Billig’s question — the simplicity of the question obscures its weight.
The place national identities hold in society presently makes it difficult to understand the imagined nature of nationalism and nation-states.
Nationalism is no more real than the Loch Ness monster (Admittedly more people believe in Nationalism than the Loch Ness monster), it is a social construct built on the foundations of the shared imagination of people. Then why did this imagined concept hold so dearly in the popular imagination? What causes people to remember their national identity at all times? And in extension: why do people need to remember it at all times?
Starting from Ernest Gellner’s observation that national identities are socially constructed, Billig presents fascinating instances in which national self-images of relatively recent vintage are wrongly taken to be primordial characteristics. Billig coined the concept of “banal nationalism” to answer his question. He explained that nationalism is commonly misunderstood for its extreme forms — radical or revolutionary in nature. He refers to the unnoticed, taken-for-granted, ordinary signs of nationalism — including the use of deictic words in the media such as ‘ours’ or ‘us’ — that reproduce the nation on a daily basis. He suggests that in daily life nationalism is constantly flagged in the media through routine symbols and habits of language. These symbols encompass us — they feel normal, every day, and inconsequential. The small symbol on the currency note, the flags outside government office buildings, and the emblems on identity cards are all — these banal signs of nationalism. They are present in sports on jerseys, they are present in advertisements, concerts et cetera. Thus one is fed our national identity through latent symbols, signaling, and the selection of language. These symbols may be silent methods to assert power — say the American flag on the moon. Or these symbols can be a very intrinsic need stemmed in our social interactions that require trust — say the emblem of the government on the currency note that establishes its legitimacy. On both ends these banal symbols make us remember our national identity.
On my own account, I make two observations surrounding banal nationalism: Firstly, the presence of these banal latent symbols is very significant in certain aspects from an anthropological point of view. Humans have always required shared myths to function in social structures. Maybe thousands of years ago people required the shared imagination that they share a spirit animal — the bull and are part of the same totem pole. This shared imagination enabled them to function well with each other in numbers unprecedented (without having intimate relations with each other) Today social interactions are far more complex and so are the shared intangible realities and shared imaginations. Someone trusts another stranger with a monetary exchange — on the basis of the shared myth of national currency, but how will this shared myth be kept in the public consciousness — through banal and everyday symbols of nationalism. Secondly, we know that most modern nation-states and the national unity along with it are built on the backs of force. These banal symbols act as latent reinforcement of this force and at the same time enable mobilization on the grounds of nationalism when required. In times of war or financial crisis — when nations require duty and sacrifice. This duty is taught in overt ways too, banal nationalism reinforces it in covert forms. In this regard we can see how these symbols are used to stir up public sentiments, people don’t know why they react so aggressively when these symbols are hurt or damaged but they still do. Thanks to Banal Nationalism.
