this is a pointless read, except as background for paine or burke or wollstonecraft, which is what i'm about to get back to, and i have to say that i'm not really getting the relevance there, either. maybe it will present itself. for now, it's just weird and anachronistic...
there's actually a worthwhile point in here somewhere....
this text is a transcription of a speech that price gave to a revolutionary society. however, it is known to history as being an easy target that edmund burke keyed in on in his reflections on the revolution in france. subsequently, both thomas paine and mary wollstonecraft came to price's defence. while it is unlikely that i will side with burke in the more general argument (i haven't read that text yet), i am far too removed from the text to react in a way that is in any way comparable to the existing defences of it. rather, my initial reaction was actually very dismissive. not only is there no place for nationalism in my understanding of liberalism, but my very idea of freedom is defined practically in direct opposition to the idea of defining one's self in terms of ethnic identity. if we do not have the freedom to reject the mental slavery of being defined by a national identity and simply be human beings, we do not have any freedom at all! yet, a closer reading has led me to conclude that price is speaking somewhat cryptically to get around the restrictions that existed on his freedom to speak as he truly wished to. i would go so far as to argue that this is the only way to read the speech that makes any sense at all. while such a reading may gloss over a few particularly egregious aspects of his concept of nationalism, it doesn't shield him of deeper and more worthwhile criticism.
- begins by noting that "...like all other passions, it (nationalism) requires regulation and direction.". getting this across is the real purpose of the speech.
- price then defines nationalism. it is not a geographic concept, but a communitarian one. a russian-born person living in england should consequently identify as english, rather than russian. so, this is a melting pot concept of identity that sees the individual's identity as transferable between communities and as an expression of the community one lives in, rather than existing uniquely within the individual and carried along with it. sort of fascist; not very liberal.
- "it is proper to observe" that nationalism is not the same thing as supremacism or xenophobia. collectivists of a certain variety may assert this on principle, but they have a hard time arguing against it's cognitive dissonance. nationalism is inherently exclusive. how can it avoid being xenophobic? and how can the xenophobic avoid being supremacist? real leftists have no patience for nationalism. price's attempts to argue for nationalism and against xenophobia are consequently difficult to take seriously, as they're not really possible to separate.
- it is also proper to observe that nationalism is not the same thing as competition. again, this looks nice on paper but is simply incoherent. as nationalism is exclusive, it categorizes people into separate groups that can only ever develop hostilities and become antagonistic, which leads to division and competition. price even seems to realize this. he runs through a list of historical examples of cultures that have seen themselves as superior, condemning each in turn.
- so, price's ideal of nationalism is hereby defined for the rest of the text as an impossible mindset that can never exist anywhere amongst any people, and never has. his comment? Let us learn by such reflexions to correct and purify this passion, and to make it a just and rational principle of action. yes, let us rationalize the irrational...
as nonsensical as all of this may seem, it is easy to read between the lines to deduce that price's preferred brand of nationalism is actually the rejection of nationalism. this has historically been a difficult thing to articulate in any kind of public forum without dealing with serious consequences. if we are to recognize the contradiction in his statements, the next step is to determine which side of the contradiction is presented as more important, and it is without a doubt the side that minimizes nationalism in favour of universalism. that is to say that price has no option but to argue against nationalism by redefining it as it's antithesis, or face the king's wrath as well as, perhaps, the wrath of his fellow citizens; if we reject xenophobia and competition then we also reject nationalism, regardless of further incoherent rhetoric on the topic, however necessary it may have been.
- he then moves on by noting that jesus did not mention nationalism. well, of course not. he was created to unify the empire. The design of this parable was to shew to a Jew, that even a Samaritan, and consequently all men of all nations and religions, were included in the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. to price, nationalism ought to be nothing more than the golden rule applied to one's immediate surroundings, which is not nationalism at all but the negation of it.
- in somewhat of a turn towards buddhism, he suggests three blessings of human nature (truth, virtue, liberty) and relates each of them to what he proposes as properly nationalist behaviour, largely by contrasting them against their opposites (barbarism, atheism, slavery). this is a weird section of the text that presents crude and early versions of what would today be called liberal imperialism (teach the savages freedom and they will be free kind of stuff) and that i'm going to mostly avoid, except to stress the point that the importance of the separation of church and state cannot be overstated. also: if we show them that they are men, will they not act like devo....?
if price is coyly speaking out against nationalism, what is his goal? i can think of two motives. the first is to assert the church as more powerful than the state, which is consistent with the underlying message in his 1776 speech. might he have been turning on those who would assert a separation of church and state by coyly attacking the widespread feelings of secular nationalism and replacing them with a manipulated christian universalism? the second is somewhat contradictory to this, in that he may have been reacting against british nationalistic rhetoric in the context of the events that came out of the revolution, perhaps even out of self-preservation. these are merely speculations; i do not know enough about the life of richard price to state anything with any kind of force. yet, i've seen enough in these two short documents to realize that these are propaganda pieces by somebody with a political agenda and that they can't be taken entirely at face value.
- he finishes by exploring various examples of what he would consider proper nationalism (unsurprisingly, these all reduce to being good, obedient citizens, and contain several warnings against "anarchy") and discussing some historical aspects of the "glorious" english "revolution" of 1689. this is again a touchy subject, as the official position from the english authorities at the time was that england already had a liberalizing revolution (a point that is now historically accepted, but that many liberals of the period were not willing to fully concede or in some cases concede at all, especially in the context of the revolution in america). whether out of genuine belief or fear of consequence, price takes the statist line, here. beyond noting that, this ending section is not particularly interesting to me.
so, the point that is hidden in here beneath the jingoistic language is actually that nationalism has many pitfalls that should be avoided. our opinions may part on virtually every other aspect of the two short tracts i've read by him, but i can agree with dr. price on that basic point.
full text:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/simple.php?id=368
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/books/congress/DA/452.P7/index.html
