In his 1945 essay “Notes on Nationalism,” George Orwell defines nationalism as the “lunatic modern habit” of “identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.” The world of 2022 stands quizzically parallel to Orwell’s world of 1945 when nationalistic sentiment was ubiquitously utilized as wartime propaganda. Orwell’s lamentations of nationalism blinding the rationality of individuals as they are “unshakably certain of being in the right” under the virtuous implications of “serving something bigger than themselves” is eerily applicable in analyzing contemporary international relations, as far-right nationalistic movements increasingly supplant unfettered globalization.

Nationalism can be understood as the “collective sense of identity based on members’ perceptions of the distinctiveness of their country vis-à-vis other nations” invoking “national pride, loyalty, and feelings of hatred toward outsiders,” as defined by Professor Ko Jiyoung (Department of Political Science and International Relations). How much is the ideal, the unimpeachable cornerstone of modern society, to blame for the world’s modern plights? If it truly is the culprit, can humanity leave nationalism behind for a more comprehensive, impartial world order?

The History of Nationalism

Though it is difficult for contemporaries to imagine a world without the inflexible boundaries of the nation-state, nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Modern nationalistic sentiment is traced back to the French Revolution. People with a shared language, culture, and history congregating under the status of nationhood rather than loyalty to a superior marked a precedent of the active employment of modern nationalism. Such nationalistic ideals were sequentially disseminated to Europe, which adapted to become the foundation of colonialism; colonialism, in turn, inspired nationalism in colonized nations.

It was once anticipated that humanity was on the tracks of abandoning such stringent bonds for a more conclusive, liberal epoch. The brief window immediately after the end of the Cold War saw a period of fervent globalization, economic and political interconnectivity, and Western complacency; as “winners” of the ideological contest, the West was certain that their values of capitalism, liberalism, and emphasis on human rights would become the global consensus.

Such period of idealistic convergence is now a setting sun. The rise of far-right nationalistic leaders polarizes the West and incites culture wars between red and blue. Autocratic regimes, fully wielding nationalistic propaganda and exceptionalism, now seriously threaten to supplant the West in terms of global hegemony.

Lunatic Modern Habit

No longer can a single man declare war. Instead, people rally behind causes with nationalistic pride, hoisting contemporary international conflicts to magnitudes that have never been witnessed. The growth of exclusionary nationalistic sentiment heralded by the disillusionment with globalization, the salience of mainstream radical-right conservative parties, and the growth of modern populism further lead to ramifications.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and Chinese belligerence towards Taiwan are the most prolific international disputes of the century, and they showcase eerie parallels; young democracies face direct threats to their sovereignty by a neighboring superpower, who invoke historical connections to install pride amongst their mainland citizens. As the president of China, Xi Jinping has consistently outlined the “historical task of the complete reunification of the motherland,” as vowed by a governmental address. The nation has been usurping sovereign states such as Taiwan and Hong Kong for the purpose of consolidating the Chinese spirit. Echoing such aggression, Russian President Vladimir Putin has postulated in the early stages of the invasion of Ukraine that “many [Ukrainians] have been fooled by neo-Nazi, nationalist propaganda ... I will never give up my conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are one people.” What’s interesting is that the Draconian fiend painted as a diabolical rogue by the West utilizes nationalism, the driving force behind Ukrainian resistance, while justifying his actions.

Though the international community has shown unprecedented solidarity in condemning the Russian invasion, such castigation derives greatly from the nationalistic interests of individual states. Why hasn’t Europe consolidated as it has done towards the Ukraine crisis to openly castigate the United States(U.S.)’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, when both invasions were against international law and a humanitarian disaster? In actuality, America’s Western allies have supported the illegal American cause, yet again underlining how evil is subjective in global politics.

Us Against Them

The way in which populism and chauvinism are discussed in modern politics is virtually indiscernible from nationalism. The ideology is also deeply linked with images of racism and xenophobia, particularly towards immigrants from “undesirable” areas. Such occurrences may have to do with nationalism's intrinsic qualities, as the value of ethnicity and shared history is vital in its construction.

South Korea is a notorious perpetrator of racism and xenophobia against immigrants and refugees. Many Koreans hostile toward internationals declare nationalism as the reason: they do not like “impure” outsiders infiltrating the nation they have defended for centuries. “[Muslim immigrants] should never set foot in our country,” said Lee Hyung-oh, leader of the anti-immigration community against the construction of Muslim mosques, in an interview with The New York Times, “We may look exclusionist, but it has … consolidated us to survive war, colonial rule, and financial crises.”

“Korean people have a very strong belief about their homogenous bloodline from Dangun, making it difficult to broaden the concept of who belongs to the nation,” observes Professor Ko. The exclusive nature of South Korean nationalism leaves foreign nationals residing in the nation to be exposed to blatant abuse.

One Nation, Under…

Despite its colorful ramifications, completely expunging nationalism from the international sphere is both impossible and inefficacious. “The pandemic again proves that there is no other agreed ideology that can replace nationalism. Though international cooperation was strongly desired more than any time, what we observed was that all countries prioritize their own national interests,” comments Professor Ko, “It is very unlikely that nationalism vanishes any time soon.” For better or worse, nationalism will be the ruling force shaping the world for the foreseeable future.

In Orwell’s typology, nationalism is divided into three groups: positive nationalism (based on one’s own country), negative nationalism (based on animosity towards another group), and transferred nationalism (identification with a race or ethnicity). In this line of thinking, now is the time to abolish “negative” and “transferred” nationalism but retain “positive” nationalism; in other words, nationalism should no longer be utilized as means of rallying a group of self-identifying citizens against another group, but rather as a method for comprehensive consolidation and civic belonging.

What is the Orwellian outlook on the future of nationalism? Orwell recognizes that getting rid of nationalism entirely is impossible, but nevertheless postulates that individuals have the obligation to be aware of nationalistic sentiments “contaminating one's mental processes.” Though we maintain the structure of the nation-state and its sustaining ideology, it is up to those living inside the structure to at least be cognizant of it.