Howard L. Parsons 1968
Source: Praxis, No. 3-4, 1968, pp. 292-298.
Transcribed: by Zdravko Saveski, 2025.
1. A nation[1] is a historical community of people deriving a common identity from living (satisfying needs), making a living (producing artifacts and techniques for satisfying needs), and valuing (preferring, choosing, creating) in a social system of interaction with a bounded territory. It is an ecological unit in space and time.
2. A social system is a system of meaningful (sign-directed) interactions[2] which are common to the persons in the system, which function to adjust persons and institutions to one another and to nature, and which are mediated through the common language (mother tongue). It includes (a) a system of artifacts, instruments, and techniques (also elements of the sign-system) for adjusting to nature, producing and distributing goods and services, and facilitating survival; (b) a system of expectations (mutual meanings), roles (systems of expectations), and institutions (systems of roles),[3] with sub-systems of language, which differentiate and integrate the individual persons and institutions in relation to one another and to nature; and (c) individual and social creativity which works to transform (aufheben) the artifacts, instruments, techniques, and meanings of the social system.
3. A nation maintains its ecological integrity in space and time (Prop. 1) (a) through the creative interaction of persons and groups within their social system, with the soil, plants, animals, and other things of their territory, and with other nations; and (b) through the coordination of its meanings (expectations, roles, institutions) with one another to achieve the survival and values sought.[4]
4. The major institution through which this interaction and coordination are effected is the political one, namely, government. To the extent that a nation has political organization or government, it is a state, or nation-state. Government is directly or indirectly the agency of the dominant economic group(s) in the social system, i. e., those who control the territory and the social system's basic artifacts, instruments, techniques, and meanings.
5. Governments are of two kinds: (a) government which aims to facilitate the survival and values of a small minority of persons in the nation -- as persons belonging to a dominant economic class or a privileged elite (oligarchic government); and (b) government which aims to facilitate the survival and values of a large majority or of all persons in the nation (democratic government).
6. Oligarchic governments tend to reinforce the system of artifacts, instruments, techniques, and meanings of the established social system and to extinguish creativity. (Props. 2, 5).
7. Democratic government tend to reinforce the creativity which transforms the artifacts, instruments, techniques, and meanings of the established social system. (Props. 2, 5).
8. The success of a government in achieving its aims is a function of the means at its disposal and of its efficient use of these means.
9. The major means of government are: (a) the basic artifacts, instruments, and techniques of production of goods and services; (b) the dominant meanings -- including the ideologies that provide a definition of individual identity and value in relation to a social destiny and social values; and (c) the instruments and techniques of coercion for checking deviation from the established social system. (Prop. 2).
10. No oligarchic or democratic government can achieve its aims if it lacks control over any one of these major means. To lack control over these is to lack control over the order of livelihood of the people in the nation, the meanings (ideas and values) that guide them, and the means of maintaining the dominant order, the meanings, and the values.
11. An oligarchic government is the form through which a minority controls a majority; a democratic government is the form through which the large majority or all of the people creatively control themselves. A government's control over the people approaches completeness as it approaches democracy, i. e., the self-government of the people.
12. A government derives its power from the active or passive consent of the governed.
13. This consent is grounded in the sentiment of nationalism. (Prop. 18)
14. This consent is further evoked and directed by government in its control over the necessary means. (Prop. 9)
15. When a nation's integrity (Prop. 3) is threatened by internal conflicts between and among expectations, roles, and institutions, government tends to use economic, ideational, and coercive means to achieve coordination. (Prop. 9)
16. If the government is democratic -- i. e., if the large majority or all of the people control themselves (Prop. 11) -- the internal conflicts will tend to be dealt with non-violently and creatively.
17. If the government is oligarchic (Prop. 11), the internal conflicts will tend to be dealt with violently and uncreatively.
18. The sentiment of national identity (patriotism, nationalism) possessed by a people is an expression of their national integrity, i. e., the extent to which (a) they share the meanings, artifacts, instruments, and techniques, and (b) they actively value (prefer, protect, are loyal to) these in the social system in the bounded territory.
19. While the nationalistic sentiment is integrated by the sharing of common meanings,[5] it is divided when a minority (a) possesses and controls the territory with its resources, and the basic instruments and techniques of production and distribution of goods and services; (b) possesses and controls the sources of meanings (material and ideological conditions) determinative of expectations, roles, and institutions; and (c) uses coercion to check creativity and the transformation of the social system. (Props. 11, 17, 18)
20. Such minority possession and control alienate[6] the majority from its national heritage of meanings and values and the meanings and values it is creating. It divides a nation into antagonistic groups: (a) a dominant oligarchic minority (Prop. 11) whose members identify the nation's values with their own values; (b) a group of people who, while not dominant, actively or passively accept this definition of the nation and identify themselves with it; (c) a group who repudiate nationhood almost entirely (e. g., the Lumpenproletariat); and (d) a group whose members attempt to define and create their nation in terms of the meanings and values of the large majority and hence of a national liberation movement directed against the dominant minority.[7]
21. The sentiment of national identity cannot be entirely alienated from a people, except by genocide.[8] For to live is to share, value, and create some of the common meanings, artifacts, instruments, and techniques of a social system. (Props. 2, 18)
22. The nationalistic sentiment is increased and integrated (a) when people collectively claim as their own their social heritage of meanings and values, their territory and its resources, and their basis instruments and techniques, and (b) when they struggle creatively to liberate their nation from minority control, internal or external. (Props. 18, 20)
23. The struggle of a group of people for national liberation from minority control requires, as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for its success, (a) the active or passive loyalty of the large majority, and (b) a consciousness of its alienation from its heritage of meanings and values, its territory and resources, and its basic instruments and techniques.[9] (Props. 12. 18)
24. A nation is distinguished from other nations by its unique historical social system and territory, or ecological unit. (Prop. 1)
25. A nation depends on other nations and on trade with them for goods and services essential to its survival or to meanings and values beyond survival.[10] (Prop. 3) That is, nations by definition are international in character.
26. The minimum principle for the regulation of relations between nations (international law) is their mutual recognition of the integrity, independence, and equality of all nation-states. This principle is also the foundation for the policy of peaceful coexistence between states of different social systems.
27. So far as they derive their basic identity from their specific, fixed nationalism and not from their generic, developing humanity, the members of a nation tend to regard the members of another nation as different and alien.[11]
28. So far as they derive their basic identity from their being human (Props. 29, 34), the members of a nation tend to regard the members of another nation as similar and kindred.
29. An oligarchic government (Props. 5, 11) views the peoples and governments of other nations as it views the majority of people in its own nation: as potential allies or enemies -- i. e., as means to be used in facilitating its own ends.[12] (Props. 6, 17, 27) Hence its professed patriotism ("like the word 'love' in the mouth of a whore" -- Emerson) is the form by which it elicits the support of the people of its nation and masks its intention to exploit the peoples of other nations.
30. A democratic government (Props. 5, 11) views the peoples and governments of other nations as it views its own people: as persons and institutions to be treated as human, as nations possessing integrity, independence, and equality among other nations. (Props. 7, 16, 28) The basic principle of international order is thus implicit in the humanistic outlook.
31. When a nation's integrity (Prop. 3) comes into conflict with another nation, an oligarchic government in that first nation will seek to use (exploit) or be used by (collaborate with) the government of that other nation. (Props. 27, 29) It will tend to reinforce its own social system. (Prop. 6)
32. When a nation's integrity comes into conflict with another nation, a democratic government in that first nation will seek to maintain its integrity and also to act with the human (universal) interest uppermost.[13] (Props. 28, 30) It will tend to transform its own social system creatively. (Prop. 7)
33. The universal is the essentially human -- namely, the creating and developing of each man's individual bodily capacities in and through his meaningful, interactive relations with other persons, social artifacts, and the things of nature. (Prop. 2) The pattern of humanization is universal for all men insofar as they can be called men; it is concrete and individualized, social and natural.[14]
34. The universal human process occurs in a national setting and is not necessarily antithetical to the specific expectations, roles, and institutions that define the sentiment of nationalism. (Props. 3, 18) On the contrary, the universal human process is realized in a particular, singular, individual way.
35. In a class society dominated by an oligarchy, the antagonism between the universal in a people and their nationalistic sentiment arises from three conditions: (a) the material condition of their alienation from the resources, instruments (common artifacts), and processes of production and distribution in their nation; (b) the consequent scarcity or maldistribution of goods and services; and (c) the dominant ideas and ideology of oligarchic government, which reifies and idolizes the national state and thus leads the people into opposition with another state and ideology. (Props. 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20, 33) In this way the frustrated energies of people, who always retain some of their human sympathies, are directed against other ethnic groups, both at home and abroad.
36. In a non-class society, other conditions can operate to make the nationalistic sentiment ascendant over the human -- e. g., the tendency of large nations to dominate small ones, the fear of small nations toward large ones, and national rivalry.
37. In all national social systems there is a tendency to reify and exalt the nationalistic sentiments (created, accumulated meanings, roles, institutions) over the universal (the creating of meanings). (Props. 18, 33)
38. So far as they derive their basic identity from their specific, fixed nationalism and not from their generic, developing humanity, members of one nation tend to regard members of another nation as inimical and inhuman.[15] (Prop. 27)
39. So far as they derive their basic identity from their being human, members of one nation tend to regard members of another nation as human also. (Prop. 28)
40. An oligarchic government cannot act in the interest of the universal. (Props. 5, 6, 29, 33) It necessarily fosters exploitation and violence in its intra-national and inter-national relations. (Props. 17, 31)
41. A democratic government tends to act in the interest of the universal. (Props. 5, 30, 33) It necessarily supports the principle of peaceful coexistence in its intra-national and inter-national relations. (Props. 16, 32)
42. The logical end of oligarchic governments is world-wide hegemony over nations, i. e., a super-nation or a super-national power favoring a minority class. (Props. 5, 27, 29, 31, 38, 40)
43. The logical end of national liberation movements and democratic governments is the cooperation of all nations, the disappearance of all dominant oligarchic groups in nations (i. e. all political exploitation), and the vanishing of divisive national differences in favor of the universal. (Props. 5, 28, 30, 32, 41)
44. The universal pattern of human creating and developing exists (by definition) in all men (Prop. 33) but in many is relatively undeveloped.
45. A major cause of this undevelopment is not nationalism but oligarchic governments (Props. 5, 29) maintained by the active or passive consent of the governed. (Prop. 12)
46. A way to correct the cause of this undevelopment is for the alienated, partially denationalized people of each nation to secure control of the instruments and techniques of production and distribution, the ideas and ideology, and the instruments and techniques of coercion. (Prop. 23) Such control must be political. (Props. 4, 9, 10)
47. Some necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for the success of such action are: (a) sensitivity to and knowledge of the history of the social system -- the common meanings and values, the instruments and techniques, the mutual expectations, roles, and institutions -- which define that particular nation; and (b) the power to unite denationalized groups around the symbols and ideology of national liberation.
Notes
[1] I am speaking here of nation s in the post-feudal and European sense of the term.
[2] The primary pattern of such meaningful interactions is perception-conception, manipulation, reception; or, in terms of signs, formative designation, prescription, appraisal. See Charles Morris, Signification and Significance. Cambridge, Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, 1964, pp. 20-22.
[3] The definition of social categories in terms of expectations or meanings is taken from Talcott Parsons' The Social System as interpreted by Charles Morris, op. cit., pp. 57-58.
[4] Here, values are taken in the simple sense to be what people prefer or desire, either actual or ideal. The question of what people ought to prefer and of "mistaken" values is one that in principle and in the long run is decided by the people of any given social system. If past history can be taken as an indicator, most people, given a genuine choice, will prefer to decide values on the basis of their own reflective observation, however limited that may be.
[5] Western European nations in the modern sense of the term arose when the native dialects of certain regions superseded Church Latin, literacy spread, the common meanings of a historical experience were vivified and disseminated in those dialects through print, and the people of definite territories were thus bound into linguistic communities. The material basis for this change was the urban, commercial revolution.
[6] Nationhood in the modern western world originated at those points where urban mercantile centers displaced feudal villages as the focus of economic activity and came to be dominated first by landed nobles and then by the bourgeoisie. Hence nations for hundreds of years, up to the emergence of the first socialist nation fifty years ago, have had built into them this alienation.
[7] The optimism of Marx and Engels toward workers' independence of nationalism (the Manifesto asserted that "the workingmen have no country") has not been borne out by the history of national socialist parties or of the nationalism of workers during World Wars I and II. But the general program which they outlined for the workers in their nations still seems sound.
[8] The colossal and unsuccessful effort of the U. S. government to crush the nationalist sentiment of the Vietnamese people illustrates this. So does the persecution of the Jews. Genocide is the logical extension of any protracted effort to change radically a national identity. People will give up their lives before they will give up the social meanings and values from which they derive their personal and social identities.
[9] The national liberation of the Negro people in the U. S., for example, will not succeed until it links itself with the meaning, values, and demands of the majority of the whites who are alienated and oppressed. This linkage depends on the development of consciousness, on both sides, of the alienation and oppression.
[10] For centuries or millennia some ethnic peoples have lived on their territory without trading with other peoples. But they have lived at a low level of subsistence and do not fall under the present definition. Today even powerful nations like the U. S., long said to be "self-sufficient," increasingly require materials from other nations. By 1975 "the overall deficit of raw materials for industry will be about 20 percent." Harry Magdoff, "Economic Aspects of U. S. Imperialism." Monthly Review, Vol. 18, No. 6 (November, 1966), p. 25.
[11] T. W. Adorno, et. al., The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1950.
[12] Consider the attitude of the present Johnson government in Washington toward the people of the U. S. and the people of Vietnam -- an attitude of arrogance, deceptiveness, and cynical self-interest.
[13] A nation has integrity as an organism does, though not so stably and firmly. It tends to maintain its social system intact, rejecting, like an organism, what it takes to be foreign tissue. Some nations, rigidly organized in their meanings and values, are relatively impervious to material introduced from outside or inside the system. Others, in dynamic equilibrium with other nations, are permeable to new meanings and values while still maintaining their integrity. The latter nations are guided by a concept of integrity that includes not only what they are but also what they might be and what all nations might be. It is a humanistic concept of national integrity which unites the particular and the generic, the national and the universal.
[14] In his Philosophical Notebooks Lenin quotes Hegel's "beautiful formula": "Not merely an abstract universal, but a universal which comprises in itself the wealth of the particular, the individual, the single." Collected Works, Vol. 38, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961, p. 99.
[15] T. W. Adorno, et al., op. cit.