Reframing Latin America: A Cultural Theory Reading ... - BGSU Blogs

identity construct #4: nation 135
joined the nationalist project had to surrender some individual liberty in
the name of the greater national good. In practical terms, deciding to do
so might seem reasonable. After all, there is strength and opportunity in
numbers and being part of a nation might be a better alternative to living
in isolated villages or belonging to a small, remote community. But even
if this practical incentive were the primary motive behind national unifi -
cation, the nation-state is not necessarily or automatically the only way
to satisfy the desire for self-defense through collective organization. Furthermore,
the idea of the nation presents the pressing question of who is
supposed to gather together with whom. Essentialists responded to these
questions by appealing to national essence.
Hermeneutic nationalists believe in the existence of an ontological spirit
that binds people together into the national unit. They believe that certain
people share intrinsic nationalist traits which are almost like bloodlines,
which they cannot deny, and which fundamentally determine who they
are. And so, like scientists seeking out mathematical formulas for natural
laws, hermeneutic nationalists sought out these traits. Naturally, they
came up with many different and often-competing defi nitions, which varied
geographically and changed over time. Some defi ned the nation in racial
terms, others by language, religion, a shared historical experience, folk culture,
architecture, or any number of other traits. Despite their differences
in interpretation, national essentialists shared the common belief that the
nation was an ontological truth. Subsequently, they believed that the national
spirit or identity could be identifi ed and brought to the light of day.
Failure to create the nation-state and then to defend its existence was akin
to violating natural law. And so, in the name of the nation-state, nationalists
made war on monarchies, other nations, or isolationist groups within
their national borders that they defi ned as hindering the righteous project of
national consolidation.
Semioticians see that all this is a massive social construct and a classic
example of modernity promoting something as an essential truth that is
nothing more than an idea, though one that is not without its powerful purposes
and effects. Semiotic thinkers argue that nations, like races, genders,
and classes, are a product of society’s ideas about itself and are determined
by and reinforced in discursive practice.
From a semiotic interpretation, nations and monarchies don’t look very
different. Modern nationalists challenged the truth claims upon which monarchies
justifi ed their existence. Although the modernists never defi ned
them as such, they basically saw monarchies as social constructions resting
upon ideas whose adherents believed to be absolute truth (God’s will and
aristocratic birth). In contrast, modern nationalists believed they possessed