• Home
  • About
  • Reading Lists
    • Egypt
    • Great Books
    • Iran
    • Islam
    • Israel
    • Liberalism
    • Napoleon
    • Nationalism
    • The Nuclear Age
    • Science
    • Russia
    • Turkey
  • Digital Footprint
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Pocket
    • SoundCloud
    • Twitter
    • Tumblr
    • YouTube
  • Contact
    • Email

Chaturanga

~ statecraft, strategy, society, and Σοφíα

Chaturanga

Tag Archives: Catholicism

Nationalism Restored

01 Sat Sep 2018

Posted by Jaideep A. Prabhu in Book Review

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Aristotle, Catholicism, Christianity, clan, family, halakha, imperialism, Islam, Judaism, liberalism, loyalty, Marxism, milkhemet hareshut, milkhemet mitzva, nationalism, Protestantism, The Virtue of Nationalism, tribe, Yoram Hazony

Hazony, Yoram. The Virtue of Nationalism. New York: Basic Books, 2018. 304 pp.

Ever since the cultural turn in academia in the early 1970s, it has become de rigueur to disparage nationalism as a volatile and dangerous sentiment susceptible to extreme violence and prejudice. Nationalism was cast as an imagined community with the implication that it was a simulacrum whose substance came wholly from fabricated myths, rituals, and symbols. In this echo chamber, Yoram Hazony’s The Virtue of Nationalism comes as a rare and welcome breath of fresh air that revives the idea and places it in context with other alternatives that have been offered over the ages.

Hazony looks to the Bible, specifically Devarim, to find his definition of nationalism. The scriptures actively promote the feeling of brotherhood among all members of the Jewish nation and Mosaic law would serve as their constitution; the king of the Jewish state, its priests, and prophets would all be drawn from among the brotherhood and each would have a role in preserving the traditions, customs, and laws of the community. Geographically, the boundaries of Israel are set by Moses as he expressly forbids the expansion of the nation-state into the neighbouring lands of Esau, Moav, Lot, and Ammon.

The ambitions of nationalism are clearly limited and not inherently expansionist or committed to world domination as critics are prone to hyperventilate. Hazony does not deny that there has been great violence in the past in the name of nationalism but that is also true of any other theory of mass organisation, ethics, and governance. This is an interesting proposition put forth by the author, that nationalism is not merely a feeling of cultural connectedness between people who do not know each other but properly seen, it also includes a system of ethics.

According to Hazony, the roots of nationalism are to be found in the structure of the family – individuals are biologically related in a family and share a sense of rights and duties, blood and belonging, vis-a-vis one another; the prosperity of one member is the success of them all. As families band together into clans, clans into tribes, and tribes into nations to provide better security and accomplish greater tasks, the loyalty commanded by the heads is transferred upwards towards common characteristics the members share, such as language, faith, or ethnicity.

Using the family as a model of organisation for the state is certainly not peculiar to the Bible – similar notions are found as far apart as China and Greece. Confucius clings to the metaphor a little too closely with the result that the ideal Chinese state tends towards authoritarianism; Aristotle sees the polis – state – as the full flowering of the family life but does not carry the analogy too far as he recognises that there is a difference in the nature of power within states and families, not just quantitatively but qualitatively as well.

The Virtue of Nationalism juxtaposes a localised nationalism with universalist ideologies such as imperialism, Christianity, Marxism, and Liberalism. Nations are inherently anti-imperial and therefore more stable, the argument runs, because its members are connected to each other through bonds not mediated by institutions of state. Nations are particular to geography, language, faith, ethnicity, or some other criterion that defines the community whereas the universalist aspirations of Christianity, Islam, Marxism, and Liberalism fall to the temptation of conquest and subjugation of the entire world to the one “true” doctrine of choice.

Hazony’s depiction of nationalism as limited may be true in the Jewish tradition but it has had a very different history in Europe and Asia, at least. Halakha distinguishes between milkhemet mitzva – war of obligation – and milkhemet hareshut – optional war. In the first category fall, for example, the wars of Joshua against the seven nations while David’s campaigns of expansion come under the latter classification. In fact, G-d prohibits David from building the Temple because he was “a man of battles and [had] shed blood.”

It is also problematic to portray imperialism as a universalist principle. Although imperialists have no bounds to their geographic ambitions, it is usually also true that the imperial quest is usually carried out in the name of a nation; the various nations that fall to a growing empire are neither treated nor seen as equals. We see this again and again from the Roman Empire to the pink-tainted map of British expansion. Rome expanded its citizen base only in the latter years to stave off a fiscal crisis brought on by decades of decadent emperors but ties by birth or marriage to the Italian peninsula and preferably Rome were favourable traits to possess well into the second century. Similarly, London scoffed at Mohandas Gandhi’s idea that Britain welcome all inhabitants of its dominions as equal citizens of their empire. Hazony accepts this at one point, but not before an unnecessary discourse on the universalist instincts of imperialism.

The difficulty of sustaining nations on abstractions such as liberalism stems from the inability to justify loyalty to the principle. The likelihood of changing our minds as we experience life and are exposed to more information means that any belonging to an ideal remains unstable at best. Hazony takes help from psychology to make the case that humans are social animals who have a need to belong to networks and believe in something greater than than the mere material of life. Here, he brings up a word not often seen in nationalism studies these days – loyalty – which is the crux of the debate. It is not easy, if at all possible, to have loyalty to an idea in the same manner one feels ties to a sibling or parent.

Hazony reworks several historical events to lend support to his hypothesis, in many cases problematically. For example, rather than see the Thirty Years’ War from the traditional perspective of a conflagration between Protestants and Catholics, Hazony casts it as being primarily motivated by universalist impulses against local inclinations. While most historians would agree that the religious element ceased to animate the conflict as the years passed, the war remained an old-fashioned struggle for geopolitical dominance between France and the Habsburgs.

Perhaps the most jarring incongruity in The Virtue of Nationalism is how the second Christian schism is repackaged as a contest between universalism and particularism. At a certain level, it is undeniable that Catholic allegiance to their Pope made way for dual loyalties. However, it is hardly the case that Protestantism was a particularist creed any more than Christianity a sub-sect of Judaism. While the theological reorganisation gave monarchs their independence from Rome, the faith itself still believed it possessed a universal message. The recent Evangelical movement has strongly underscored this conviction.

The largest empire in the modern era was put together by Britain and it was Prussian militarism that sank Europe into the first of its cataclysmic convulsions of the 20th century. The United States began its expansionist project with Manifest Destiny and then eyed territories beyond; none of these countries were Catholic. What is disappointing is that these ill-considered examples are unnecessary and distract from Hazony’s already persuasive defence of nationalism.

These weak digressions may conceal the real import of The Virtue of Nationalism, which is an assault on the cult of the solitary individual. Hazony traces the roots of this ideology to at least one of its origins, John Locke. Hazony finds the English philosopher’s initial assumption that all people are rational and his utilitarian methodology in assessing rationality flawed. Contrary to Locke, Hazony argues that the fundamental unit of existence is not the individual or even the family but the community. Our ethics arise from our communal interactions as does our sense of self; in turn, these inform all our other beliefs and relations, such as liberty or nationalism.

This is at the root of the conservative world view, that the community and family are prior to the individual. Ever since the early Liberals recast society as a collective of individuals, the idea has taken hold and grown to a point where it is not even questioned any more. The few who reject this modern normal have usually done so on theological grounds and have been easy to ignore in an increasingly profane world. By reviving a classical framework, The Virtue of Nationalism fires a broadside at not just the critics of nationalism but the entire Liberal project. Not only are the dangers of a universalist mindset compared against nationalism and found to be as dangerous if not worse, but individual liberty is argued to be mere license if not exercised within the bounds of community and morality. Thus, this is as much a work of political philosophy as it is about nationalism.

It is to the author’s credit that he does not pay much heed to the silly distinction between patriotism and nationalism – Vidura counters this best in the Udyoga Parva in India’s treasured epic, the Mahabharata, when he says, “[t]hose prone to get drunk get drunk on knowledge, wealth, and good birth; but the same are triumphs of the strict.”

The Virtue of Nationalism is a short book and not written in a solemn academic tone despite boasting an impressive bibliography. Hazony would do well to realise, however, that his understanding of nationalism is peculiar to Judaism and not characteristic of all politico-cultural movements. The inadvertent contradistinction, however, should be most interesting to scholars of nationalism. Readers should beware that the chatty affectation of the book belies a profound sociopolitical weltanshauung and a powerful critique of Liberalism in all its guises. There may be some historical quibbles but they do not, oddly, take away from the overall argument and to narrowly focus on those would be to miss the forest for the trees. In an era of Liberal activist academia, Hazony’s efforts to take us back to first principles and rethink our implicit assumptions is a welcome intellectual challenge.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Playing Dr. God

14 Wed Nov 2012

Posted by Jaideep A. Prabhu in Opinion and Response

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

abortion, Catholicism, Christianity, contraception, ethics, Hippocratic oath, Ireland, religion, Savitha Halappanavar, secularism

The tragic death of Savitha Praveen Halappanavar in Galway, Ireland, has brought to the fore the fault lines between Catholic doctrine and the medical profession. Halappanavar, a 31-year old dentist hailing from Belgaum, India, died due to complications in her pregnancy because her doctors refused to operate on her for an abortion. Experiencing her first pregnancy, Halappanavar was on top of the world, but problems arose on October 21, when she was admitted to Galway University Hospital for back pain and suspected of having a miscarriage. Over the next week, Halappanavar’s condition deteriorated, her last three days in excruciating pain. Despite repeatedly being asked to induce a termination of the pregnancy, the hospital staff refused. According to the consultant, Ireland was a Catholic country, and as long as there was a foetal heartbeat, the hospital could do nothing; that Halappanavar was neither Irish nor Catholic had no bearing on the matter. On October 28, 2012, Savitha Halappanavar passed away. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was septicaemia, documented ante-mortem, and E. Coli ESBL. An unviable foetus had been given priority over a mother’s life. Halappanavar was cremated as per Hindu traditions on November 03.

On a side note, two months ago, about 140 medical professionals in Ireland participated in a consortium which declared abortion to be medically unnecessary. Claiming that abortion is never required to save a woman’s life, they announced, “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” Ambiguously, Eamon O’Dwyer, a conference organiser and professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway, also said that “no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.” Irish law (going back to 1861) prohibits abortions, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling allowed it only if the mother’s health was in danger, even from herself (threats of suicide). Successive governments, however, have refused to pass legislation in line with that judgement.

The debate over abortion and its lesser cousin, contraception, can be found easily online but it is important enough to be repeated here once more. Briefly the arguments for legal abortion are:

  1. The state has no right to control an individual’s body
  2. A woman’s life may be at risk during a pregnancy; abortion may be the only way to save the woman’s life
  3. Abortions may be desired in the case of rape or incest victims
  4. Abortions may be the kinder option out if the foetus is diagnosed with debilitating diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome, or Escalante’s Syndrome
  5. It is argued that women may use abortion as a worst-case contraceptive. This is not only a deeply offensive belief but also ignorant. If one cares to check contraception (which Catholics want to ban, too) packaging, it will usually say 99% effective – even if all care is taken, there is still a tiny chance of pregnancy.
  6. Motherhood should not be a punishment. The quality of care given to an unwanted child should also be considered, whether the deficiency is for economic reasons or others.
  7. It is possible for the financially secure to travel to a country where abortion is legal for the procedure. An anti-abortion law thus only affects the lower rungs of the economic ladder, who will have to do without access to such medical facilities or will probably avail of other alternatives which are dangerous (such as self-induced or back-alley procedures). Legal abortions thus protect a woman’s health.
  8. Given the rate of teenage pregnancies and young women who are not ready for motherhood becoming pregnant, a law pushing compulsory pregnancy will be detrimental for society.
  9. The argument that life begins at conception is specious. Personhood certainly does not begin at least until birth, and a foetus is therefore not a person. Even if one were to concede to the notion of the foetus as a potential person, this event can be dragged further back to the point where every ejaculation is mass murder.

For all the points for and against legal abortion, it is the last one that causes most friction. It is usually based on religious belief and has little to do with science or empirical evidence. However, abortion is not the only issue which has attracted religious attention. The clergy has also opposed contraception, some on the grounds of President Obama’s proposal to make them pay while others on theological points. In 2010, in the United Kingdom, Muslim female medical staff refused to comply with a health directive that stated that arms should be bare below the elbow to avoid sleeves picking up contaminants and allowing staff to wash quickly and cleanly. They also refused to use natural alcohol to as disinfectant since it was prohibited by Islam. Sikhs were also allowed to wear their bangles. In April 2012, Tennessee voted to have creationism taught side by side with evolution.

In this age of hypersensitivity, it is never clear what the religious lobby will find offensive to their faiths, and when. Today, it is abortion and scrubbing, but tomorrow, it may be an injunction against treating homosexuals, or obese people since gluttony is a sin. It is galling to think that priests can lecture doctors on medicine when doctors rarely try to explain theology to the clergy. Yet rather than deal with every new tantrum in an ad hoc manner, a pragmatic way must be found that protects the sentiments of the religious while ensuring the liberty of those who choose not to have their pastors (or other religious figures) as their doctors.

It must be noted that any of the following suggestions apply in secular countries only and not theocratic states, even ones inspired by their scriptures. Presently, the confrontation seems to be only with Christian theology, but the system proposed below can accommodate any faith or sect that wishes to avail of it.

Presently, a medical license is dispensed by the state. It is based on examinations, practical and theoretical, and various other criteria that judge a person’s scientific (or at least medical) competence. Since the license to practice medicine is issued by the state, it is only fair that the rules of the state be followed. Medical boards usually follow what scientific research indicates is best, and follow practices based on empirical data. This means that no doctor with a state-issued medical license would be allowed to refuse treatment to a patient regardless of religious or other beliefs, and will follow all codes set by the hospital or facility at which s/he is employed. Thus, there is to be no leniency shown in scrubbing requirements, jewelry allowances, and no treatment within the expertise of the facility is to be denied.

For those who feel that contemporary medical practices violate their faith, another accreditation system should be set up in consultation with representatives of various belief systems. Hospitals are free to hire people with these alternative licenses as they please – for example, a hospital may hire an alternatively licensed “doctor” in the Ear, Nose & Throat department but perhaps might have reservations about hiring such “doctors” in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Alternately licensed professionals may also prefer to work at such institutions too, for they need not face the daily indignity of the violation of their modesty and/or faith. Religious institutions that run hospitals may wish to hire alternatively licensed practitioners alone as they fit the moral environment better.

Most importantly, patients are clear when they go to a doctor what sort of care they can expect; they can be treated according to their comfort. Religious institutions that hire predominantly alternately licensed professionals should be exempt from state mandates that go against their faith. Thus, freedom for people of faith from the secular state is assured, as is patient awareness increased. Two accreditation are certainly not a burden to handle – countries do it routinely in education. For example, the US has SATs and ACTs; India has the ICSE, the CBSE, and over 30 (!) state boards.

Control over one’s own reproductive facilities is, for me, non-negotiable. However, imposing one’s views on others is also unacceptable. A separation of licensing requirements and authority would certainly be in the best interest of patients, as would it soothe the consciences of medical staff who presently feel the pressure to conform to secular (scientific) standards. As this debate rages on, 22 million women worldwide undergo unsafe abortions, 47,000 of whom die from complications and perhaps as many as 470,000 of whom suffer long-term health consequences. The pragmatic amongst us must argue not for the truth of our cause but for the right to be left alone to follow our conscience. But perhaps we should think on the words of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, India’s second president, who said, “It is not God that is worshipped but the authority that claims to speak in His name. Sin becomes disobedience to authority, not violation of integrity.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Chirps

  • French nuclear slump comes at a wrong geopolitical time: bloom.bg/3wR9MLA | Build more reactors, maintain ex… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 6 hours ago
  • Japan to enable fighter jet and missile exports to 12 nations: s.nikkei.com/3MWyIXL | India, Australia, Vietnam,… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 6 hours ago
  • Scientists can now grow wood in a lab without cutting a single tree: bit.ly/3LWV89Y | How long to scale it? 6 hours ago
  • Samoa signs bilateral pact with China: bit.ly/3MYBTOq | You'd think they had learned from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc 10 hours ago
  • RT @elderofziyon: Here is a summary of what @bellingcat and @CNN got wrong with Shireen Abu Akleh's death: The only way they have any clue… 10 hours ago
Follow @orsoraggiante

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 225 other followers

Follow through RSS

  • RSS - Posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • The Mysterious Case of India’s Jews
  • Polarised Electorates
  • The Election Season
  • Does Narendra Modi Have A Foreign Policy?
  • India and the Bomb
  • Nationalism Restored
  • Jews and Israel, Nation and State
  • The Asian in Europe
  • Modern Political Shibboleths
  • The Death of Civilisation
  • Hope on the Korean Peninsula
  • Diminishing the Heathens
  • The Writing on the Minority Wall
  • Mischief in Gaza
  • Politics of Spite
  • Thoughts on Nationalism
  • Never Again (As Long As It Is Convenient)
  • Earning the Dragon’s Respect
  • Creating an Indian Lake
  • Does India Have An Israel Policy?
  • Reclaiming David’s Kingdom
  • Not a Mahatma, Just Mohandas
  • How To Read
  • India’s Jerusalem Misstep
  • A Rebirth of American Power

Management

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com
Considerate la vostra semenza: fatti non foste a viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Chaturanga
    • Join 225 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Chaturanga
    • Customise
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
    %d bloggers like this: