Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Notions of 'French-ness' or 'English-ness' are not modern inventions, the roots reach back hundreds of years (the Académie Francaise itself goes back to 1635)... and to suggest that France or England are without defining 'ideals' is simply wrong. Think of Magna Carta, the Edict of Nantes or the Declaration of the Rights of Man, among many many others, ideals in fact which were among the very foundations for notions of democracy and rights in America... and for that matter is America really all that different in its approach to its national identity than they are in Europe? I mean, how were American borders or American identity any less artificially created?
These are obviously not absolute distinctions, and I'm not trying to imply that Europeans haven't enshrined certain ideals, but the distinction does help to explain some of differences between how Americans and Europeans talk and think about citizenship (the British are obviously closer to the Americans than other European nations in this respect). Most people probably see French-ness and English-ness existing prior to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Magna Carta and having evolved to some extent beyond these documents. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's as much obsession in those countries as there is in America to "protect" the documents as "the founders intended it" - as if America cannot exist independently of the founding documents, exactly as they were produced in the late 18th century. You can also trace similar differences to the expansionist/imperialist histories of America and Europe. The United States doesn't really think of itself as an empire ruling over other peoples so much as a political and economic system that is destined to one day expand to every corner of the globe (assisted by a powerful military if need be).
The Academie Francaise itself is one of the reasons why French-ness should be considered a modern invention. It's purpose was to formalized a French language at a time when the people living in the geographic region we now call France were speaking hundreds of other dialects and languages and certainly didn't see themselves as being part of the same people. France was an early innovator in nationalism.
As for xenophobia, extreme nationalism in the absence of defining ideals can obviously lead to bad things given the right circumstances but not all notions of national identity are xenophobic. On the contrary, it may be the defining ideals of a nation's identity that stops bad behaviour?
I didn't mean to imply that all concepts of national identity are xenophobic. I agree that national identities can serve very good purposes (and anyway, we're stuck with them for good or ill). The tricky part is when a national identity that is tied to a belief in common primordial ancestry runs up against immigration. How do you welcome someone into your nation who does not conform to your basic understanding of what it means to be a member of that nation? You can pledge allegiance to the constitution and transform into an American, but becoming "Dutch" or "Japanese" is a lot more complicated.
Last edited: