Nationalism: A Path or a Dead End?

On the evening of Tuesday, March 1, Mostafa Malekian addressed a gathering of students at the University of Zanjan, elucidating and expounding the various meanings of 'nationalism' and the 'value judgments' surrounding those meanings. According to IRNA, at the beginning of his talk in this session, Malekian said: Unfortunately, in this country, raising issues without falling into the trap of misunderstanding and ill will has become difficult. If I possess no other art—and in truth I do not claim any art for myself—yet at least I claim one art for myself, and that is that I speak very clearly and lucidly, without ambiguity, equivocation, or obscurity.

He added: I did not expect my clear and unambiguous remarks on 'nationalism' over the past several years to be so misunderstood and misinterpreted; therefore, given these circumstances, I thought I might present my own view on 'nationalism' perhaps for the last time. Malekian emphasized: My discussion of 'nationalism' is not a political discussion, nor one concerning international relations and geopolitics; rather, I look at 'nationalism' from three perspectives: philosophical, ethical, and prudential. He pointed to the elucidation of various interpretations of the concept of 'nationalism' and said: The first understanding of 'nationalism' is in the sense of 'love of country,' meaning that natural and normal human beings, by instinct and innate disposition, love their country just as they cherish their mother, and this is a completely accepted matter. However, the point is that ethical 'value judgments' pertain to voluntary and willful matters, whereas love of country is an instinctive matter, and one cannot make a positive or negative value judgment about it, because this kind of instinct-based love has no moral value. Malekian added: The second meaning of nationalism is 'patriotism,' which is very different from 'love of country.' Love of country is a natural feeling, affection, and emotion, whereas 'patriotism' is a belief, conviction, and opinion. To further explain this meaning of nationalism, he stated: If, from loving 'my country,' I arrive at a belief about 'my country'—that my country is better than other countries—here I have not contented myself with 'love of country' but have tunneled from it into 'patriotism.' In such a case, we commit wishful thinking, in which a great logical fallacy is concealed, because one cannot logically conclude that my country and homeland is better and superior to other countries. Malekian added: Another problem with patriotism is what could possibly settle the disputes of patriotism, for 'patriotism' is not supported by any proof, nor can a proof be adduced in its favor, and opponents from other homelands and countries cannot be driven from the field by resorting to such proofs. Malekian continued: If 'patriotism' is extended, its scope will also spread to the regions and cities within a single country, and this dispute over 'superiority' will reach cities, neighborhoods, streets, and alleys; thus, 'patriotism' has no stopping point, and as its circle narrows, it culminates in 'egoism.' He stated: Another meaning of 'nationalism' can be interpreted as 'the primacy of the nation' over any 'part or parts of the nation.' This meaning indicates that, for example, a nation has a set of interests and concerns, and whenever a conflict of interest arises between a smaller group and the whole of a nation, the interests of that smaller group must be sacrificed for the whole nation. Malekian added: According to this meaning of 'nationalism,' the interests of the whole nation must be preferred to the interests of a particular group, and one must advocate for the 'whole of a nation' against a smaller social, religious, or racial grouping within that nation. He stated: When it is said, 'Do not sacrifice national interests for factional and group interests and concerns,' it means that the 'whole nation' takes precedence over the groups that are subsets of that nation. Malekian noted: If this meaning of nationalism is intended, it is entirely acceptable both ethically and prudentially, because if a 'whole' falls apart, its parts will also fall apart. He said: I wish this lesson were learned in present-day Iran, from top to bottom of the country, that they should not sacrifice the interests of the nation for the interests of their own group and faction, and that they would understand that if the nation perishes, the factions and groups will also perish. Continuing his elucidation of the various meanings of 'nationalism,' Malekian stated: Another meaning of this concept indicates that we 'prefer alleviating the pain and suffering of our own nation over alleviating the pain and suffering of any other nation'; that is, if our nation has some pain and suffering, and another nation does as well, and we can only alleviate the pain and suffering of one of them, we must prefer our own nation over other nations. He added: On this 'preferring or not preferring,' there are two views in the camp of moral philosophers; some of them say that 'preferring to alleviate pain and suffering from one's own nation is correct,' but a number hold the opposite view. Malekian continued: Many moral philosophers say that this preferring—'alleviating the pain and suffering of one's own nation over alleviating the pain and suffering of any other nation'—is correct; therefore, 'nationalism' in this sense is ethically justified, and my own view is also that we have a greater duty to meet the needs of those close to us.

He said: 'Nationalism' in this sense, meaning giving priority and precedence to alleviating the pains and sufferings of our own people over the pains and sufferings of other peoples, is our moral duty, and this meaning of 'nationalism' is entirely acceptable. This moral philosopher continued: Another meaning of 'nationalism' is that the citizens of a nation, by virtue of being citizens of that nation, must all be equal; that is, 'being a member of a nation' is the equalizer of all members of that nation, and one cannot classify and grade citizens by introducing another factor or component. Malekian clarified: 'Nationality' is important, not membership in a particular religious, racial, social, or ethnic group. Therefore, we must look at one another only through the lens of 'compatriot' and 'being of the same nation,' and we cannot set conditions that, in addition to 'being a member of the nation,' citizens must have a specific religion, skin color, ethnicity, language, or geographical region. He added: 'Nationalism' in this sense, meaning the equality of all members of a nation, is defensible both morally and legally, and if this is the case, any form of ethnocentrism, religious sectarianism, sexism, and credentialism would be contrary to nationalism. This moral philosopher said: Another meaning of 'nationalism' is that a nation may do whatever it can to secure its own interests, and if its national interests dictate that an action be taken, it must be done. This was the view held by the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, who said that our national interests recognize no obstacles. Malekian clarified: 'Nationalism' in this sense means preferring national interests at any cost over ethical viewpoints, which is something completely contrary to morality and the human interests of human beings, because if we accept 'nationalism' in this sense, we remove ethics from international relations and turn the world into a jungle full of predators, whereas, like relations between individuals, relations between nations also require that ethical rules govern them. Malekian said: I unfortunately see this meaning of 'nationalism' in many of our own thinkers in Iran in recent years, and the very reason that led me to enter these discussions over the past 2 years was that I see this meaning of 'nationalism' being promoted by some in the country, meaning that, in their opinion, we must only think about Iran and nothing else. He noted: We must always consider that our own interests are met and fulfilled, but on the condition that the fulfillment of interests takes place within the framework and bounds of ethical standards, for if nations have no qualms about anything in pursuing their interests, what will happen in today's fragile and brittle world? Malekian added: It is from this perspective that I emphasize that 'nationalism' in this latter sense is the thing whose furnace is being heated the most in our country, in Arab countries, and also in some other Third World countries, and it must be avoided.

.

---

.

Audio of the lecture "Nationalism: A Path or a Dead End?"

.

---

.

Nationalism: A Path or a Dead End?

Text source: Niloufar

.

---

.