Artifact One

Treanor, Paul. "Structures of Nationalism." Sociological Research Online. 3 March 1997. British Sociological Association, and U. of Surrey, UK. 6 December 2006. <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/8.html>

Treanor is to be the starting point for further investigations. He remarks: "[...] seen from Slovakia, Czechoslovakia stands for hegemonic culture, an imposed universalism, oppression and 'power'. Earlier, the Slavic nationalists who inspired the Czechoslovak state, had opposed the dominance of German-language culture in Central Europe." (3.3), but that when these nations gained independence, they became themselves hegemons (3.3). Note that, to him, Slovaks antagonized (antagonised? which spelling?) the Czechoslovak body politic.

Treanor dealt with nationalism, which is defined as a "consistent vision" (2.5) within a "world order", the latter of which I assume to mean convention. Treanor then noted that nationalism stunts change and directs society towards "homogeneity". By "homogeneity", I assume he meant convention (6.2). He then noted four characteristics of nationalism:

-It gives nations the ability to form a state.

-"It is based on transgenerational continuity, shared memories, and a sense of common destiny." (6.4)

-It is to be ever-lasting.

-it is not created to establish change, [but of continuity (?)].

(6.5-6.7)

Things have come to a point that I cannot ignore definitions. For the purposes of my paper, I will consider:

NATION to mean a group of people sharing the same culture and the same cultural identity.
ETHNOCENTRISM to mean the belief that the values of the nation that one belongs to is superior to those of another nation.
NATIONALISM to mean the belief that the values of one's nation must be reproduced in other nations.

Treanor's academic writing style did not allow him to give an opinion untied with his sociological model until the last sentence: that nationalism intends to preserve, and that was bad. I agree that nationalism, and ethnocentrism as well, are forms of control. We all identify ourselves with a certain group and that we feel uncomfortable when confronted with some idea or concept that does not conform to our ideas of normalcy or appropriateness. Thus, we revolve around the question of whether ethnocentrism is harmful or harmless, or somewhere in between.

It was said that everyone is ethnocentric. It being universal to all humans, I ask if I could consciously prevent it clouding my judgment. I also wonder how nationalistic extremism, including violence advocacy, fits in all of this. If being ethnocentric creates an initial bias, what is the cause of violence done in the name of "land and soil"? There must be some external cause -- economic depression, perception of unfairness or jealousy, among others -- that elevates the existing prejudices (ie. belief of superiority) to some level where violence is perceived to be rational.

Treanor's article sheds light on nationalism's dependence on the conservatism of human minds. Nationalism I consider to be a progressive trait, and therefore it is interesting to note a duality (progressiveness for conservatism's sake). The article helped in pinpointing some of the attributes of nationalism. I will be referring to these attributes in the future. Treanor also gave importance to the concept of homogeneity. Being similar will be a focal point in my future research.

QUESTIONS:
1- The United States have [or has?] always been the advocate of progress. Is this devotion to progress itself a form of continuity?
2- Do you think you have a "vision" for a future world? Does it differ from those of other classmates?
3- Do you think it is important to connect with your past? (This tries to exhibit cultural identity.)
4- Did we just take other's views when we were young? In other words, did we choose to join this society or did we just enter it, unaware?