What do you think?
Rate this book
El porqué del nacionalismo
El escenario político actual nos trae de vuelta ciertos discursos nacionalistas que, azuzados por movimientos populistas de apariencia moderna, no dudan en explotarlos con fines autoritarios, racistas, chovinistas o xenófobos. Esta realidad refuerza la opinión de que se trata de una ideología reaccionaria y, en esencia, antidemocrática. En 'El porqué del nacionalismo', la politóloga Yael Tamir presenta un apasionado argumento en contra de este razonamiento, en el que busca poner el acento sobre las virtudes participativas e igualitarias del nacionalismo, considerándolo como una fuerza con capacidad aglutinante y emancipadora. En su opinión, lejos de encontrarnos frente a una 'fuerza maligna', debemos cambiar el énfasis de lo global a lo nacional como una manera de redistribuir las responsabilidades y compartir los beneficios de un modo más democrático y justo. Así, elabora un relato original y convincente de porqué hoy en día resulta más importante que nunca para la izquierda reconocer estas cualidades del nacionalismo, a fin de reclamarlo a los extremistas de derecha y redirigir su fuerza hacia fines progresistas. Tan provocador como juicioso, 'El porqué del nacionalismo' es una revisión oportuna y esencial de una característica definitoria de nuestra circunstancia política.
242 pages, Paperback
Published May 19, 2021
29 people are currently reading
293 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
August 18, 2019
I read this book because I just finished Nationalism by Liah Greenfeld (10/10) and noticed Tamir cites her.
This book was entirely vapid. Filled with bold proclamations presented as truth that were hardly half true. Many claims go entirely unsupported. There is much chiding of liberalism, neoliberalism, globalism, neoglobalism, and not a single one of these terms are defined.
In part IV she tacitly invalidates any experience of US minorities and emphasizes the importance of unify the discontented white america at expense of minorities. However in the ending pages she entirely contradicts the argument.
There is no throughline. The arguments are not cogent. I wouldn’t recommend this book.
This book was entirely vapid. Filled with bold proclamations presented as truth that were hardly half true. Many claims go entirely unsupported. There is much chiding of liberalism, neoliberalism, globalism, neoglobalism, and not a single one of these terms are defined.
In part IV she tacitly invalidates any experience of US minorities and emphasizes the importance of unify the discontented white america at expense of minorities. However in the ending pages she entirely contradicts the argument.
There is no throughline. The arguments are not cogent. I wouldn’t recommend this book.
June 20, 2022
Alcune idee non sono male ma è tutto molto ripetitivo. L'analisi al centro del libro poi, non è sempre azzeccatissima.
June 20, 2022
Read it for a Justice and International Affairs philosophy class. I had several issues with it, but I think I would want to read it again to sort out what they all were and articulate them. (But I don't want to slog through it again.) For one thing, she wrote a book's worth of words, but I couldn't quite understand exactly what case she was making. She seemed to have different definitions of terms than I and my culture do, and seemed to blame liberalism for everything she was unhappy with, but offers that liberalism could temper and moderate the awful tendencies of nationalism...? Is she confused, or just trying to sell nationalism to liberal democracies? She seems to cite mostly conservatives. She doesn't seem like a scholar or even someone who has practice at arguing or articulating a case.
I could also tell that she thinks of immigrants in a somewhat dehumanizing way, and yeah, she was/is the Minister of Israeli immigration. There was a sense of talking about pawns on a board rather than about real people. And since I grew up in an insular culture (Mormonism) and came out of it, I also recognized that an insular culture was influencing and restricting her view.
I was not convinced that blending liberalism with nationalism is a great idea. I'm not even sure what she thinks liberalism is, but I am pretty sure she doesn't like it much.
I could also tell that she thinks of immigrants in a somewhat dehumanizing way, and yeah, she was/is the Minister of Israeli immigration. There was a sense of talking about pawns on a board rather than about real people. And since I grew up in an insular culture (Mormonism) and came out of it, I also recognized that an insular culture was influencing and restricting her view.
I was not convinced that blending liberalism with nationalism is a great idea. I'm not even sure what she thinks liberalism is, but I am pretty sure she doesn't like it much.
October 12, 2020
No matter how well researched or how well written, any book that discusses class and ideology in the United States of America without also addressing race inevitably misses its mark. Why Nationalism by Yael Tamir is one of those books.
December 25, 2021
Wildy speculative and repetitive.
December 11, 2022
I found this relatively brief book (182 pages) both extremely timely and more than a tad disturbing.
Timely, because both liberalism and traditional conservatism failed to:
o Rein in the destructive byproducts of globalism – which allowed a return to the gross inequalities of wealth that the postwar years had significantly lessened – and,
o Ensure appropriate civic and historical education to its citizens.
These two fundamental betrayals combined created the divisive cultural and social divisions of our day.
Disturbing, because she strongly believes that some form of nationalism is not only inevitable but required given our human desire to belong and to be meaningful.
For this reason, the book chides both many contemporary liberals and progressives for having left behind significant elements of our history – and, therefore, of our people – and helped me better understand:
a) How empty contemporary conservatism in the United States has become because it refuses to embrace policy positions that would actually improve the lives of those “left behind” but, instead, serves up a constant stream of rhetoric designed to emphasize cultural and social hot-button issues, and,
b) How both awkward rhetoric on the part of some on the Left, combined with astonishingly inept messaging by liberal politicians, have made it extremely difficult for many people to recognize the fact that liberal programs – if allowed to be implemented – actually work to help the majority of citizens.
In essence, Ms. Tamir argues that both liberals and conservatives should return to their roots by pursuing nation-building, people-uniting programs, recreating for our own time the policy focus of the postwar years that sought to build up and preserve a broad middle-class of citizenry. This kind of nationalism is inclusive, is the essence of the Social Contract between the nation and each citizen, and very different from the divisive brother-against-other variation that populist-nationalists promote as a means of championing some people over and against others.
The following are a few excerpts from her book that may better convey the “flavor” of her argument:
“…This book is written with the hope that the present melancholy and sense of defeat among liberals will be replaced with a new political awareness that might lead to fresh political ideas and some better political arrangements.
“In order for such changes to happen, liberals should acknowledge that their theoretical and political mistakes were grounded in a misinterpretation of one of the most basic notions of all – human freedom. Freedom was never just about the ability to move or trade freely; it was about the ability of individuals to govern their life, make meaningful choices, and live productively. For several decades liberals consistently ignored the fact that these kinds of freedoms were restricted not only by race or gender but also by transgenerational poverty associated with one’s place of birth. The marginalization of class talk and the reluctance to turn the fight against poverty into a major motivational political force channeled the liberal progressive debate away from questions that are relevant to the sinking middle. Members of the middle class thus lost trust in the ruling liberal elites and questioned their willingness to protect the interests of the different social classes.” (Pp. xv-xvi)
“…the three-way partnership among nationalism, liberalism, and democracy must be renewed. It has given the twentieth century some of its finest hours and could become the savior of the twenty-first century. The much-discussed crisis of modern democracies is inherently associated with the breakdown of this partnership…. Self-centered individualism must therefore be replaced with a more collectivist spirit that nationalism knows how to kindle. This book is an attempt to offer a middle ground that can restore the power of the nation-state, making it more profitable for the many, not only for the few.” (P. xvi)
“The present political upheaval is a necessary wake-up call, an invitation to admit that the liberal-progressive camp has made its mistakes and must look back on the last forty years with a sense of self-criticism….”
“This book presents a case for nationalism…
“In the absence of a political we, states disintegrate, and the political structure that allows them to turn into democratic and decent entities dissolves.
“A political we had never been a natural phenomenon; it must be created, and then constantly nurtured, supported, and reinvented.” (P.6)
[Unfortunately, however,] “liberal democracies…ignored the ongoing work of state building…. They neglected the need for ideological and political maintenance. They withdrew from the public sphere, became reluctant to nurture a unifying cultural and political narrative that acculturates citizens to confront the evolving social and economic conditions….” (P.7v)
“…This led to the shrinking of the state and the erosion of its regulatory powers. Checks and balances were removed, allowing markets to shape public life. The weakness of the state alongside the prominence of the markets opened unprecedented opportunities for a new kind of globalism that is individualistic rather than state government…. As a result, social and economic gaps grow, and the social contract held by a combination of democratic and national beliefs loses its power.” (P. 8)
“In most cases, populist criticism embodies…both…a grain of truth enveloped in zealous terminology…. Dutch social scientists Jan-Werner Muller…describes populism as an ‘illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism…seen as a threat but also as a potential corrective for a politics that has somehow become too distant from “the people.”’ (P. 30)
“State intervention is necessary in order to build an infrastructure that will allow the educated to make good use of their skills, investing in research and development, in the preservation of jobs as well as in the creation of new ones. The days of the lean, minimal state, when it was enough to nurture skills and then practice noninterference in order to protect the ability of citizens to make the best of their accumulated human capital are over. Nowadays, state planning, financing, and monitoring are necessary preconditions for providing citizens with good enough opportunities while minimizing their risks.” (P. 167)
Timely, because both liberalism and traditional conservatism failed to:
o Rein in the destructive byproducts of globalism – which allowed a return to the gross inequalities of wealth that the postwar years had significantly lessened – and,
o Ensure appropriate civic and historical education to its citizens.
These two fundamental betrayals combined created the divisive cultural and social divisions of our day.
Disturbing, because she strongly believes that some form of nationalism is not only inevitable but required given our human desire to belong and to be meaningful.
For this reason, the book chides both many contemporary liberals and progressives for having left behind significant elements of our history – and, therefore, of our people – and helped me better understand:
a) How empty contemporary conservatism in the United States has become because it refuses to embrace policy positions that would actually improve the lives of those “left behind” but, instead, serves up a constant stream of rhetoric designed to emphasize cultural and social hot-button issues, and,
b) How both awkward rhetoric on the part of some on the Left, combined with astonishingly inept messaging by liberal politicians, have made it extremely difficult for many people to recognize the fact that liberal programs – if allowed to be implemented – actually work to help the majority of citizens.
In essence, Ms. Tamir argues that both liberals and conservatives should return to their roots by pursuing nation-building, people-uniting programs, recreating for our own time the policy focus of the postwar years that sought to build up and preserve a broad middle-class of citizenry. This kind of nationalism is inclusive, is the essence of the Social Contract between the nation and each citizen, and very different from the divisive brother-against-other variation that populist-nationalists promote as a means of championing some people over and against others.
The following are a few excerpts from her book that may better convey the “flavor” of her argument:
“…This book is written with the hope that the present melancholy and sense of defeat among liberals will be replaced with a new political awareness that might lead to fresh political ideas and some better political arrangements.
“In order for such changes to happen, liberals should acknowledge that their theoretical and political mistakes were grounded in a misinterpretation of one of the most basic notions of all – human freedom. Freedom was never just about the ability to move or trade freely; it was about the ability of individuals to govern their life, make meaningful choices, and live productively. For several decades liberals consistently ignored the fact that these kinds of freedoms were restricted not only by race or gender but also by transgenerational poverty associated with one’s place of birth. The marginalization of class talk and the reluctance to turn the fight against poverty into a major motivational political force channeled the liberal progressive debate away from questions that are relevant to the sinking middle. Members of the middle class thus lost trust in the ruling liberal elites and questioned their willingness to protect the interests of the different social classes.” (Pp. xv-xvi)
“…the three-way partnership among nationalism, liberalism, and democracy must be renewed. It has given the twentieth century some of its finest hours and could become the savior of the twenty-first century. The much-discussed crisis of modern democracies is inherently associated with the breakdown of this partnership…. Self-centered individualism must therefore be replaced with a more collectivist spirit that nationalism knows how to kindle. This book is an attempt to offer a middle ground that can restore the power of the nation-state, making it more profitable for the many, not only for the few.” (P. xvi)
“The present political upheaval is a necessary wake-up call, an invitation to admit that the liberal-progressive camp has made its mistakes and must look back on the last forty years with a sense of self-criticism….”
“This book presents a case for nationalism…
“In the absence of a political we, states disintegrate, and the political structure that allows them to turn into democratic and decent entities dissolves.
“A political we had never been a natural phenomenon; it must be created, and then constantly nurtured, supported, and reinvented.” (P.6)
[Unfortunately, however,] “liberal democracies…ignored the ongoing work of state building…. They neglected the need for ideological and political maintenance. They withdrew from the public sphere, became reluctant to nurture a unifying cultural and political narrative that acculturates citizens to confront the evolving social and economic conditions….” (P.7v)
“…This led to the shrinking of the state and the erosion of its regulatory powers. Checks and balances were removed, allowing markets to shape public life. The weakness of the state alongside the prominence of the markets opened unprecedented opportunities for a new kind of globalism that is individualistic rather than state government…. As a result, social and economic gaps grow, and the social contract held by a combination of democratic and national beliefs loses its power.” (P. 8)
“In most cases, populist criticism embodies…both…a grain of truth enveloped in zealous terminology…. Dutch social scientists Jan-Werner Muller…describes populism as an ‘illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism…seen as a threat but also as a potential corrective for a politics that has somehow become too distant from “the people.”’ (P. 30)
“State intervention is necessary in order to build an infrastructure that will allow the educated to make good use of their skills, investing in research and development, in the preservation of jobs as well as in the creation of new ones. The days of the lean, minimal state, when it was enough to nurture skills and then practice noninterference in order to protect the ability of citizens to make the best of their accumulated human capital are over. Nowadays, state planning, financing, and monitoring are necessary preconditions for providing citizens with good enough opportunities while minimizing their risks.” (P. 167)
April 28, 2021
What happens when you defend a widely criticized ideology without rebutting even a single argument against it? You get this book. Tamir arbitrarily declares that the only opposition to nationalism is globalism, an remarkably sheltered, Western perspective that ignores the entire 2/3s of the world where Marxist parties present a credible alternative to both nationalism and globalism. Her analysis is often flatly ahistorical, her claims are entirely unsupported, there's LITERALLY NO ANALYSIS OF RACE OR ETHNICITY IN A BOOK ABOUT F#####G NATIONALISM, and her advocacy at the end is vague, incomplete, and useless, effectively summarized as "what if nationalists were just nicer?" But EVEN accepting the (entirely unsupported) claims that nationalism is good and achievable without harming minorities, her ideal version of nationalism is one where nation-states compete against each other, not seeking domination but respecting each nation's claim to legitimacy. Which is cool, if you're in a Western imperialist nation competing on an even playing field against other Western imperialist nations. This author doesn't seem to even acknowledge the existence of non-Western states, which makes a great deal of sense when you learn that they are an Israeli zionist.
Uh-huh. Everything's coming together now.
Uh-huh. Everything's coming together now.
August 28, 2020
An apt commentary on the current breakdown of cross cultural and social cohesion between different classes and why dismissing national narratives as severely tribalistic and irrational has serious consequences. We need to acknowledge the lack of internal mobility in communities is worsened by neo liberal globalism. That is not to say, nationalistic ideology cannot be contorted into the evil extremes of ethno-nationalism but like Tamir states, we need to salvage the ethos of nationalism from the extreme fringes of reactionary politics and remember what made it a necessary hallmark of modernity and cemented a trust between people and the nation-state.
I quite enjoyed the many examples of what nationalism means in daily life, how the nation-state transformed the 20th century in progressive ways and why its power of storytelling can produce an almost magical unity among a community.
The last few chapters commenting on the need for reducing inequality and promoting justice for the have-nots in the world instead of simply encouraging charity is among the crucial take aways for anyone trying to understand civic responsibility
I quite enjoyed the many examples of what nationalism means in daily life, how the nation-state transformed the 20th century in progressive ways and why its power of storytelling can produce an almost magical unity among a community.
The last few chapters commenting on the need for reducing inequality and promoting justice for the have-nots in the world instead of simply encouraging charity is among the crucial take aways for anyone trying to understand civic responsibility
January 10, 2021
Tamir’s book prompted a lot of thought but mostly disagreements. I found myself frustrated with how she was constructing her arguments, not just the lack of evidence or seemingly random evidence, but how she was categorizing groups and assuming people’s actions.Groups can be meaningful if they share something as seemingly small as a love of a book, or a band that plays together, or neighbors. Your group doesn't need some profound external meaning for it to be meaningful to the members. A lot of her examples stem from a Judeo-Christian understanding of morals too, which are not necessarily applicable to the world populous as a whole. Plus. White trash isn’t an ethnic group. I really can’t get past that. Also, she misspells Jeremy Corbyn’s name in part four. Unenjoyable read.
Read
July 14, 2021Du gamla du fria du fjällhöga nord du tysta du glädjerika sköna jag hälsar dig vänaste land uppå jord din sol din himmel dina ängder gröna
September 27, 2023
Tiene algunas ideas atractivas y sus objetivos son nobles, pero pierde el foco de una realidad tan caótica como diversa, que es la que nos ha tocado vivir, dando explicaciones simplistas a problemas tremendamente complejos. Y eso que el libro se podría resumir en un artículo de cincuenta páginas, porque tiene mucha paja.
Al final, su apuesta por un nacionalismo atemperado por las que considera mejores virtudes del liberalismo. Una suerte de nacionalismo cívico, que evitaría tanto los desmanes de los totalitarismos nacionalistas, como el fascismo o el nacismo, como los del neoliberalismo ultra-individualista y deshumanizador. Tentador, pero por desgracia tan utópico como peligroso, en mi humilde opinión. Su propuesta requiere de unos niveles tales de equilibrios democráticos que no sé si ni siquiera sean posibles (o deseables). La asepsia moral también puede ser la chispa inicial de un problema mayor.
Comprendo los miedos que acechan a la autora, pero creo que no está consiguiendo captar la foto completa. Parece mucho más preocupada de contentar y “devolver al redil” a los rednecks trumpistas que de comprender que el mundo ha cambiado, y que los cambios implican sacudidas, no todo se puede resolver con apelaciones a un equilibrio imposible.
Por no hablar de la ceguera que demuestra al obviar temas tan importantes en nuestro presente inmediato, como las consecuencias del cambio climático; los cambios en las estructuras productivas; la cuestión racial; la decadencia de los modelos socio-políticos occidentales; etc.
Francamente, me parece un trabajo pobre para venir de alguien tan renombrado.
Al final, su apuesta por un nacionalismo atemperado por las que considera mejores virtudes del liberalismo. Una suerte de nacionalismo cívico, que evitaría tanto los desmanes de los totalitarismos nacionalistas, como el fascismo o el nacismo, como los del neoliberalismo ultra-individualista y deshumanizador. Tentador, pero por desgracia tan utópico como peligroso, en mi humilde opinión. Su propuesta requiere de unos niveles tales de equilibrios democráticos que no sé si ni siquiera sean posibles (o deseables). La asepsia moral también puede ser la chispa inicial de un problema mayor.
Comprendo los miedos que acechan a la autora, pero creo que no está consiguiendo captar la foto completa. Parece mucho más preocupada de contentar y “devolver al redil” a los rednecks trumpistas que de comprender que el mundo ha cambiado, y que los cambios implican sacudidas, no todo se puede resolver con apelaciones a un equilibrio imposible.
Por no hablar de la ceguera que demuestra al obviar temas tan importantes en nuestro presente inmediato, como las consecuencias del cambio climático; los cambios en las estructuras productivas; la cuestión racial; la decadencia de los modelos socio-políticos occidentales; etc.
Francamente, me parece un trabajo pobre para venir de alguien tan renombrado.
January 28, 2022
In some chapters, it feels like Yael Tamir is merely repeating herself - reiterating the same argument but in a different form - and leaving a general impression that the book could be trimmed down further without the whole detracting from the gist. But I digress. This book certainly sheds a great deal of light into the political & cultural groundswell that has propelled & ultimately legitimized MAGA & Brexit. The fruits of globalization accrued differently to the haves & have-nots with the former benefiting in large while latter bearing its increasing costs. Why Nationalism, in my personal opinion, sits a slight tad uncomfortably - an odd-looking triumvirate - between Dani Rodrik's The Globalization Paradox & Thomas Piketty's Capital.
But as an ethnic Chinese M'sian - a minority in Malay Muslim-dominated Malaysia - I find her central thesis that nationalism can be recruited in the service of liberalism to be dubious & unconvincing. She herself admits, in a chapter, that nationalism is both "exclusive" & "exclusionary". The only reason some of the illiberal excesses associated with MAGA & Brexit - racism, bigotry, & misogynism - isn't as apparent but not its overt manifestation, in Malaysia, are due to the facts that both race & religion are protected under its constitution & an affirmative action policy in place is sold by the nationalists as a justification to blunt those same excesses.
It remains to be seen whether liberalism wedded to nationalism will prove the panacea to tame both the excesses of nationalism & redistribute the supposed bounties from globalization. Nevertheless, this a must-read for those increasingly perplexed by or forming highly simplistic opinions of the forces, the have-nots & so-called ignorant illiberals - bar the racists, bigots, & misogynists amongst their ranks - that have proven to be a steady fount of political support for populist politicians, even Trump despite his leadership failure in managing the coronavirus pandemic that has taken 87,000 American lives as of this date.
But as an ethnic Chinese M'sian - a minority in Malay Muslim-dominated Malaysia - I find her central thesis that nationalism can be recruited in the service of liberalism to be dubious & unconvincing. She herself admits, in a chapter, that nationalism is both "exclusive" & "exclusionary". The only reason some of the illiberal excesses associated with MAGA & Brexit - racism, bigotry, & misogynism - isn't as apparent but not its overt manifestation, in Malaysia, are due to the facts that both race & religion are protected under its constitution & an affirmative action policy in place is sold by the nationalists as a justification to blunt those same excesses.
It remains to be seen whether liberalism wedded to nationalism will prove the panacea to tame both the excesses of nationalism & redistribute the supposed bounties from globalization. Nevertheless, this a must-read for those increasingly perplexed by or forming highly simplistic opinions of the forces, the have-nots & so-called ignorant illiberals - bar the racists, bigots, & misogynists amongst their ranks - that have proven to be a steady fount of political support for populist politicians, even Trump despite his leadership failure in managing the coronavirus pandemic that has taken 87,000 American lives as of this date.
August 28, 2019
Tamir makes a strong case that those on the left should not abandon the nation to Trump and Brexiteers. She even sees the recent elections moving towards right-wing nationalists as not a failure of democracy but a restoration of democracy. The democratic system worked in fact, to show the will of the majority: they feel left behind by technocratic globalization and they don't believe liberal globe-hopping elites that everything will be OK. This book more than any other helped me see beyond the anti-Trump fog. I may not like the guy, but I can see that his voters were not all scoundrels or fools and definitely not all racists or xenophobes.
Any society must have boundaries. Not all border can be open. Otherwise the society has no coherence. Liberal elites may find it uncomfortable, but if we want to have a caring welfare state, then we must have a state to begin with. That means some people are in (our fellow citizens, whom we are willing to care for) and some people are out (foreigners, whose rights we should respect but whom we will never love and care for as our countrymen).
In the end, nationalism will return, whether those on the left like it or not. So why not try to take back nationalism, which is such a powerful emotional force to unite different kinds of people, and create a cross-class coalition with an optimistic vision to make one's own country great?
Any society must have boundaries. Not all border can be open. Otherwise the society has no coherence. Liberal elites may find it uncomfortable, but if we want to have a caring welfare state, then we must have a state to begin with. That means some people are in (our fellow citizens, whom we are willing to care for) and some people are out (foreigners, whose rights we should respect but whom we will never love and care for as our countrymen).
In the end, nationalism will return, whether those on the left like it or not. So why not try to take back nationalism, which is such a powerful emotional force to unite different kinds of people, and create a cross-class coalition with an optimistic vision to make one's own country great?
January 27, 2023
A good book, worth reading.
If you expect a philosophical defense of nationalism, this is not your piece (read David Miller maybe).
But if you're looking for more practical minded stuff on how nationalism can help as a PR and community organizing force to stop some of the disastrous consequences of neoliberalism, globalism, and the financialization of business then this book can give some nice ideas.
If you expect a philosophical defense of nationalism, this is not your piece (read David Miller maybe).
But if you're looking for more practical minded stuff on how nationalism can help as a PR and community organizing force to stop some of the disastrous consequences of neoliberalism, globalism, and the financialization of business then this book can give some nice ideas.
January 21, 2022
I agree with most of the historical and philosophical arguments, but the work is poorly organized and meandering. I also doubt if liberals will embrace nationalism, as the civic variety is squeezed out between the proponents of ethnic nationalism and the Neo-liberals who are allergic to the idea in total.
December 2, 2019
Strong point. Valid reason. Well written.
March 6, 2023
not a great book. Actually had some pretty bad views. Some good thoughts sprinkled in tho. Just generally kind of shortsighted. but now im free.
August 18, 2020
Yael Tamir, deixeble d'Isahiah Berlin, amb "Why Nationalism" planteja uns debats necessaris. En algunes tesis estic d'acord (els nacionalismes continuen sent una ferramenta democràcitica fonamental i cal no deixar-los en mans dels xenòfobs) i en d'altres no.
Una tesi suggeridora és que les classes baixes i mitjanes del grup majoritari dels estats-nació es veuen perjudicades per la globalització i reaccionen amb el q Tamir anomena el nacionalisme dels vulnerables. Certament, d'este malestar poen les noves dretes extremes emergents. No estic d'acord, però, amb que les elits hagen abandonat el nacionalisme. A Espanya les elits no són nacionalistes espanyoles? A tot estirar això seria cert, i segons com, per a les grans elits financeres mundials, una minoria, si se'm permet, molt minoritària.
D'altra banda, és molt decebedor el capítol dedicat a Catalunya i les "small nations". D'entrada, Catalunya té més territori que Israel (Tamir ha sigut diputada laborista a la Knesset israeliana) i només milió i mig menys de població. A més, ¿s'hi viu millor necessàriament a les nacions grans que a les xicotetes? Millor a Rússia que a Finlàndia, o a Turquia que a Eslovènia? El que sí que és un problema irresoluble són els límits territorials de cada "demos". Tamir trau la "boutade" de Tabàrnia per a mostrar-ho. Tanmateix, ¿el Regne d'Espanya sí pot viure amb territoris on la seua legitimitat és clarament qüestionada com, si més no, zones importants del País Basc i de Catalunya? Al capdavall, no deixa de ser una defensa acrítica de l'statu quo i de les fronteres establertes.
En definitiva, és un llibre un tant decebedor (l'aposta per una aliança interclassista del 99% de la població em sembla ingènua). El més convincent del volum, ho repetiré, és la insistència en no deixar enrere l'antiga classe obrera masculina i blanca (o ho lamentarem) i el paper que pot tenir-ne un nacionalisme de caire liberal i no antidemocràtic. I respectuós amb les minories. Però com? Tamir deixa moltes respostes per contestar.
#elsmeusllibres
Una tesi suggeridora és que les classes baixes i mitjanes del grup majoritari dels estats-nació es veuen perjudicades per la globalització i reaccionen amb el q Tamir anomena el nacionalisme dels vulnerables. Certament, d'este malestar poen les noves dretes extremes emergents. No estic d'acord, però, amb que les elits hagen abandonat el nacionalisme. A Espanya les elits no són nacionalistes espanyoles? A tot estirar això seria cert, i segons com, per a les grans elits financeres mundials, una minoria, si se'm permet, molt minoritària.
D'altra banda, és molt decebedor el capítol dedicat a Catalunya i les "small nations". D'entrada, Catalunya té més territori que Israel (Tamir ha sigut diputada laborista a la Knesset israeliana) i només milió i mig menys de població. A més, ¿s'hi viu millor necessàriament a les nacions grans que a les xicotetes? Millor a Rússia que a Finlàndia, o a Turquia que a Eslovènia? El que sí que és un problema irresoluble són els límits territorials de cada "demos". Tamir trau la "boutade" de Tabàrnia per a mostrar-ho. Tanmateix, ¿el Regne d'Espanya sí pot viure amb territoris on la seua legitimitat és clarament qüestionada com, si més no, zones importants del País Basc i de Catalunya? Al capdavall, no deixa de ser una defensa acrítica de l'statu quo i de les fronteres establertes.
En definitiva, és un llibre un tant decebedor (l'aposta per una aliança interclassista del 99% de la població em sembla ingènua). El més convincent del volum, ho repetiré, és la insistència en no deixar enrere l'antiga classe obrera masculina i blanca (o ho lamentarem) i el paper que pot tenir-ne un nacionalisme de caire liberal i no antidemocràtic. I respectuós amb les minories. Però com? Tamir deixa moltes respostes per contestar.
#elsmeusllibres
February 27, 2024
Why Nationalism by Yael Tamir is a pretty good survey and a rather common sense appeal to academics, policy makers, and socio-cultural leaders to recognize the enduring importance of national feeling (patriotism, identity and affinity with your nation, a cross-class coalition loyalty to your country) and advocate for taming it in connection to liberal democracy. Tamir wants people to balance between the potential destabilization brought about by international trade and by a multinational class of international global citizens, and the need to safeguard and look out for the left behind people of your own country. The warning is that nationalism is an enduring feeling that will make partners with much less savory forces if political leaders are not willing to embrace and coopt some of its core principles in service to a positive vision of a civicly minded national identity that is welcoming to newcomers, but understands that there's some core mass that newcomers have to join in.
The issue with the book is that I'm not entirely sure why this is considered an academic book. Sure, there's frequent allusions and appeals, but this is on the softer, more polemical side of things. Some of the examples, which would be fine for an Atlantic article, are soft and under substantiated. While Tamir is pooh poohing "global elites" in a chiding and cajoling type of way, its pretty obvious that this isn't actually her audience. At one level the book seems to be aimed at them, but most of the content makes it seem more like this was a book by and for more heterodox and politically moderate academics. Not necessarily bad, but this definitely harmed its effectiveness.
The issue with the book is that I'm not entirely sure why this is considered an academic book. Sure, there's frequent allusions and appeals, but this is on the softer, more polemical side of things. Some of the examples, which would be fine for an Atlantic article, are soft and under substantiated. While Tamir is pooh poohing "global elites" in a chiding and cajoling type of way, its pretty obvious that this isn't actually her audience. At one level the book seems to be aimed at them, but most of the content makes it seem more like this was a book by and for more heterodox and politically moderate academics. Not necessarily bad, but this definitely harmed its effectiveness.
December 2, 2022
Although I was really concerned by the reviews of some readers, I still finished the book. I think we should not expect too much from a book that is a collection of subjective assessments and reflections on nationalism. So I never overestimated what I could learn from this book (it is not a textbook, after all), and I think that is why I enjoyed reading it. In short, the author focuses on the positive externalities that nationalism can have for fractured societies. She is ethnically Jewish and I am sure she knows about these things. The book is clearly structured and contains vivid reflections on nationalism. I liked how Tael Tamir describes the role of the public sector in nationalism. She also clearly distinguishes between extremists and liberals and ordinary nationalism and criticizes globalism and some democracy-based forms of rapid economic growth and development.
December 14, 2025
tried really hard to get through but I think im going to finally just put it down. I picked it up in order to gain some insight on a view I didn't understand very well. while I do think this was an educational read, it feels a bit redundant after you get half way through. there were thing I liked, things I didn't like, and overall I felt the author was willing to shy away from the political identity of developed countries and how that can be fueled by racial/social identity. it seemed as though the hope was that anyone can just abandon that to associate with nationalism and use that for liberal dominance in the political sphere. I definitely dont agree with her argument mainly because I dont feel the information she present actually argue anything rather than re tell what it feels like I kind of already knew.
February 6, 2021
The first half of the book is weak. The argument presented is flimsy and rests on poor if not outright fallacious reasoning. But the last third of the book is the opposite and worth the effort of slogging through. It makes a compelling case for a new "rebranded" sort of nationalism that rests on reason and includes rewriting the social contract. The author shows a way to get both sides of the political divide to see eye to eye. It's a pity that most people will lose patience with the text way before they get to the good part. I almost gave up a couple of times. Stick with it folks, it gets way better.
December 25, 2023
Stimulating call for progressives to leverage the power of nationalism to escape the dichotomy between neoliberal hyperglobalism and extreme right-wing nationalist, and find a pragmatic, untidy but workable compromise. Interesting arguments, sometimes more and sometimes less convincing, but worth reading.
February 20, 2025
Succinct argument but not for nationalism.... Becomes a bit ridiculous at points because of her conflation of nationalism and patriotism of which Tamir DISTINGUISHES at the beginning... Would definitely recommend reading to those interested in understanding nationalism from the other side of the aisle.
December 19, 2021
That is a generous three stars. This book is in desperate need of an editor, and the author essentially just regurgitates other well-trod ideas.
I would recommend Robert Putnam's Upswing instead.
I would recommend Robert Putnam's Upswing instead.
Read
April 29, 2024Pretty interesting to get a defense of nationalism from an Israeli leftist. Does a good job of laying out the objective advantages of nationalism as an ideology without getting bogged down by actual nationalist rhetoric.
September 18, 2023
3,5
Interesting disposition.
Not sure how viable it is to pin nationalism and liberalism against each other...
Interesting disposition.
Not sure how viable it is to pin nationalism and liberalism against each other...
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews