Chapter 4:  The European Nation-State:  On the Past and Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship

ORIENTING NOTES WHILE YOU DO THE READING  [Not very coherent at the moment, alas, but since I will be talking about these issues in class, putting them down here may be helpful to you later.]

Overall:  how can we live together with abstract equal rights when loyalties are through the lifeworld?

Outline of the sections:

1. State & nation.  [State apparatus;  separation from civil society / economy]
2. Two problems solved by "nation-state"  [1. secular legitimation of authority through democratic participation.  2. social integration through (fictive) nation / collective identity.]
3. Republicanism vs. nationalism as a residual or created problem
4. The overburdening of the nation-state by multiculturalism and the ameliatory turn to republicanism.  But ...
5. The overburdening of internal sovereignty by globalization, and ...
6. The overburdening of external sovereignty by globalization

Secular legitimation needed, but abstract rights / "social contract" aren't powerful enough.  Social solidarity needed to provide power, but it refers to a different myth — the one of nationhood.  The two come into conflict as nations assert their right to exist regardless of (or independent of) formal political rights.

Some particular problems/questions:

• Should we allow all-male and/or all-female public schools?
• Should we allow all-Black, all-Native American, etc. public schools?
• Should Sikhs be allowed to wear turbans (as their religion demands) instead of uniform caps in the military?  In the police?
• What about Orthodox Jews and yarmulkes?  And since it is against the religion of (Orthodox) Jews to cut the hair beside their ears, should the military (or the police, etc.) permit that even though regulations state otherwise?
• Is it morally permissible to require immigrants to the United States to speak English?
• Is is morally permissible to require U.S. citizens to speak English?  If your answers to this and the previous question differ, what makes the situations different in any substantive way?
• What should the University of Illinois do about "Chief Illiniwek" and the dances he does at football games?

People are defined in part by their culture, "defined" in both its active and passive senses.  We don't want to reify culture, but neither do we want to dismiss it.

Problem:  Claims by Charles Taylor that classical liberalism does too little to protect cultural minorities.  He asserts that cultural minorities / cultures / collective identities deserve protection to some [what?] extent, and that classical liberalism cannot do so, or at least not sufficiently.  From this derives his commitment to communitarianism.

This goes back to the philosophical conflict between Locke, with his idea of a contract among individuals, and Rousseau, with his idea of "the general will" of a collectivity.

Federalism (or nation-state status) cannot solve this problem;  while this may reduce problems on the ground, from a philosophical point of view this solution is not entirely satisfactory, because all it does is create new minorities.

So:  Is it true that classical liberalism can't protect collective identities, and if not, are we driven to communitarianism?  Habermas's position:  We can't morally stop cultural change:  people still have to agree.  Francophone culture is meaningful to the Francophones, but can they force it on their children?  Every generation wants to see its meaning preserved, but times change, and in the end children have to have the freedom to choose what meaning they will preserve.  We need to distinguish between cultures being destroyed and cultures being voluntarily changed (or even abandoned).

Comparison of system and lifeworld:

"Nation" myth breaking down in the United States?

State is losing control of its own practices and economy?  Underage drinking not considered a crime at all by many or most UMD students.  Marijuana use ditto.  Supplies of drugs from outside our borders.

Sequence of crises:

Reagan coalition:  Republicans (& the Bush Administration) combine both nation and State.  They appeal to the nation via security and religiosity.  They appeal to the State via militarism and "free market" policies, both of which benefit the wealthy.  (Never mind that the former benefits are merely symbolic and the latter benefits are concrete;  they still motivate people to vote.  Never mind also that the policies of the latter undercut the concerns of those persuaded by the former.)

Democrats, on the other hand, are conflicted about which of two unpromising paths to take.  The first is a "me too" Republicanism.  The second is path generally taken by progressives:  critiquing both parts of the Reagan coalition myth, but who lack a constructive program (or at least an electorally appealing one).

The Republican coalition will break down;  the question is what we have to put in its place.  If we have nothing, then the tensions of the coalition will be dealt with by ever more extreme repression.  Conversely, if we have a constructive program, it will hasten the disappearance.

"Colonization of the lifeworld" (Habermas's term);  "mining the lifeworld" (my term).

FURTHER NOTES [May not be available until after class discussion of the material.]