Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

The Nation and Nationalism

2. On belonging to a nation: primary socialization is decisive

We assume that, in resolving the dispute over who belongs to our nation, the concept of habitus is crucial. Following the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, we understand this term as the durable predispositions of an individual to do certain things, think about certain matters, behave in specific ways, and describe and evaluate the world according to certain principles, which the individual enacts automatically, without reflection.

Habitus defines patterns of behavior and recognized values that cannot be easily removed from a given community. It is not a matter of choice, but of inheritance—not in the biological sense, since genes do not transmit culture, but in the sense of primary socialization. By this concept we understand a set of traits and a cultural code transmitted to a child in the first years of life, that is, de facto, the process of upbringing.

Most of these traits are acquired irreversibly by the individual, which applies in particular to national identity. Consequently, we reject racial theories, because there is no complete separation of gene pools among nations—indeed, people living near state borders may often be genetically closer to neighbors across the border than to their compatriots from other parts of the country. This occurs as a result of frequent population movements throughout history.

It is also worth adding that in the contemporary world we know examples of multiracial nations—the Brazilians are one such case. Nationality, in our understanding, is not and cannot be determined by blood, although naturally the latter may play a significant role.
We decidedly oppose narratives claiming that anyone who wishes can belong to a nation, regardless of when and how their contact with a given nationality occurred.

Nationality is a phenomenon far more complex than advocates of theories limited exclusively to the voluntaristic aspect—thereby fragmenting its understanding—would like it to be. Its internalization, that is, adopting it as one’s own in the case of mature individuals, appears almost impossible.

This works in the opposite direction as well: it is practically unfeasible to rid oneself of or renounce one’s national identity. There is no shortage of individuals who, in various forms, make public declarations of renouncing membership in their nation and reject all collective identity, or announce peculiar transfers to other identities—for example, a fictitious European identity, an ethnic identity, or a regional identity. One cannot renounce a once-acquired national identity—patterns of behavior, ways of thinking, and systems of values are too deeply rooted in a person to be eliminated by a simple act of will. One may renounce one’s own nationality and personally believe in the effectiveness of that renunciation, but objectively one will still remain part of one’s nation, even if one neglects one’s duties toward it or even acts to its detriment. Turning against one’s own nation will also continue to carry moral and psychological consequences for such a person, from which there is no escape.

In summary, the definition of a nation adopted by us, as Catholic nationalists, is as follows: a nation is a historical community of past, present, and future generations, bound by ties of origin and by a canon of culture developed gradually by successive generations and forming a coherent system of values. A child needs to undergo primary socialization in its national environment, which in the vast majority of cases consists of the family, or at least one parent or guardian who actively fosters national identity in the child.

#patriotism #politicalscience

(source: Original text, all rights reserved to https://t.me/ecceverbum)

The Meaning of Christianity according to Luther and his Followers in Germany (1920)
Rev. M. J. Lagrange, O. P.

#protestantism

Robert Duncan Culver - Systematic Theology - Biblical and Historical (2006) #theology #protestantism

The Nation and Nationalism

1. Ethno-cultural roots of the nation

The nation as a natural community

The nation is understood as a community of past, present, and future generations — an objective and natural entity, although largely immaterial. Contrary to theories popular in certain intellectual circles, nations are not and could not have been artificially created by nationalist ideologues. On the contrary, the nation is primary in relation to the political currents that focus on it; it exists regardless of whether we are aware of it or accept it.

It must also be emphasized that the nation is not merely a collection of individuals. A crucial element of its existence and functioning is identity, which binds this collective together and gives it substance — and whose most important component is culture. It is culture that socializes individuals and thereby incorporates them into the nation. As a result, mutual interactions arise that bind the community together and give it an organized structure.

In discussing the origins of the nation, we, as Catholics, reject constructivist (modernist) theories which claim that the nation is an artificial creation of nationalist movements, lacking continuity with earlier forms of community. It is difficult to imagine that even small groups of highly influential people could create a matrix so universal — appearing in different forms in almost every corner of the world and often encompassing millions of people in a single community. An idea capable of inspiring such massive commitment cannot be the product of conspiracies by small groups of bureaucrats, politicians, propagandists, or ideologized intellectuals. The nation is therefore not an artificial construct based on unnatural premises, and we speak of it as a natural community.

At the same time, rejecting constructivism does not mean accepting primordialism, which views nations as eternal and unchanging. History itself falsifies this view: over centuries, nations have undergone deep transformations that significantly shape their identities.

Our understanding represents a synthesis of these two positions. On the one hand, we see the roots of nations deep in history; on the other, we recognize the influence of modernizing factors in shaping their present form. Leading scholars such as Benedykt Zientara and Anthony D. Smith — the creator of ethno-symbolism — held similar views. Smith argued that modern nations are social entities rooted in human nature that have evolved into their present form. They are not entirely new or invented phenomena but differ from their earlier stages of development.

Their origins lie in ethnies — ethnic communities sharing a common name, a myth of common origin, shared memories (despite cultural differences among tribes), and a bond with a homeland. An ethnie possesses nation-forming qualities and can evolve into a nation, but only if it develops a shared history (recorded, commonly known and discussed, not merely orally transmitted) and a public culture, which presupposes political agency — not necessarily in the form of a state, though that is the most desirable form.

The nation is also a political and civic community. The transition from ethnie to nation is a political process involving at least the elites assuming responsibility for the political life of the community. The state plays a special role as the ultimate structure of national political life.

Important factors in this evolution include residence on ancestral lands, shared codified rights and duties (with state law as the highest form), a common economy, and a symbolic spiritual culture. From this emerges a cultural canon that forms the foundation of identity. As Smith argues, national identity consists in the continual re-creation and reinterpretation of national heritage and the identification of individuals with that heritage. Identity may therefore change while the continuity of the nation remains, as each generation builds upon a historical core.

🔗continued

#patriotism #politicalscience

(source:Original text, all rights reserved)

Patriotic education in the Christian spirit
Jadwiga Zamoyska

*Zamoyska was a noblewoman and a philanthropist, born in Warsaw, 1831. As a married noble layperson she elaborated a very original educational system based on the Gospel and Catechism, which was approved by the Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. In 1882 this system was successfully introduced into practice in her famous school for young women. The school functioned first in Kórnik and then in Zakopane till 1948. She died on 4th November 1923 in Kórnik with the reputation of holiness. In 1931 the process of her beatification was inquired by the Archdiocese of Poznań, however it was interrupted in 1939. After decades the process was resumed in 2012 by the Poznań Archbishop.

📎source

#patriotism #education

"A systematic study of the Catholic religion" (manual of theology) by Fr. Charles Coppens (1903) #manuals #catechism #apologetics #catholicism

Let's Read Latin - Introduction to the Language of the Church (2005)
Ralph McInerny

#latin