Abstract
We recognize nationalism as problematic from the vantage point of conflict between groups: Sameness within is purchased at the price of institutionalizing difference—and too often conflict—between groups. But nationalism is also a problem from the perspective of those within the nation who share least in elite privilege and political representation. Gregory Gleason identifies three “faces” of nationalism: liberation (the self‐determination associated positively with nationalism), exclusivity (the promotion of group uniformity and “difference” from “others"), and domination (the negative effects of suppressing difference within the group and/or the domination of “outsiders” in the name of the group). How particular individuals and subgroups are situated in relation to “homogenization” will depend on various historical factors; there is no essential or predetermined givens in how race, class, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, are linked to nationalism. It is possible, however, to identify historical patterns in the gendered dynamics of group identity formation and reproduction. We can examine these dynamics with a particular focus on nationalism.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
