<html><DIV>
<P>Larry </P>
<P>Thanks for your interesting reply.</P>
<P>I will just add few comments beneath your observations whereever I feel I have something to say...</P>
<P>I do not think that I have any serious problem with what you say assuming your generalizations can be subjected to some careful qualifications. What I object to is positing "the west" as some sort of quasi-metaphysical construct that provides pseudo-explanations for almost any imaginable range of events. </P>
<P>I can not agree more.</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I agree that nationalism (like nation states) is an 18th and 19th Century European invention. From that little follows. Nationalism is possible largely because a sense of collective identity ("imagined communities" in Anderson's term) can be combined with eschatological hopes about "progress" or "destiny." </P>
<P>I think it tells us a lot about nationalism without reducing explanation of nationalism to the fact that it was a 18th century European invention. It tells us about about nationalism's origins in and relation to Protestantism. It tells about nationalism's relation to capitalism and to European Enligthement. How one can understand modern natioanlism without relating it to the West's revolt against theology and Christianity? The eschatological hopes you are talking about only prosperd in a space desterted by Christianity and the notions of progress and destiny are secular 'reinterpretations' of Christian eschatology. </P>
<P>That hardly means that "nations" are either modern or necessarily European. Nor does it mean that nationalism is only available to European peoples. I doubt that it is in any sense "universal." </P>
<P>I think there is a very crucial difference between modern notion of 'nation' and (say) medieval notions of 'nation'. The medieval 'nations' were based (primarily) on lineage while the modern 'nations' are primarily political constructs. 'Nations' are 'made' in modern times. In this sense for example strange nations like "Pakistan" and "India" were 'made' in the second half of the last century. There are lot of people on both sides who belong to same 'nations' in the sense of lineage but they still are not one nation, they belong to two different nations. This is what Anderson calls 'imagined' communities (I think Anderson describes the above very well in his book).</P>
<P>I say nationalism is 'universal' in the sense that it is unviersalisable. It is because nationalism is 'unviersalisable' that it is available to non European people as well. The only condition is that they must transform themselves according to notions that first originated in the West. That they transform themselves (for example) from the communities based on love and lineage to communites based (primarily) on 'self interest' (for example).</P>
<P>There are various peoples whose entire way of life would have to be transformed before they could imagine themselves in nationalistic terms (Maybe fewer than there once were with the invasion of rain forests and other "remote" territories.) </P>
<P>i can not agree more.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Knowing where nationalism came from tells us almost nothing about its configurations and how it will be adapted in cultures that are receptive to it. For instance, Michael Ignatieff distinguishes between "civic nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism." In civic nationalism the bonds of a political community are defined by a common creed and set of political institutions. In ethnic nationalism, the community is thought to belong to people marked by ethnic bonds. </P>
<P>Civic nationalism again can not be understood without reference to liberalism which is an idealogy which emanates from European Enligtenment. Simlarly ethnic nationalism is reinterpretation and reconstruction of lineage based communties on the basis of modern notions of nationalism. I would consider Nazism and Fascism as modern movements in the sense that although they are based on certain sense of 'lineage' they incorporate that sense in typically modern notion of such communties as political entities. </P>
<P>Nothing about the origins of nationalism predicts which of these (or other) variations will prevail. </P>
<P>You are right but this is not because of any defiency of 'origin' based expalanations of nationalism, it is rather because it is an empirical question and can not be explained (solely) on the basis of general explanation of what nationalism is. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I am leery of thinking of "cultures" or "civilizations" as granite blocks. There identities are far more fluid than neat packages like "the west" allow. Foucault's insistence on attending to "the microphysics of power" is useful for avoiding these block conceptions. </P>
<P>I agree but this does not dispense with the need of using such broad cocnepts as civilisation and cultures otherwise we would end with most barren kind of nominalism. And Foucault is most appropriate example here. Nowhere, as far as I know him, in Foucault concrete and partucular and attention to details is opposed to the need for appropriate and cautious generalisation ( Panopticon was such a far reaching technolgoy according to Foucault because it combined this concrete character and generalisibility in it). One should not equate generalisation with abstraction. One would be amused to note that Foucault uses the expression 'the West" freely and without inhibition in even such a (presumably) 'regional' study as The Order of Things. So I think there is as much need to attend to commanalities as there is need to be attentive to differences. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>To know how Japanese nationalism, or Kurdish nationalism differ from American nationalism, you need to know something about Japanese, Kurds and Americans (as well as how richly diverse all of these groups are). Going on about "the west" and its essential qualities invites laziness. </P>
<P>yes but one should also ask such questions as, why is it that the spread of nationalism in Kurdish people leads (invariably) to spread of Western values and life styles in them and leads them away from their Islamic heritage?. Or one should also ask why spread of nationalism in Japan makes her increasingly a country less and less recognisable as distinct society from Western societies? I would think that avoiding these question might also lead to laziness.</P>
<P>regards</P>
<P>ali </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Cheers,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Larry
<DIV></DIV>----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>From: Ali Rizvi
<DIV></DIV>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Cc: m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 7:02 PM
<DIV></DIV>Subject: Re: Genetic Fallacy
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Larry
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Few comments come to mind concerning your last post on the abover subject. I will make my comments without necessarily taking position on other matters being discussed here..
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I think one would commit genetic fallacy only if one considers West in geographical, territorial, or racial terms..if one considers West in value terms that is as a civilisation one does not necessarily commit a genetic fallacy by considering nationalism, liberalism, socialsim etc as Western...in this way one can consider natioanlism in modern political sense as a Western notion which can be implemented anywhere in the world but at the expense of transformation of that society in a manner that is dictated by Western history...this would be then termed as Westernisation..West in this sense is the bearer of universal values, of unviersal history and the rest as moments in that universal saga...
<DIV></DIV>this is all hypthetical and not necessarily seconded by events
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>regards
<DIV></DIV>ali
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com";>http://www.hotmail.com</a>.<br></p></html>
<P>Larry </P>
<P>Thanks for your interesting reply.</P>
<P>I will just add few comments beneath your observations whereever I feel I have something to say...</P>
<P>I do not think that I have any serious problem with what you say assuming your generalizations can be subjected to some careful qualifications. What I object to is positing "the west" as some sort of quasi-metaphysical construct that provides pseudo-explanations for almost any imaginable range of events. </P>
<P>I can not agree more.</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I agree that nationalism (like nation states) is an 18th and 19th Century European invention. From that little follows. Nationalism is possible largely because a sense of collective identity ("imagined communities" in Anderson's term) can be combined with eschatological hopes about "progress" or "destiny." </P>
<P>I think it tells us a lot about nationalism without reducing explanation of nationalism to the fact that it was a 18th century European invention. It tells us about about nationalism's origins in and relation to Protestantism. It tells about nationalism's relation to capitalism and to European Enligthement. How one can understand modern natioanlism without relating it to the West's revolt against theology and Christianity? The eschatological hopes you are talking about only prosperd in a space desterted by Christianity and the notions of progress and destiny are secular 'reinterpretations' of Christian eschatology. </P>
<P>That hardly means that "nations" are either modern or necessarily European. Nor does it mean that nationalism is only available to European peoples. I doubt that it is in any sense "universal." </P>
<P>I think there is a very crucial difference between modern notion of 'nation' and (say) medieval notions of 'nation'. The medieval 'nations' were based (primarily) on lineage while the modern 'nations' are primarily political constructs. 'Nations' are 'made' in modern times. In this sense for example strange nations like "Pakistan" and "India" were 'made' in the second half of the last century. There are lot of people on both sides who belong to same 'nations' in the sense of lineage but they still are not one nation, they belong to two different nations. This is what Anderson calls 'imagined' communities (I think Anderson describes the above very well in his book).</P>
<P>I say nationalism is 'universal' in the sense that it is unviersalisable. It is because nationalism is 'unviersalisable' that it is available to non European people as well. The only condition is that they must transform themselves according to notions that first originated in the West. That they transform themselves (for example) from the communities based on love and lineage to communites based (primarily) on 'self interest' (for example).</P>
<P>There are various peoples whose entire way of life would have to be transformed before they could imagine themselves in nationalistic terms (Maybe fewer than there once were with the invasion of rain forests and other "remote" territories.) </P>
<P>i can not agree more.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Knowing where nationalism came from tells us almost nothing about its configurations and how it will be adapted in cultures that are receptive to it. For instance, Michael Ignatieff distinguishes between "civic nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism." In civic nationalism the bonds of a political community are defined by a common creed and set of political institutions. In ethnic nationalism, the community is thought to belong to people marked by ethnic bonds. </P>
<P>Civic nationalism again can not be understood without reference to liberalism which is an idealogy which emanates from European Enligtenment. Simlarly ethnic nationalism is reinterpretation and reconstruction of lineage based communties on the basis of modern notions of nationalism. I would consider Nazism and Fascism as modern movements in the sense that although they are based on certain sense of 'lineage' they incorporate that sense in typically modern notion of such communties as political entities. </P>
<P>Nothing about the origins of nationalism predicts which of these (or other) variations will prevail. </P>
<P>You are right but this is not because of any defiency of 'origin' based expalanations of nationalism, it is rather because it is an empirical question and can not be explained (solely) on the basis of general explanation of what nationalism is. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I am leery of thinking of "cultures" or "civilizations" as granite blocks. There identities are far more fluid than neat packages like "the west" allow. Foucault's insistence on attending to "the microphysics of power" is useful for avoiding these block conceptions. </P>
<P>I agree but this does not dispense with the need of using such broad cocnepts as civilisation and cultures otherwise we would end with most barren kind of nominalism. And Foucault is most appropriate example here. Nowhere, as far as I know him, in Foucault concrete and partucular and attention to details is opposed to the need for appropriate and cautious generalisation ( Panopticon was such a far reaching technolgoy according to Foucault because it combined this concrete character and generalisibility in it). One should not equate generalisation with abstraction. One would be amused to note that Foucault uses the expression 'the West" freely and without inhibition in even such a (presumably) 'regional' study as The Order of Things. So I think there is as much need to attend to commanalities as there is need to be attentive to differences. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>To know how Japanese nationalism, or Kurdish nationalism differ from American nationalism, you need to know something about Japanese, Kurds and Americans (as well as how richly diverse all of these groups are). Going on about "the west" and its essential qualities invites laziness. </P>
<P>yes but one should also ask such questions as, why is it that the spread of nationalism in Kurdish people leads (invariably) to spread of Western values and life styles in them and leads them away from their Islamic heritage?. Or one should also ask why spread of nationalism in Japan makes her increasingly a country less and less recognisable as distinct society from Western societies? I would think that avoiding these question might also lead to laziness.</P>
<P>regards</P>
<P>ali </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Cheers,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Larry
<DIV></DIV>----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>From: Ali Rizvi
<DIV></DIV>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Cc: m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 7:02 PM
<DIV></DIV>Subject: Re: Genetic Fallacy
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Larry
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Few comments come to mind concerning your last post on the abover subject. I will make my comments without necessarily taking position on other matters being discussed here..
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I think one would commit genetic fallacy only if one considers West in geographical, territorial, or racial terms..if one considers West in value terms that is as a civilisation one does not necessarily commit a genetic fallacy by considering nationalism, liberalism, socialsim etc as Western...in this way one can consider natioanlism in modern political sense as a Western notion which can be implemented anywhere in the world but at the expense of transformation of that society in a manner that is dictated by Western history...this would be then termed as Westernisation..West in this sense is the bearer of universal values, of unviersal history and the rest as moments in that universal saga...
<DIV></DIV>this is all hypthetical and not necessarily seconded by events
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>regards
<DIV></DIV>ali
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com";>http://www.hotmail.com</a>.<br></p></html>