Picture Source: www.goodreads.com
I. Activating Prior Knowledge
Johann Gottfried von Herder (1774-1803) was a philosopher and cultural anthropologist. He was one of the first to discuss in detail nationalism and its importance. Since Herder’s writings were originally in German, we will be reading an essay by Richard White of Creighton University, entitled Herder: On the Ethics of Nationalism.
Source:
White, Richard. Herder: On the Ethics of Nationalism. Humanitas. 18.1-2 (2006). http://www.phillwebb.net/history/modern/Herder/Herder.htm
II. Setting A Purpose for Reading
As you read this article, you need to compare these ideas to those of the Enlightenment. How were Herder’s ideas and beliefs similar or different from those espoused by Enlightenment thinkers?
III. Reading the Text (Read, Re-read, and Read Again)
Excerpt #1.
J.G. Herder was a leading thinker in what Isaiah Berlin has described as the “Counter-Enlightenment.” Herder was not opposed to the scientific and political progress celebrated by Enlightenment thinkers like Hume, Voltaire, and Kant. But he was committed to the absolute value and integrity of all the different peoples of the world, and instead of proclaiming a universal model of progress and civilization, he insisted on the need to understand each culture on its own terms and as an organic unity: “Each nation has its centre of happiness within itself, just as every sphere has its own centre of gravity.” And, he explains, “human nature is not the vessel of an absolute, unchanging and independent happiness, as defined by the philosopher; everywhere it attracts the measure of which it is capable: it is a pliant clay which assumes a different shape under different needs and circumstances.”…Herder believes that the nation is the natural basis of the state, and so he supported the right of any given people to self determination.
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read the passage. What are the similarities and differences between Herder and the Enlightenment thinkers?
Excerpt #2.
Herder affirms the ontological priority of the different peoples or nations of the world: “It is nature which educates families: the most natural state is, therefore, one nation, an extended family with one national character.” He argues that each nation is the embodiment of a unique culture and a particular way of live, and in this way each culture may be viewed as a unique expression of humanität (or the human essence). He also claims that it is the nation (or Volk)
that provides the most basic and original horizon for understanding and interpreting the world, and it is only insofar as we belong to a particular people that we can begin to make sense out of life. Thus, to be exiled or alientated from one’s Volk can be spiritually disastrous, for the individual is nothing without the community that has nurtured and supported her and from which she takes all her bearings. Indeed, “Some sensitive people feel so intimately close to their native country, and so much attached to its soil, that they can scarcely live if separated from it.” Hence the evil of forcing Africans to leave their homeland to work as slaves in America; hence the danger, also cited frequently by Herder, of
rootless cosmopolitianism and spiritual abandonment;
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. Based on what you have read, how does the concept of “nation” impact our daily lives?
Excerpt #3.
In specifying what it is that constitutes the essence of a nation, Herder admits the influence of climate, like Montesquieu and others before him, but he argues that a nation is really made one by common traditions, an enduring way of life and a collective memory that is ultimately grounder in a particular language. And the latter is the natural power that integrates people within a particular community and provides the ultimate horizon of all meaning and understanding for them. “For every distinct community is a nation,” he writes, “having its own national culture as it has its own language. The climate, it is true may imprint on each its peculiar stamp, or it may spread over it a slight veil, without destroying, however, its original national character.”
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. According to this passage, what are the characteristics of a
“nation?”
Excerpt #4.
For the most part, before Herder, modern philosophers sought to justify the state
through the fiction of a social contract conceived in terms of individual self-interest. According to Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, this meant that the state was a necessary evil but not a positive good. For Herder, on the other hand, the nation is the ground of the state, every different nation or people should have its own state, and without a common national identity the state must be a “cold monster” that imposes its rule from without. Once again, Herder grasped the necessity of a shared community which involves more than just the equality of rights and procedures, for the latter can never create a common sense of loyalty and belonging. For Herder, it is the nation that provides us with a positive sense of association, and it is a natural, not an artificial, unit of humanity. The final point is Herder’s emphasis on cultural diversity as the natural and best state of affairs. Each people has its own genius and provides a uniquely valuable expression of humanität. There is no universal culture of humankind, and the so-called “underdeveloped” or “primitive”cultures should in no way be regarded as irrelevant or having been superseded by the European enlightenment ideal.
…What Herder understood, and what the Enlightenment thinkers did not, is the
importance of a sense of belonging. And the latter exists only insofar as we live within a particular culture in a particular place and at a particular time in history. Every people and every culture, we should say, draws its own horizon around itself; and in the context of this particular framework of myths, customs, traditions, and language, they continually re-create themselves and the culture to which they belong. Thus Enlightenment philosophers, like Kant, may pride themselves on their universal concepts of human nature, but these are really nothing more than their own particular ideals; they are an expression of modern European culture, which the supporters of the Enlightenment wanted to foist upon all other peoples.
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. Summarize the difference between Herder’s views on the “state” compared with those of the Enlightened thinkers of the time.
Excerpt #5.
Summarized from the text. – There were three main problems with Herder’s ideas on nationalism.
1. Herder believed that nations are mostly culturally homogeneous. While his ideas allowed for cultural diversity, they were predicated on the fact that there was a dominant culture that all members could acknowledge and accept.
2. Herder placed a great deal of emphasis on “cultural determinism” with very little consideration to the role that government and economy play within the development and organization of a nation. Herder did not allow for the interrelationship between nations with regards to trade and security.
3. Herder placed too much emphasis on the importance of the nation and nationalist sentiment and did not allow for the fact that people may identify with more than one group or subgroup and that these relationships may take on more importance than the nationalist identity at any given point in time or situation.
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read the passage. Given the problems with Herder’s arguments, would he see the United States of America as a nation?
IV. Personal Reflection - Respond to the following questions in your blog. Be sure to include quotes from the text to support your response.
Part 1 Response – Based on your reading of this and other documents, what is a “nation?” Be sure to give the name of the philosopher and his belief that most influenced your understanding of a “nation.”
Part 2 Response – According to Herder’s beliefs, can we consider the United States of America “a nation?”If so, what common cultural elements do we all share? What does it mean to be an “American?”
Part 3 Response – There are two common analogies used to describe the nationalistic tendencies of the United States of America. The first is the “Melting Pot.” This maintains that people from all over the world come to this country, bringing their unique cultural flavor, and that it gets cooked together to form the “American Soup (American Culture).” The second is the “Salad Bowl.” This maintains that people from all over the world come to this country, bringing their unique cultural flavor, and they are tossed together – each maintaining their individual culture but form the “American Salad (American Culture).” Which analogy do you see is the best way to describe America’s sense of “nationalism?” What are some of the problems with the analogy you selected? How do we as a country deal with these problems?
V. Peer Reflection – Read one classmates’ reflections and respond to what they have written. You may choose to
agree or disagree with their response. However, you must give sufficient and
supported reasons for your opinion.
I. Activating Prior Knowledge
Johann Gottfried von Herder (1774-1803) was a philosopher and cultural anthropologist. He was one of the first to discuss in detail nationalism and its importance. Since Herder’s writings were originally in German, we will be reading an essay by Richard White of Creighton University, entitled Herder: On the Ethics of Nationalism.
Source:
White, Richard. Herder: On the Ethics of Nationalism. Humanitas. 18.1-2 (2006). http://www.phillwebb.net/history/modern/Herder/Herder.htm
II. Setting A Purpose for Reading
As you read this article, you need to compare these ideas to those of the Enlightenment. How were Herder’s ideas and beliefs similar or different from those espoused by Enlightenment thinkers?
III. Reading the Text (Read, Re-read, and Read Again)
Excerpt #1.
J.G. Herder was a leading thinker in what Isaiah Berlin has described as the “Counter-Enlightenment.” Herder was not opposed to the scientific and political progress celebrated by Enlightenment thinkers like Hume, Voltaire, and Kant. But he was committed to the absolute value and integrity of all the different peoples of the world, and instead of proclaiming a universal model of progress and civilization, he insisted on the need to understand each culture on its own terms and as an organic unity: “Each nation has its centre of happiness within itself, just as every sphere has its own centre of gravity.” And, he explains, “human nature is not the vessel of an absolute, unchanging and independent happiness, as defined by the philosopher; everywhere it attracts the measure of which it is capable: it is a pliant clay which assumes a different shape under different needs and circumstances.”…Herder believes that the nation is the natural basis of the state, and so he supported the right of any given people to self determination.
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read the passage. What are the similarities and differences between Herder and the Enlightenment thinkers?
Excerpt #2.
Herder affirms the ontological priority of the different peoples or nations of the world: “It is nature which educates families: the most natural state is, therefore, one nation, an extended family with one national character.” He argues that each nation is the embodiment of a unique culture and a particular way of live, and in this way each culture may be viewed as a unique expression of humanität (or the human essence). He also claims that it is the nation (or Volk)
that provides the most basic and original horizon for understanding and interpreting the world, and it is only insofar as we belong to a particular people that we can begin to make sense out of life. Thus, to be exiled or alientated from one’s Volk can be spiritually disastrous, for the individual is nothing without the community that has nurtured and supported her and from which she takes all her bearings. Indeed, “Some sensitive people feel so intimately close to their native country, and so much attached to its soil, that they can scarcely live if separated from it.” Hence the evil of forcing Africans to leave their homeland to work as slaves in America; hence the danger, also cited frequently by Herder, of
rootless cosmopolitianism and spiritual abandonment;
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. Based on what you have read, how does the concept of “nation” impact our daily lives?
Excerpt #3.
In specifying what it is that constitutes the essence of a nation, Herder admits the influence of climate, like Montesquieu and others before him, but he argues that a nation is really made one by common traditions, an enduring way of life and a collective memory that is ultimately grounder in a particular language. And the latter is the natural power that integrates people within a particular community and provides the ultimate horizon of all meaning and understanding for them. “For every distinct community is a nation,” he writes, “having its own national culture as it has its own language. The climate, it is true may imprint on each its peculiar stamp, or it may spread over it a slight veil, without destroying, however, its original national character.”
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. According to this passage, what are the characteristics of a
“nation?”
Excerpt #4.
For the most part, before Herder, modern philosophers sought to justify the state
through the fiction of a social contract conceived in terms of individual self-interest. According to Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, this meant that the state was a necessary evil but not a positive good. For Herder, on the other hand, the nation is the ground of the state, every different nation or people should have its own state, and without a common national identity the state must be a “cold monster” that imposes its rule from without. Once again, Herder grasped the necessity of a shared community which involves more than just the equality of rights and procedures, for the latter can never create a common sense of loyalty and belonging. For Herder, it is the nation that provides us with a positive sense of association, and it is a natural, not an artificial, unit of humanity. The final point is Herder’s emphasis on cultural diversity as the natural and best state of affairs. Each people has its own genius and provides a uniquely valuable expression of humanität. There is no universal culture of humankind, and the so-called “underdeveloped” or “primitive”cultures should in no way be regarded as irrelevant or having been superseded by the European enlightenment ideal.
…What Herder understood, and what the Enlightenment thinkers did not, is the
importance of a sense of belonging. And the latter exists only insofar as we live within a particular culture in a particular place and at a particular time in history. Every people and every culture, we should say, draws its own horizon around itself; and in the context of this particular framework of myths, customs, traditions, and language, they continually re-create themselves and the culture to which they belong. Thus Enlightenment philosophers, like Kant, may pride themselves on their universal concepts of human nature, but these are really nothing more than their own particular ideals; they are an expression of modern European culture, which the supporters of the Enlightenment wanted to foist upon all other peoples.
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read
the passage. Summarize the difference between Herder’s views on the “state” compared with those of the Enlightened thinkers of the time.
Excerpt #5.
Summarized from the text. – There were three main problems with Herder’s ideas on nationalism.
1. Herder believed that nations are mostly culturally homogeneous. While his ideas allowed for cultural diversity, they were predicated on the fact that there was a dominant culture that all members could acknowledge and accept.
2. Herder placed a great deal of emphasis on “cultural determinism” with very little consideration to the role that government and economy play within the development and organization of a nation. Herder did not allow for the interrelationship between nations with regards to trade and security.
3. Herder placed too much emphasis on the importance of the nation and nationalist sentiment and did not allow for the fact that people may identify with more than one group or subgroup and that these relationships may take on more importance than the nationalist identity at any given point in time or situation.
Stop! Can you answer these questions? If not, go back and re-read the passage. Given the problems with Herder’s arguments, would he see the United States of America as a nation?
IV. Personal Reflection - Respond to the following questions in your blog. Be sure to include quotes from the text to support your response.
Part 1 Response – Based on your reading of this and other documents, what is a “nation?” Be sure to give the name of the philosopher and his belief that most influenced your understanding of a “nation.”
Part 2 Response – According to Herder’s beliefs, can we consider the United States of America “a nation?”If so, what common cultural elements do we all share? What does it mean to be an “American?”
Part 3 Response – There are two common analogies used to describe the nationalistic tendencies of the United States of America. The first is the “Melting Pot.” This maintains that people from all over the world come to this country, bringing their unique cultural flavor, and that it gets cooked together to form the “American Soup (American Culture).” The second is the “Salad Bowl.” This maintains that people from all over the world come to this country, bringing their unique cultural flavor, and they are tossed together – each maintaining their individual culture but form the “American Salad (American Culture).” Which analogy do you see is the best way to describe America’s sense of “nationalism?” What are some of the problems with the analogy you selected? How do we as a country deal with these problems?
V. Peer Reflection – Read one classmates’ reflections and respond to what they have written. You may choose to
agree or disagree with their response. However, you must give sufficient and
supported reasons for your opinion.