Predicted Paper 2 · Q7(a) · Nationalism · 24-mark essay

Is nationalism inherently regressive?

"To what extent is nationalism inherently regressive? (24 marks)"

1. Spec hook and what the question wants

This is a 24-mark Paper 2 Section B ideology essay, marked AO1 (8), AO2 (8), AO3 (8). The word that does the work is inherently: the question is not whether some nationalism is regressive, but whether all of it must be.

Spec hook. NA.2 the four types of nationalism: liberal, conservative, anti/post-colonial, expansionist. NA.3 the five named thinkers: Rousseau, Herder, Mazzini, Maurras, Garvey. Key concepts: progressive, regressive, inclusive nationalism, exclusive nationalism, chauvinistic nationalism.

The specification itself lists 'progressive' and 'regressive' as a pair of key concepts. It does so precisely because nationalism contains both - which is the clue to the answer.

The strongest line of argument is NO, NOT INHERENTLY - nationalism is not inherently regressive. Expansionist and integral nationalism are regressive, but liberal nationalism, cultural pluralism and anti-colonial nationalism are progressive or emancipatory. Regressive is a property of some strands, not of nationalism as such.

2. The five thinkers: progressive or regressive?

The 9PL0 specification names five nationalist thinkers. They do not sit on one side of the line.

Thinker	Strand	Progressive or regressive?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)	Liberal / civic	Progressive. The general will and civic nationalism: the state is legitimate because it rests on the active participation of its citizens. Nationalism as popular self-government.
Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803)	Cultural	Not regressive. Cultural nationalism: every nation has its own unique character and Volksgeist - and, crucially, all are of equal worth. A pluralist, not a hierarchy.
Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872)	Liberal	Progressive. Human freedom rests on each people having its own nation-state. Inspired the liberal-nationalist unification movements of the nineteenth century.
Charles Maurras (1868-1952)	Expansionist / integral	Regressive. Integral nationalism: an intense, emotional nationalism in which individuals submerge themselves into the nation. Militarist, anti-democratic, exclusive.
Marcus Garvey (1887-1940)	Anti-colonial	Progressive / emancipatory. Black pride and Pan-Africanism: nationalism as the route out of colonial subjugation for the colonised.

Use the spread. Five named thinkers; only one, Maurras, is straightforwardly regressive. That spread is itself the core of the answer.

3. The progressive face of nationalism

Three strands of nationalism are progressive or emancipatory.

Liberal nationalism

Rousseau grounds the nation in the general will and civic participation - the nation is the people governing themselves, not a tribe of blood. Mazzini argued that human freedom rests on each people having its own nation-state, and inspired the liberal-nationalist movements that unified Italy and Germany and broke up autocratic empires. Liberal nationalism is inclusive - membership is open to anyone who joins the civic community - and internationalist, envisaging a world of free nation-states living in harmony.

Cultural pluralism

Herder's cultural nationalism holds that every nation has its own Volksgeist, but treats all national cultures as of equal worth. It is a celebration of diversity, not a ranking - the opposite of a doctrine of superiority.

Anti-colonial nationalism

Garvey's black pride and Pan-Africanism turned nationalism into a tool of liberation for colonised peoples. Anti-colonial nationalism rejects colonial rule and seeks governance returned to the indigenous population - emancipation, not subjugation.

4. The regressive face of nationalism

Some nationalism genuinely is regressive - which is why the question is worth asking.

Expansionist and integral nationalism

Maurras's integral nationalism is the clearest case. It is intensely emotional, demands that individuals submerge themselves into the nation, and carries a strong militarist ethos. Expansionist nationalism rejects the right of all nations to self-determination, and is usually linked to chauvinism - the belief that one's own nation is superior and entitled to dominate others. Racialism, held by a small group of nationalists, makes nationhood a matter of biology.

Conservative nationalism

Conservative nationalism is more ambiguous. It is backward-looking - nostalgic for a settled, traditional national identity - and tends to be exclusive about who belongs. That nostalgia can fairly be called regressive in tone. But its purpose is social cohesion, not conquest, so it is not regressive in the way expansionism is.

Concede this fairly. A top-band answer does not pretend nationalism is all benign. It accepts that expansionist and integral nationalism are regressive - and then shows this does not make nationalism regressive as such.

5. What the strands share, and what they do not

All four strands share a small core: a belief in the nation as a meaningful community, and a belief in self-determination - that the nation should decide how it is governed.

What they do not share is the regressive character. Self-determination is an emancipatory idea: it is the principle that broke up empires and ended colonial rule. A doctrine whose central claim is that peoples should govern themselves cannot be inherently regressive - regression enters only when a particular strand adds chauvinism, militarism or racial hierarchy.

AO3 line. The regressive strands are regressive because of what they ADD to nationalism - chauvinism, the submerged individual, racial hierarchy - not because of the nationalism itself. Strip those additions away and self-determination remains, and self-determination is progressive.

6. Mapping the disagreement

Set the thinkers against one another on the progressive-regressive axis.

Inclusive versus exclusive

Rousseau's civic nation is inclusive - join the community and you belong. Maurras's integral nation is exclusive - belonging is fixed and the outsider is a threat. Same word, 'nation', opposite politics.

Emancipation versus domination

Garvey's nationalism frees the colonised; expansionist nationalism subjugates other nations. Mazzini's liberal nationalism imagines a harmonious world of free nations; Maurras's denies other nations the self-determination it claims for its own.

The individual

For liberal nationalists the nation serves the free individual and citizen. For integral nationalism the individual is submerged into the nation. This is the sharpest regressive marker - and it is not shared.

7. Overall judgement

The line of argument is NO, NOT INHERENTLY. Nationalism is not inherently regressive.

Strongest single argument. The specification itself pairs 'progressive' and 'regressive' as key concepts because nationalism contains both. Of the five named thinkers only Maurras is clearly regressive; Rousseau, Mazzini and Garvey are progressive or emancipatory, and Herder's cultural pluralism treats all nations as equal. A doctrine that is regressive in one strand and progressive in three is not regressive as such.

The fair concession is that expansionist and integral nationalism are genuinely regressive, and conservative nationalism is backward-looking in tone. But regression is something particular strands ADD - chauvinism, militarism, racial hierarchy. The shared core, self-determination, is emancipatory. Commit to: nationalism is not inherently regressive; it is a doctrine capable of both faces, and which face it shows depends on the strand.