There are several "foundations" of society and culture being challenged by the millennials, until recently thought set in stone, now uncertain and engendering much hand wringing and column inches: religion, marriage, sexuality, primacy of female parenting, the desire for children, the sacrosanctity of nation. Actually, you may realise that one of these in the list is actually not under any real form of attack, that of the benefit and logical certainty of nation. We should all love our country, shouldn’t we? We perhaps are worried that what it means to belong to a particular nation is being eroded or altered, but that is usually linked to those other beastly grey issues of religion and multi-culturalism. It is not being widely wondered whether the concept of nation states itself, a creation of the late 17th, early 18th century, has run its course and that evolutionary beneficial construct that it once was, like religion, it cannot hold up to rational inspection and a changing world. However, it is this issue that is actually at the root of some of the common issues around populism and nationalism we see and hear so often about.
Issues such as Brexit, immigration controls, Western solidarity and the age-old generational changes bemoaned of by everyone at a certain age in their life, often cause many a brow to wrinkle. We listen to the weird arguments of communality and civility and the so-called degeneration of community, with new cultural views and standards being reviled as toxic and invaders. Often what is brought to my mind is a comedy sketch about football club affiliation, that the us and them of football is really a "loyalty to a bunch of mercenaries drawn from all four corners of the world who just happen to be at this moment wearing the same coloured shirt as you". Nations and, certainly, individual communities may not necessarily be drawn from the four corners of the world but the issue is the same; nation and identity is a fluid concept and a construction of history, myth and circumstance, and in an age of technological availability and travel even more so. It is these changes and the fears that a culture and society has been co-opted by foreigners and outsiders bringing with them different ideas or customs (shock horror) that drive so many issues. When put like this, it readily reveals a rigidity which is not beneficial nor productive in today’s world, if it ever was. This is why it is not only just out of date, but it can easily tip over into offensive and target certain groups within societies, as a cover for deeper racial issues which have a common rationale. Do we really think a nation should be defined as being a formed of a pure race, that identifies with his neighbour, shares the same views, customs and will fight for those with his group? This is not a view, when spelled out so simply, that many in the West would stand behind, or at least one which is now no longer thought of as main stream. But it was not too long ago that it was, which is why we have so many of the current tensions on these issues, particularly split along generational and liberal lines (those of richer, liberal nations having been exposed more greatly and for longer to these changes).
Actually, there are consistent and logical arguments in support of such traditional, conservative national views. Right wing politics have as a core an argued belief in support of the primacy of national identity, based upon a world view that this was the natural state of things. (Left wing conversely having, or logically should have, disposition towards pan-national communality). In an age where we now have greater and greater evidence for historical and pre-history societies and how they formed, much of this basis is now less easily arguable. And on a less intellectual level, the ability to give birth or raise children in a country other than that of your immediate ancestors, the ability to travel and live similarly globally, that has led to a weakening in small state communality views. Peace and wealth have broadened horizons beyond the nearby and created in the millennial generation an expectation that this is the normal state of the world. The construct of nation states, being based upon myth and fluid social allegiances, now carry less weight in a world where education and knowledge have eroded the fear and rivalry of the “other”. And it is this changing belief in the power and importance of nation that has led to a counter reaction from those whose world view does not align with this movement.
The global tensions that these changes are causing should perhaps not be wondered at; the retreat to commonalities, smaller and smaller, depending on the fear of threat, is always a response to conflict, both economic, cultural and military. It is the difficulty in being able to retreat to this safe place because of the change in culture which ties in all the post-millennial issues of religion, socialism, equality and multiculturalism. Where do we find comfort if country is no longer country? Disbelief, anger and political and cultural conservatism are being engendered by the tendency of millennials across developed nations to choose their own affiliations, be they religious, political or cultural instead of inheriting them from either just their family or those physically around them. Should this ability to choose not rationally be applied to nation, at its root a sense of belonging and commonality? For example, why should you love, say, Scotland because you were born and raised there? You may share little with the majority views of its population, just as many in Scotland would say they now share little with the Great British identity or are at least distinct enough from it to be considered and identify as otherwise. Raised as we all are, in a large part by American, or at least international, media output, are we the first of the international generations? That long desired international, pan-national communality, dreamed of by religions across many ages, liberal trade evangelists and of science fiction writers everywhere. Should we not now pursue the end of nation, it is what we want after all. But then again, do we? It is this tension and change in what has been seen as an established given for so long that needs to be resolved, or at least recognised before we can attempt to move forward with ideas of what is best for individuals, as well as populations in a changing landscape. As someone said to me recently, “I believe in a world where everyone is just a person. But a world where the English are still at the top”. We must all decide if this is a sentiment we echo or one whose foundations are no longer as solid as they once were and in need of a rethink.