Beyond Territorial Spaces

Globalisation, it has been argued, not only transcends the boundaries of nation-states but is also a harbinger for the end of nationalism. Terms such as global civil society, cosmopolitan citizenship and transnational identities are believed to supersede ethnic, national and other collective identities. This is because nationalism, according to leading academics in the field, is either considered to be a pure product of modernity -- as proposed Ernest Gellner who is considered to be the “godfather” of the modernist approach to nationalism -- nothing more than an “imagined political community” -- as furthered by Benedict Anderson in his 1983 book Imagined Communities -- or an “invented tradition” -- as posited by Eric Hobsbawm in The Invention of Tradition published in 1992. In discussing sociological observations on migrant or Diaspora communities through the lens of the Kurdish Diaspora, I argue that the ongoing process of Kurdish ethno-nationalist identity construction, manifested in the Kurdish Diaspora's struggle, shows that nationalism is even stronger in the globalised arena – paradoxically through forces of globalisation. This will be demonstrated through examining Kurdish nationalism in the Diaspora, and particularly concentrating on its nationalistic manifestation in the on-line arena.

Nationalism between two arguments

The underlying theoretical debate regarding the relevance of nationalism or its potential dissolution through new waves of globalisation is arguably one between primordial and modernist perspectives. Ernest Gellner outlines the two arguments as such:

For Primordialists, nations were there all the time … [and the] … past matters a great deal. For Modernists […] the world was created at about the end of the eighteenth century [with the creation of the modern nation-state], and […] nothing which happened before makes the slightest difference to the issues we face [i.e. Nationalism] ².

Modernists associate nationalism with the creation of the nation-state in modern Europe. Gellner who saw nationalism as a phenomenon that appeared in modern times defined it in his celebrated study Nations and Nationalism, as “primarily apolitical principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent”.³ On the same note and in a more postmodernist approach, Hobsbawm reiterated this argument by saying: “’Nationalism’ is nothing without the creation of nation-states, and a world of such states, fitting the present ethnic-linguistics criteria of nationality, is not feasible today.”⁴

Anthony Smith proposes yet another theory. For him, the current nations and nationalism are neither actual inheritors of old ties, nor pure products of modernity, “nor survivors from another epoch, which are destined to pass away once they have run their course in each part of the globe” ⁶ as postmodernists suggest. Rather, he approaches the issue of nations and nationalism through his “ethno symbolic” theory [7, 8] asserting the primacy of common ethnic symbols, and the myths in existence of any nation and nationalism.

Smith works through two different conceptualisations of nationalism: Ethnic Nationalism or ethno-nationalism which is defined in terms of ethnicity based on an element of descent, ancestry and native history and which largely refers to non-Western forms of nationalism and Civic Nationalism which bases its theory on voluntary membership and in which ethnicity has little relevance due to the emphasis on birth or naturalization in a given country's borders, regardless of genealogy. Smith regards Civic Nationalism as another phase of majority ethno-nationalism, characteristic of the modern nation-state, a term of which he is sceptical. He prefers “national-states” instead, referring to states who see "the nation as a territorial association of citizens living under the same laws and sharing a mass, public culture," ⁹ and which encompasses most ex-colonial states. To reflect on Smith’s portrayal of nations and nationalism, and relate it to the Kurdish case, it is worth quoting his definition for both Nation and Nationalism: 

By Nationalism I mean an ideological movement for the attainment and maintenance of autonomy, unity and identity of a human population, some of whose members conceive it to constitute an actual or potential “nation”. By “nation”. I mean a named human population sharing an historical territory, common myths and memories, a mass, public culture, a single economy and common rights and duties for all members.¹⁰

Smith is therefore critical of those who equate nationalism with states — for him nationalist movements do not necessarily strive for state-formation, as in the examples of Scottish and Catalan nationalism. Nevertheless his threshold for nations is such that many contemporary nations or “virtual nations,” in Eriksen terms, would fall short of this definition. Precisely the public culture and economic ties, are pure characteristics of a state, quasi-states or national quasi states in Castells’ terms.¹¹ “Nations” and “nationalism”, as Manuel Castells argues, have a life on their own, independent from statehood, albeit embedded in cultural constructs and political projects.¹²

Nationalism does matter

Undoubtedly, globalisation and internationalisation have penetrated social, political, economic and cultural domains of people’s lives and have ultimately rendered the world a global village. Some would argue for the inevitable supersession of nation-states and nationalism by broader supernational or global organizations and identities in the post-modern era.¹³

Theories of cosmopolitanism and post-national, post-ethnic prospective are charged with inherent Western-centric methodology; viewing nations and nationalism, from the same Western angle, where the modern European national-state originated. Overlooking the contextual differences with respect to non-Western societies, it is the Westphalian nation state-oriented nationalism which dominated the mainstream sociological and political orthodoxy; hence it fails to comprehend the uniqueness of other cultural and political context -- contexts which could make any methodological generalisation not only difficult but in times impossible. Once again, some have argued it is Orientalism re-emerging, capturing nationalism and all other human aspects of so-called others through “self” lenses. Even Smith who claims to comprehend the contextual differences, has not escaped this paradox, when putting “nations” and “nationalism” in the same pot with the “sovereign nation” paradigm characterised by its territoriality and sovereignty criteria.

The Kurdish case

Arguably, in the Kurdish case, Anthony Smith’s ethno symbolism is one model that can trace the historical shaping and reshaping, and the ultimate strengthening of Kurdish national identity and nationalism. This is especially so in the new highly transnationalised and digitalised world in which Kurds (as a nation without sovereignty) can at least create a “sovereignty on air”. The key to the emergence of a nation and nationalism (and perhaps its preservation), is the broadening acceptance of the idea of a single political community, to which all belong.¹⁴ Finally, the Kurdish question and Kurdish nationalism, could provide strong empirical evidence to substantiate the claim that nationalism still does matter. 

Sovereignty on air: Kurdish nationalism in the globalised era

Most Diaspora studies are dominated by examination of the ethnic/national relationships between Diaspora groups and the host nations. Arguably, these kind of ethnic and nationalism studies suffer from the same statist reductionism prominent in political sciences discourse. It has been argued that any approach to Diaspora studies in relation to nationalism, should take into consideration diversity and variations within Diasporas in relation to their different contexts. In other words, any approach should avoid stereotyping while working on different cultural and ethnic/national groups. There is by no means a typical ethnic/national Diaspora as such, upon which a study of its national and ethnic relations could possibly be conceptualised. Accordingly, as Eriksen argues, we cannot approach the Kurdish and Tamil Diasporas the same way as the Moroccan Diaspora in Switzerland, for example.¹⁵ The case with the latter is the ethnic and nationalist relations with the dominant group in the host country, while with the former, it is in relation to other dominant ethnic/national groups back home. That should not allow for negligence of the ongoing ethnic and cultural relationships between Diaspora Kurds and the dominant ethnic group in the host countries. Rather, for reasons deeper than the newly-created ones brought about by migration, the historically older ethnic/national issues back home should take precedence over the new ones in the new country. In other words, “the awareness of Kurdistan as a homeland, and of the Kurds as a distinct people, has often been stronger in those Kurds who have lived elsewhere, among people of different languages and cultures.”¹⁶ A comparative study carried out by Osten Wahlbeck of Kurdish refugees in both Finland and Britain between 1994-5 illustrates the same trait of ethnic/national concerns of the Kurdish Diaspora.¹⁷ Eriksen differentiates this type of nationalism as” long-distance nationalism”, compared to “territorial nationalism” in the actual place of residence.

In contrast to the common belief among modernists about nationalist identity, the sense of “Kurdishness” and belonging to a territory called Kurdistan did exist well before the nineteenth century.¹⁸ These ideas are not entirely a modern development — we find them quite explicitly expressed in the work of the seventeenth-century poet Ehmedê Xanî — but only in the twentieth century did these ideas get something of a wider appeal.¹⁹ Furthermore, the sense of “Kurdishness” is continuously shaped and reshaped under circumstances unique to the Kurds’ reality. The self-consciousness of the Kurds is always reinforced in reference to two majorities, namely one within the nation-state to which they belong and the other to the host nation (mainly in Europe), with a sharp difference between the two. Many factors contributed to the migration of Kurds out of Kurdistan, each particular to its historical context. Nonetheless, the main reason is migration, or expulsion, for political reasons.

It has been argued that three essential factors underpin any Diaspora movement: First, the difficulties or unwillingness to integrate; second, cultural and national ties and resources; and third, new communication technologies.²⁰ Portraying this condition of Kurdish Diaspora, Van Martin Bruineseen, a Dutch anthropologist (1999) maintains:

In their new places of residence, a large proportion of them have retained or rediscovered a strong sense of Kurdish identity and instead of gradually merging with the host populations or other migrants from the same wider region they have organized themselves in Kurdish Diasporas.²¹

As the territorial contexts of nation-states could not accommodate Kurdish identity and culture, Kurds found a refuge for enhancing their aspirations outside the boundaries of the nation-states. As Eriksen points out:

Lacking a Kurdish-language communications infrastructure in their areas of origin, Kurds in exile have developed a variety of media – magazines, satellite TV channels and Internet resources – to build a shared identity and make them known as a nation without a country to the outside world.²²

Globalised communication - or “cyberspace” - has helped to accomplish this. Kurds no longer need permission from the nation-states that they unwillingly belong to in order to express their explicit identity and culture. With some limitations, globalisation has given the Kurds and other non-state actors the opportunity to constitute themselves freely.

The Kurdish identity, therefore reinforced among migrants due to the new circumstances, is found overseas, especially in liberal Western countries. Van Bruineseen’s statement is one of considerable relevance here while arguing “It was exile that transformed Kurdistan from a vaguely defined geographical entity into a political ideal.”²³ While Kurds were denied recognition of their distinctive identity, and culture in their homeland, exile was a fertile ground for gaining recognition, without reference to territorial sovereignty.

For Van Bruineseen, the new inclusive circumstances in exile were in sharp contrast to the exclusionist ones Kurds face, back home from their respective dominant-group states, in that: 

Due to the civil liberties enjoyed in exile and to the new technologies that some of them have learned to use, the Kurds have, however, achieved a degree of sovereignty on the airwaves and in cyberspace, that is gradually making them actors in the international arena to be reckoned with.²⁴

These circumstances provided abroad have therefore paved the way for nationalist revival among the Diaspora Kurds. Through various cultural and political activities the Kurdish ethnic and nationalist identity was being constructed within Diaspora Kurds. Rapid development of information and communication technology has contributed to a considerable degree in “deterritorialising” and “transnationalising” the Kurdish question. In his recent study, Thomas Eriksen makes a powerful argument about the role played by the Internet in keeping nations in cyberspace:

(The) Internet has considerable potential in strengthening transnational loyalties not only across ethnic and national identities, but also – and perhaps predominantly – along them, bridging territorial abysses separating people “of the same kind” from their metaphorical brothers and sisters, and counteracting cultural assimilation into the host country.²⁶

In relation to the Kurdish case he argues: “Lacking a state which is committed to the maintenance and strengthening of Kurdish identity, the task of creating a Kurdish civil society and collective identity is largely left to private enterprise”.²⁷ Obviously new technologies, primarily the Internet, have empowered Kurds to challenge the constraints of the nation-states and create “sovereignty on air”.

Conclusion

Despite changes that occurred in both characteristics and functions of nationalism, nations and nation-states, Globalisation has so far not rendered them irrelevant or insignificant. Ethnicity and nationalism are not merely products of modernity, and are not constrained by the conventional sovereign nation-state. Rather, they confer to more rooted social, cultural and historical ties, and could revive and function in any context. Globalisation, instead of threatening nationalism, can paradoxically embed nationalism and accommodate nationalist aspirations. This is most true in the realm of globalisation’s information and communication technology. As Anthony Smith argues, the electronic media serve to reinforce old ethnic identities or encourage the (re-)creation of new ones.²⁸

The Kurdish Diaspora utilizes globalisation, in pursuit of its nationalist aspirations through the constitution of Kurdish identity, and re-enforcement of ethnic and national ties. Both have challenged the powers of nation-states, and have given way to a different nationalism: “internet nationalism” instead of “territorial nationalism”. The Kurdish question illustrates once again the limitations of modern nation-states while at the same time uncovering the reductionist western-centric spirit encapsulated in both modernist and postmodernist approaches to the issue of nationalism, whose cosmopolitan claims fail to transcend traditional methodological domains.

As the nation-states to which Kurds belong fail to accommodate them, and as the Kurds still do not have a state of their own, the Kurdish Diaspora - empowered by conditions provided by and through globalization - has challenged the notion of the nation-state and has created a powerful online presence designed to create and promote awareness of Kurdish nationalism. ^{1 5 7 8 25}

[http://www.philbu.net/media-anthropology/eriksen_nationscyberspace.pdf](http://www.philbu.net/media-anthropology/eriksen_nationscyberspace.pdf)http://www.philbu.net/media-anthropology/eriksen_nationscyberspace.pdfhttp://www.philbu.net/media-anthropology/eriksen_nationscyberspace.pdf 

Mortimer, Edward, Fine, Robert, 1999(Ed), People, Nation and State: The Meaning of Ethnicity and Nationalism. I.B Tauris Publisher. London, New York

[http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/wahlbeck.pdf](http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/wahlbeck.pdf)http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/wahlbeck.pdfhttp://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/wahlbeck.pdf

comments