Nations

What is a nation? It can be a lot of things I suppose. It is a place where people share an accepted fiction. It is a vessel or vehicle for values. Nations are contained within lines drawn on a map. Lines that are largely arbitrary, or at the very least of little real consequence. They are drawn based upon a set of social codes and interactions.

The nation is a fabrication or our imagination. It is the largest iteration of what started as tribes and bands. The shared fictions and ability to communicate improved and allowed for a bigger group to share that common identity. In modern times that still holds true, but we are starting to disagree on those values. The fictions that we tell ourselves, which are necessary for national cohesion, are beginning to be questioned in America.

For most of America’s existence we’ve held duty to family and country paramount. Perhaps as we move into the age of the individual, the needs of the many are subservient to those of the individual. Unencumbered access to a pathway to expression and self-realization is becoming the dominate value of the people. It has been shifting this way for a while. It seems no longer does an allegiance to community or ‘country’ take precedence over the needs, desires, and feelings of the individual.

I’m not making a judgement call or putting a hierarchical value on this. The needs of the community are indeed important for the survival of the species, but choosing to pursue a life of examination and exploration seems quite rational. If one only gets a single chance at this human experience then pursuing ones bliss and curiosity seems a very logical use of those relatively few years.

So as the values of the individual inside the nation change, then do the values of the nation change? Does the country take on these new values as its own or does the country try to hold back the individual from pursuing their true happiness? Is there not a danger in having a myopic perspective of this existence? To see oneself as just fodder for a tyrants war or a laborer for an insatiable capitalist seem an odd way to spend this life – let alone build an identity around it. Yet we all do it. In some fashion anyway.

These seem to be issues that we are currently wrestling with. Some want to hold tooth and nail to a set of values and standards that don’t seem to reflect those of the majority of modern citizens. Universal medical care and reproductive rights in America are two examples of the disconnect between values and policy. When polled these two issues receive about 70% approval by the population-at-large, but are met with much resistance at the policy level.

So the will of the people is not being reflected in the policy decisions being made at the legislative level. The values of the people are changing and yet the rules of the land are slow to meet these changing values. Does the nation itself have an agenda that is acted out by those trying to ‘conserve’ it? Does it take on a life of its own? Are we then just cogs in the machine? Doing the bidding of ideology for it.

This seems to be a defining question of the modern era. The roll of the nation has changed quite a bit in the past three thousand years. Evolving from city-states to empires. Each iteration with their own set of standards, traditions, values, and histories. It seems to be a constantly changing entity, and yet at times seems stagnant to the point of debilitating frustration.

We are no longer ruled by kings or lords, but have replaced the old hierarchical guard for another. This new order is peopled by politicians and the wealthy elite that pay for their campaigns. Overt imperialism is no longer an accepted way of extending ones influence. Colonizing smaller or weaker nations, people, or land isn’t something that global ethics tolerates in present times. However, the modern powers jostling for global influence have used military force and other levers of control to secure their economic interests in a modern day imperialism.

The question that this piece is really trying to get at the heart of is whether the nation is there to serve the people or whether the people are there to serve the nation? Perhaps the answer is that the relationship is, and always has been, somewhere in-between these two poles. It seems that we are moving away from valuing the community and more towards valuing the individual. In so doing are we moving the role of the nation towards facilitating and protecting the individual from the tyranny of the mob?

This can be seen in the current moment with the rise of ‘cancel culture’ and the protection of the individual with LGBTQ+ issues. Again, I’m not putting a value hierarchy on any of this. I’m trying to look at the issue through an objective lens – or at least as objectivity as possible. The current momentum of the LGBTQ+ community shows that many feel the roll of the nation is to safeguard the rights of the individual to pursue whatever happiness they desire. When presented in those words it would seem that it harkens to the original ethos of the ‘pursuit of happiness’ suggested by John Locke and adapted for the American value system by Thomas Jefferson.

So does the nation exist to protect the rights of the individual or does it exist to pursue a goal devised by the set of values laid out by its founders? In America it can get confusing. The same person that holds their own freedom of agency at the pinnacle of American values is also quick to infringe on another’s agency due to a difference in values. Do we protect the common idea of freedom and an individualized pursuit of happiness as the values and circumstances change, or do we protect some overarching Puritanical set of standards that were present at the founding of the country?

Again, does the nation exist in a vacuum or is it fluid? Does it corral the people into a set of standards, beliefs, and values or does it provide protection for those looking to pursue their own version of happiness? Is this a place where new ideas grow or is it a place where novel ideas are suppressed? I’m not sure of the answer. At times it seems we are living both at the same time, and maybe that is the way it’s always been. Maybe the nation is evolving but at a pace that is unnoticed by our little and mortal minds.

I’m not sure if this landed anywhere significant, or if the idea ever even left the ground. The idea of the Nation seems one of those things that we take for granted or look past because it’s been part of our identity since we were kids. Yet I realized that I’d never really examined its purpose or utility. It is a very interesting entry point for exploring some heady concepts.

Some so wholly accept the notion of Nation that they lay down their lives for it, and others reject it so fully that they see it as something that needs defeated in order to attain true freedom. I doubt this piece made any headway in truly defining it in the modern era. Maybe, hopefully, it at least made us think about it in a way we hadn’t before.

I appreciate your attention and hope you’ve found value in this.
Thanks for reading and take care of each other.