Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism

Main article: Civic nationalism

Civic nationalism defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves
as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to
similar political procedures.[138] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the
nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core
identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan
in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily
referendum" (frequently translated "daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people
to continue living together.[138]

Civic nationalism is normally associated with liberal nationalism, although the two are
distinct, and did not always coincide. On the one hand, until the late 19th and early 20th
century adherents to anti-Enlightenment movements such as French Legitimism or
Spanish Carlism often rejected the liberal, national unitary state, yet identified
themselves not with an ethnic nation but with a non-national dynasty and regional feudal
privileges. Xenophobic movements in long-established Western European states indeed
often took a 'civic national' form, rejecting a given group's ability to assimilate with the
nation due to its belonging to a cross-border community (Irish Catholics in Britain,
Ashkenazic Jews in France). On the other hand, while subnational separatist
movements were commonly associated with ethnic nationalism, this was not always so,
and such nationalists as the Corsican Republic, United Irishmen, Breton Federalist
League or Catalan Republican Party could combine a rejection of the unitary civic-
national state with a belief in liberal universalism.

Liberal nationalism is kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be

compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[139]
[140][141] Ernest Renan[142] and John Stuart Mill[143] are often thought to be early
liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by
saying that individuals need a national identity to lead meaningful, autonomous lives,
[144][145] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity to function properly.
[146][147]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of
nationalism it is usually contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism is
correlated with long-established states whose dynastic rulers had gradually acquired
multiple distinct territories, with little change to boundaries, but which contained
historical populations of multiple linguistic and/or confessional backgrounds. Since
individuals resident within different parts of the state territory might have little obvious
common ground, civic nationalism developed as a way for rulers to both explain a
contemporary reason for such heterogeneity and to provide a common purpose (Ernest
Renan's classic description in What is a Nation? (1882) as a voluntary partnership for a
common endeavour). Renan argued that factors such as ethnicity, language, religion,
economics, geography, ruling dynasty and historic military deeds were important but not
sufficient. Needed was a spiritual soul that allowed as a "daily referendum" among the
people.[148] Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative
democracy in multiethnic countries such as the United States and France, as well as in
constitutional monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Spain.[45]

German philosopher Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach does not think liberalism and

nationalism are compatible, but she points out there are many liberals who think they
are. She states:

Justifications of nationalism seem to be making a headway in political philosophy. Its

proponents contend that liberalism and nationalism are not necessarily mutually
exclusive and that they can in fact be made compatible. Liberal nationalists urge one to
consider nationalism not as the pathology of modernity but as an answer to its malaise.
For them, nationalism is more than an infantile disease, more than "the measles of
mankind" as Einstein once proclaimed it to be. They argue that nationalism is a
legitimate way of understanding one's role and place in life. They strive for a normative
justification of nationalism which lies within liberal limits. The main claim which seems to
be involved here is that as long as a nationalism abhors violence and propagates liberal
rights and equal citizenship for all citizens of its state, its philosophical credentials can
be considered to be sound.[149]