According to Greenfeld, the emergence of modern economy is equated with the rise of capitalism. Greenfield defines a nation as a sovereign community of fundamental equality of membership. She emphasizes that, in comparison with collectivist nationalisms, individualistic-civic nationalism offers inspiration, prompting economic activities towards growth. Economic interests/ economic achievements are of significance for every individual in society and for the whole nation. In the case of ethnic nations, economic activities are mainly practiced by small groups within the community.
Our seminar focuses mainly on Individualistic-civic vs. ethnic nationalism and the modern economy in a contemporary setting.
We have chosen three examples of nationalism in order to challenge and debate Greenfeld’s theory. Québec was chosen as an example because of its contemporary development of nationalism, and China was chosen because it does not necessarily comply with Greenfeld’s argument of nationalism co-existing with capitalism, what with the rise of technology. The Canadian province is not completely ‘sovereign’ and it may be argued that China ideologically opposes capitalism, yet they experience an intensive nationalism.
1) Does China contradict or challenge Greenfeld’s theories of Nationalism? How so?
2) How does digital capitalism, that goes beyond the conventional boundaries of nationalism, challenge Greenfield’s theory of specific physical boundaries?
3) Historically, Quebec has seen examples of both ethnic nationalism (Prior to the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, the province’s natural resources were mainly developed by foreign investors or the English-Canadian minority) and individualistic nationalism. Based on Greenfeld’s definitions of ‘ethnic’, do you believe that Quebec embodies civic, individualistic nationalism or ethnic nationalism?
4) Would Greenfeld feel that Quebec is a good example of a ‘nation’, even though it is not fully sovereign?
An exploration of Greenfeld’s thesis in terms of how it relates to America is described within ‘Spirit of Capitalism: nationalism and economic growth’. Greenfeld states: ”the modern consciousness is a product of the dynamics of American society, in turn shaped by the singular characteristics of American nationalism”. To Greenfeld, the United States is the ideal case study for her ‘nationalism leads to capitalism’ theory because she sees the USA as the natural heirs to the original nationalism that developed in England.
5) Does Greenfeld’s argument make sense when it comes to the United States? Did economic competition, resulting from national pride, lead to the USA’s contemporary position; or, can we reverse this and ask if the origins of the USA’s capitalism lie in the rejection of English nationalism in the 18th century as they worked to boost the economy of the colonies, leading to the desire for independence, which in turn lead to nationalist feeling?
6) If groupings of nations like the European Union become more commonplace, do you think that this will lead to economic stagnation, as the number of disinfect bodies competing is reduced? Or do you think that cohesive and coherent groups of nations will be able to compete effectively with nations such as the USA who Greenfeld does not think need to combine forces to dominate the market?
5) How do two examples that do not perfectly fit Greenfield’s theories compare to Greenfield’s own example of the USA as one of the ‘five roads to modernity’?
….
Last but not least,
Group Five!
