Home, Belonging, the Veil of Nationalism and the Threat of Migration

“The relationship that we, as beings, have with each other before determination or signification is what forms the element of sociality and society.” (Tataryn, 2021)

How do humans feel connected to a nation? What is considered home? Where do we belong? We are born, we become individuals, and we create our lives in accordance with our surroundings. We are by-products, we are ambiguous, yet we know what home feels like and we know where we belong and where we do not. But if we try to break the idea of home down into a definition, or conceptualization, it is near impossible. Perhaps home is more like love: a feeling that we all know well but can not give concrete meaning to. Yet home and belonging need to be challenged more than love. These notions have formed vital aspects of society and sociality, and have influenced conceptions of nationalism and nation, not only from an emotional standpoint but from a structural one as well. We utilize nation to understand home and belonging, we idolize citizenship, assign status, prioritize national identity. We give immense meaning to these concepts that are vague and difficult to define, and idolize them beyond reason.

Nationalism, in all of its ambiguity, becomes an emotion just as undefinable as love. As Nokicka (2020) states, “nationalism permeates into the structures of feeling” (pg. 2). Just as with any good romance story, there must be a threat to emotion. Its not as simple as “I love you or I don’t love you”, and likewise with nationalism, it’s not as simple as “I am identifying with my nation or I am not”. The threat to nationalism’s existence has largely been cited to be the “others”. The migrants. The movers. By virtue of being an “other”, migrants are viewed as not only hazards to nationalism, but also catalysts of insecurity. Research on nationalism and migration over the past decade or so has been largely focused on the belief that migration inherently erodes national identity. Migration is widely viewed as a threat to nation and home and literature within this realm has revealed that as right wing populist movements have rose since the beginning of the 20th century, so have anti-migrant sentiments. This parallel cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet as a mere coincidence. Right wing populism has bred an ideology of immigration that is focused on insecurity and perceived threats to nation (Béland, 2019). Béland (2019) notes that right wing populism - as a movement - seeks to idolize citizens or people of a nation, and vilify outsiders. It is a type of populism that relates to “authoritarian tendencies which like it can also emerge in a reaction against perceived political, social and economic threats to group identity, status and cohesion” (pg. 163). The issue with the rise of right wing populism during the early 2000s is that it has caused a direct increase in anti-immigrant rhetoric, fuelled by the perception that national identity is eroding and there needs to be something, or someone to blame (Dikici, 2020).

 A quick note on facism vs. right-wing populism: 

Research within the past decade has been focused on right-wing populism, ultimately because it has become more of a modern day “fascism” - a term most of us may be more familiar with. There are important differences between the two ideologies, right-wing populism and fascism. Namely, the path to power that each movement takes. While this distinction is a different subject matter, it is important to succinctly understand the difference between fascism and right-wing populism, and what this means for anti-migrant rhetoric, and how these movements can influence “home”. On a very basic level, right-wing populism involves utilizing existing electoral systems, including political parties, which means that this movement does not challenge traditional class alignments as fascism does (Agostinone-Wilson, 2020). In addition, right-wing populists vehemently deny that they are “racist” and reject the notion that they are fascist. The important note to remember here is that both fascism and right-wing populism - as ideologies - are inherently xenophobic and anti-migrant, but right-wing populism can hide behind the charade of politics, and can masquerade as a political ideology that is obviously not racist, while implementing anti-migrant policies behind closed doors. The point here is that by not being outwardly and objectively racist, right-wing populism leaves a small shred of doubt, which is why it is so detrimental. Ring-wing lists leave the public thinking “what if…” which subsequently fuels the fear and distrust of the “others”. With this in mind, I ask: are we letting right-wing movements (as a result of their power and influence over nations and deeply entrenched belief systems) define something that has no definition? Some food for thought. Now, back to what we are here to talk about:

With this “you can’t sit with us” mentality that you may have experienced in high school cafeterias, migrants are seen as catalysts to insecurity, and this threat is the central claim that is fuelled and propelled by right-wing populism. Scholarly literature, thus far, has determined that the far right seems to be more associated with nativism, an exclusionary or ethnic form of nationalism that poses strict criteria of national membership defined by characteristics such as race, decent, language (Hutchins & Halikiopoulou, 2020). Nativism versus nationalism is an important distinction to be made because it seems that in application, these two ideologies have become muddled together. This vilification of foreigners is a global definition that frames the “others” as a direct threat to nation. Although this realm of study can help give meaning, on a political or even structural level, to how migrants are perceived as threats, it does not provide insight into why “home” is so sacred, or taboo, and why we tirelessly protect it from the “others” and perceived threats. It does not help to define home, nor does it define belonging. We know that right-wing populism is on the rise, and you do not have to be a political scholar to understand what the majority of right-wing movements stand for. But there is enough political hoopla in academia. Why are we so afraid of perceived threats to home? If we still have no concrete definition for belonging, why can we argue that migrants may not “belong” somewhere that we do?

Further research in this area fills some of the gaps with the discussion of civic nationalism, which focuses more on traditional liberal values of equality and tolerance. At face value, this sounds more inclusive than right-wing populist movements. However, it arguably breeds similarly excessive policies that view migrants as threats to nationalism and home. Far right parties use civic nationalism in their agendas, which draw on the conception that a “national solidarity pact, grounded in cultural and political civic terms, to which certain immigrant groups do not - and should not - belong” (Hutchins & Halikiopoulou, 2020, pg. 68). Civic integration policies are concentrated on mandatory integration into specific nations, i.e. showcasing knowledge of that country, understanding the society, language and values, etc. Larin (2020) argues that these methods of preserving nationalism are inherently expressions of civic nationalism and thus are problematic from a political and ontology standpoints, and furthers this by asserting that civic nationalism has been one of the major causes of global conflict related to migration, primarily through coercive inclusion or exclusion of minorities, rather than integration. Civic nationalism ignores the social basis of inclusion, applied namely by tests and contracts, but leaves quite an important gap in discussion. By ignoring the social basis of integration, this ideology fails to even attempt to understand why “home” and “belonging” are things that must be protected and prioritized. Nationalism - by virtue - connects directly to immigration and sovereignty, and it sticks to these ideologies because of its inability to provide answers to a wide array of social issues. Thus, nationalism offers varying justification of national belonging and exclusion (Hutchins & Halikiopoulou, 2020). This fluid existence of nationalism is perhaps why it is so undefinable, and in the same breath, why it is so harmful to migration. Erez (2020) argues that nationalism is inherently in tension with the “rights of recognition for ethnic, religious and national minorities” (pg. 495). How do multiple national identities fit into the mix? Immigrant allegiance, multiculturalist versus multinationalist, ethnicity and law, all are structures that influence belonging, and more ambiguous implications such as attachment and loyalty. There is no shortage of literature that discusses national identities/citizenship, countries that recognize dual citizenship and countries that do not, and immigration laws and policies, but there remains a lack of discussion about why all of this matters. Why is nationalism such a sacred ideology that must be protected by way of ever changing migration policies and legislative responses? What are we holding onto? Moldovan and Mihaescu (2018) address the ambiguity of nationalism, and note that nationalism, ethnicity, religion and culture all may be more of a “historical memory” rather than something concrete. For Moldovan and Mihaescu (2020) nationalism promotes rooted identities, and, as they argue, perhaps has been generally defined by historical religious input, in that the “national earth is holy by religion of the history of a people and is interwoven with the history of the followers of this religion” (pg. 36). Yet again, we are still left with no idea of what these “rooted identities” are. Why do we think “home” is “home”?

Moving back to migration, it is important to conceptualize the idea of movement and why it is viewed as a threat to home and nation. If everybody moves, and no one remains stagnant, when does movement become migration and whose movement counts as migration? Whose movement do nation states care about most? Ultimately, literature in this realm has decided that in political discourse, a migrant is a person whose movement, or presence, is the threat to nation. Anderson (2019) gets down to the meat and potatoes of this all, and notes that the general consensus for nations is that migrants are subordinate to citizens, which she explains in three ways: immigration status matters, nationalism matters to how we define ourselves and how we define who belongs, and the state constructs economic relations, law and policy, and encourages behaviour in very material ways. Nation encourages nationals to assimilate - in a way - because keeping everyone the same is the only way to protect what we perceive a nation to be. So when migrants “move” and cling to home-states, there is a threat to this assimilation. How can we all be yellow if someone blue comes in and makes us green?

I can not help but wonder if nationalism is a facade; a symbol for something else. On face value, nationalism does not seem so bad. It is displaying a flag on the front of your house, or celebrating national holidays, eating certain foods, reciting national anthems at school. But what is the underlying motivation of nationalism? Are we really “protecting” a nation and our nationhood or are we protecting preconceived beliefs of the “others” and the “movers” under the more acceptable veil of nationalism. Is nationalism still concerned with the mere preservation of language, culture, ethnicity, or has nationalism become more bureaucratic and allegiant in nature? Remember how we discussed that civic nationalism - at face value - did not sound all that bad? This is a really important point to remember. Ethnic nationalism favours normativity and adheres to preconceived nations of what normativity is. Ethic nationalism (you may know this as “racism”) benefits from the “good cop” notion of civic nationalism - because what could be so horrible about protecting your nation, right? Ethnic nationalism use civic nationalism to cover up the fact that their narrative is racist and anti-migrant in nature, because of the way we have conceptualized civic nationalism (as ethnic nationalism has been associated with the worst excesses of abuse of state power and intolerance, whereas civic forms have been associated with positive, liberal values. Fozdar and Low (2015) make sense of the confusing mess of nationalism and exclusion beautifully:

“At the heart of nationalism as a political project, whatever form it takes, is a logic that tends toward exclusion. There must after all always be people who are not part of a nation, the nation is always framed with the presumption of the existence of the outsider, the other, against which the nation is itself defined and constructed.” (pg. 525). 

This problem of the “other” is what nationalist/migrant research has been focused on over the past decade or so. Because this is so vague, there is a slippage between ethnic and civic values, which are often hidden behind liberal ideologies of inclusiveness and who belongs and who does not. If your belonging is not clear, do you still identify with home? And vice versa? If you are “homeless”, where do you belong? If you migrate to a new nation, where do you belong? Is “home” where you are grounded or is it more of an abstract, fluid and undefinable “feeling”? If we construct a nation based on the exclusion of “others”, then what are we protecting if a nation is not defined by who is inside, but rather by who is outside? Thinking about all of this is especially important now, in a global pandemic where where “home” may not always be somewhere that you can easily get to. In the midst of this pandemic, reimagining belonging matters. Why do we place so much meaning upon notions that are so vague and arbitrary? With the rise of right wing populism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and heightened fear of “others”, we need to redefine what it means to belong. I began this summary with a quote from Anastasia Tataryn’s book Law, Migration and Precarious Labour. This revelation, that our relationships with others forms society in a way that artificial and abstract concepts (nationalism, law, politics, etcetera) can simply not, is such an important consideration to keep in mind as we attempt at redefining what it means to belong.

By Chloe Madison Talarico. 2021. All rights reserved.

Sources

Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2020). FASCISM AND RIGHT-WING POPULISM Similarities, Differences, and New Organizational Forms. In Enough already!: A socialist feminist response to the re-emergence of right wing populism and fascism in media (pp. 32–60). essay, Brill Sense. 

Anderson, B. (2019). New directions in migration studies: towards methodological de-nationalism. Comparative Migration Studies, 7(1), 1–13. 

Béland, D. (2019). Right-Wing Populism and the Politics of Insecurity: How President Trump Frames Migrants as Collective Threats. Political Studies Review, 18(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919865131 

Dikici, E. (2020). Immigration-nationalism-religion nexus: remaking 21st century Western Europe Globalisation of nationalism: the motive-force behind 21st century politics, edited by Liah Greenfeld, Colchester, ECPR Press, 2016, 297 pp., 65.00 pound (hardback), ISBN 978-1785522147. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(13), 2427–2434. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1762908

Erez, L. (2020). Liberal nationalism, immigration, and the problem of multiple national identities. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 23(4), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2018.1479816

Fozdar, F., & Low, M. (2015). “They have to abide by our laws … and stuff”: ethnonationalism masquerading as civic nationalism: Ethno-civic nationalism. Nations and Nationalism, 21(3), 524–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12128

Hutchins, R. D., & Halikiopoulou, D. (2020). Enemies of liberty? Nationalism, immigration, and the framing of terrorism in the agenda of the Front National. Nations and Nationalism, 26(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12555

Larin, S. J. (2020). Is it really about values? Civic nationalism and migrant integration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1591943 

Moldovan, I. D., & Mihaescu, A. (2018). STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN NATIONALISM - MIGRATION AND INSECURITY. Research and Science Today, 16(2), 33–42.
Nowicka, M. (2020). (Dis)connecting migration: transnationalism and nationalism beyond connectivity. Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00175-4