Home / Reviving Mazzinianism / Democratic Nationality
Democratic Nationality
The real cornerstone of Mazzinianism, and what makes it distinct from other political doctrines, is democratic nationality. For Mazzini, democratic nationality was a solution to the problem of the modern age: how to make collective political action effective without it devolving into tyranny or inaction. For him, democratic nationality provided the solution that allowed for the individual to act for the common good without his own suppression.
The Mazzinian Dilemma
The best introduction to the Mazzinian idea of democratic nationality is to first introduce what I've dubbed the "Mazzinian Dilemma." Although this is not a term usually associated with Mazzini's arguments for democratic nationality, I think it works as a way to describe the principal problem of the modern age (particularly during the 19th century) when it came to the compatibility of right versus action.
This dilemma is illustrated in Mazzini's essay Humanity and Country (1836), where he highlights the main issues of the two most important doctrines of the age: cosmopolitan liberalism on one side and socialism on the other. The dilemma aims to point out that, while both doctrines have the aim of progress towards the universalization of rights, neither adequately presents a practical path forward toward realizing this universalization, which he called "Humanity."
For Mazzini, there is a choice presented between two paths represented by both doctrines. On one side, represented by liberal cosmopolitanism, individuality is central and is the force that is to bring about this universalization of rights. On the other side, represented by socialism, association (as he called it, but also "society" or the "collective") is the force to bring it about instead.
Mazzini, however, viewed this binary choice as choosing between two paths that would both ultimately lead to an unsatisfactory result. Neither would be capable of achieving justice for those who had little, granting them rights without the means of exercising them. On the other hand, if a political doctrine only emphasized association, the result would be the repression of individual rights and the rule of a tyrannical system, either through despotism or bureaucracy:
"The two terms individuality and association need to be harmonized within every state. This is the real problem for which the nineteenth century has been seeking a solution. Every political doctrine that departs from this approach to pursue its own path, and every organization that suppresses one of these two concepts for the sake of the other, will sooner or later result in either anarchy or tyranny."
－Humanity and Country (1836)
While it's true that cosmopolitan liberalism and socialism can have a mixture of both ideas, especially during the time of Mazzini's activism (and continuing today), these two principles are diametrically opposed to one another.
So, while liberal cosmopolitanism could emphasize some elements of society and tradition and value them as important, the end of the doctrine would be the free exercise of individual rights above all other values. Likewise with socialism, while individual liberty and rights could be important—and in many instances the main goal of the revolution—socialists emphasized the submission of individual interests to the interests of the group.
In the quote above, Mazzini alludes to his solution to the dilemma. For him, the problem was not either individuality or association on their own. He was a strong believer in individual rights as well as social action at the same time. So, rather than rejecting one or the other, Mazzini believed in their harmonization; that is, finding a way in which the two concepts could act in tandem with one another in order to avoid the perils of the dilemma. For Mazzini, this way was his idea of democratic nationality.
The Problem of Liberal Cosmopolitanism
Mazzini was not generally opposed to liberal cosmopolitanism. Indeed, he himself argued that he was on the side of the aims of other liberal cosmopolitans, particularly when it came to the sacredness of individual rights and economics. His political ideas had a strong Kantian resonance, as argued by Nadia Urbinati in her essay, "The Legacy of Kant: Giuseppe Mazzini's Cosmopolitanism of Nations."
However, for Mazzini, cosmopolitanism posed a problem for another reason. Given cosmopolitanism's focus on Humanity as an end and its belief that there is no other value that should interfere with that end, the cosmopolitan finds themselves reliant on the "isolated individual" to effect political change. This was essentially the problem with a specifically liberal cosmopolitanism:
“Every organization that is to concretely affect reality requires a starting point and a goal. To operate effectively, every lever needs both a pivot on which to rest and an object to be raised or moved. For us, the end is humanity; the pivot, or point of support, is the country. I freely admit that for Cosmopolitans, the end is also humanity; but their pivot or point of support is man, the isolated individual. Therein lies almost all the difference between us and the Cosmopolitans, but it is a major difference.”
While it is true you may avoid tyranny in making individual rights the end of your political doctrine, it is also true that once these individual rights have been enshrined in a constitution and protected by the state, the purpose of the individual's wider political action is limited to their exercise. In other words, where individual rights have been achieved, there is nothing left to fight for.
Mazzini believed this represented an inconsistency in the cosmopolitan liberal doctrine. Standing "alone at the center of an immense circle that extends around him," the cosmopolitan liberal can only rely on his own individual capabilities to bring about progress. So while they might argue for the spread of liberty and individual rights around the world, faced with the enormity of the task, the cosmopolitan liberal "can choose between only two paths: inaction or despotism."
The Problem of Socialism
Given the enormity of the task for the individual to transform Humanity alone, and the impossibility of it ever coming about through peaceful means, the latter path—that of despotism—is ultimately chosen by the socialists. In the desire to bring about social change and with nothing to bridge the distance between the individual and progress for humanity, they opt for a utopian (as opposed to a progressive) vision by which violent suppression becomes a necessity:
[The Cosmopolitan] attempts to replace real personal strength, which he lacks, with a borrowed and usurped strength. He either develops or simply adopts from others the idea of a social Utopia, and he thinks that by relying on logical deduction and a priori reasoning alone, he can lead humanity toward this goal. Now, by relying on exactly this type of reasoning, Saint-Simonianism and communism have reached the following conclusion: namely, that the liberty of each should be violated in the name of the well-being of all."
Mazzini saw this road to tyranny best reflected in Marx's communism. In the suppression of individual liberties, and particularly on so sectarian a line as class, Mazzini saw no other result of communism other than "inequality and the oppression of the many." He regarded any idea of progress in social thinking to be "spoiled, nullified... by the wrong and tyrannical methods through which they sought to apply them in practice." Moreover, he argued that, rather than being a case for the progress of mankind, socialism "condemns society to petrification, by depriving it of all mobility and opportunity for progress," which was representative of its utopianism.
In conclusion, the Mazzinian Dilemma highlights that neither the path of pure individuality nor pure association could satisfactorily lead to the progress of humanity. With their cosmopolitan beliefs whereby they both cast nationality aside, liberalism and socialism fail to account for the immensity of the task for the individual alone and lack a tangible support from which a single person could pull themselves up to work towards the rest of the world.
Harmonization, Not Blending
In response to the dilemma, Mazzini believed there ought to be some bridge connecting the individual to humanity. Rather than relying on the individual to act alone and fall into political inaction, or violating individual rights for the interests of a group, he believed that the issue lay in where the "starting point" should be. There needed to be a tangible place that provided the individual with a realistic place from which to act, as well as somewhere that embodied a communal feeling of love and duty. This, for him, was achievable only where one could harmonize the principles of individuality and association.
This harmonization did not mean a "blending" of the two concepts or finding some sort of "mean" between the two. In other words, it didn't mean that there needed to be a balance between the right amount of individuality with the right amount of society and that the task was finding this right balance. This is often the mistake of modern-day social democracy. Neither was it about mixing them together, like in most strains of communitarianism. Instead, this harmonization required taking both individuality and association as principles in their own right.
Harmonization, then, means the following: individuals, in their full rights and individuality, participate in association through their own will without the need to suppress anyone else's individual right to do so. They act freely and together and thus recognize that it may require them to act for the common good (through duties), thus the principle of association being effectively satisfied. Both of these principles are combined, with the principle of individuality preserved in its fullest and the principle of association maintained.
In order for this harmonization to take place, there needed to be a starting point where an individual could participate in association and towards humanity, and that would act as a bridge between the two. And this, for Mazzini, was democratic nationality.
From Herder to Mazzini
Though Mazzini despised the German idealists (and especially Hegel), he appreciated the contributions to literature and philosophy by the German romantics, particularly Goethe and Herder. While Goethe was particularly influential on his work in literary criticism, Herder's philosophy and romanticism played a formative part in his development of democratic nationality.
Herder on Language and Nationalities
One of his most famous ideas that Herder developed in his Treatise on the Origin of Language (1772) was his development of language as the medium or "organ of thought" (Die Sprache ist das Organ der Gedanken). He believed that different languages shaped our cognitive processes and expression. Most importantly, he developed a cultural and linguistic conception of nationality that challenged the traditional notions of geography and ethnicity. Indeed, in his Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Humanity, he attacks racial or ethnic conceptions of the nation.
Portrait of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803)For Herder, this linguistic and cultural diversity in humanity were expressions of the different characters and personalities of peoples, and nationalities were distinctively a bottom-up phenomenon. He championed a pluralistic cosmopolitanism that celebrated national differences but did not advocate for stringent national divides, but rather for an egalitarian respect for all nationalities, opposing simultaneously chauvinism and homogenizing globalization. The idea of nationality was represented in Herder's concept of Volkgeist (national spirit), which essentially meant the sum of the creative expression of a given people: myth, folklore, poetry, literature, customs, traditions, and culture in general were all examples of a Volkgeist.
Herder's more holistic approach to the nation is quite often interpreted apolitically; however, his philosophy of the Volkgeist and his views on language did shape his political opinions. Given his belief in language as an essential part of individual expression, he strongly favored freedom of expression and civil liberties, providing the Volkgeist with an organic setting to grow and develop. Herder was also critical of multinational states and empires, denying that a ruler could accurately interpret a people's interest if they were of a different nation.
However, Herder focused on the nation and nationality in its pre-political factors and did not advocate for the nation as a good in itself. Instead, Herder offered a profound insight into the way that humanity was constituted with an organic cosmopolitanism that was the same for each individual.
A Difference Between Nation and Nationality
While neither Mazzini nor Herder made this distinction, there is an implicit difference between the way the two thinkers interpreted the relationship between the nation and humanity. Herder, as we have already mentioned, focused almost entirely on the pre-political factors that made the nation and how it was related to the individual's own consciousness. Mazzini, on the other hand, was generally less interested in these pre-political factors and concentrated on how the nation could serve as a political principle, as we will see in more detail below.
This as a distinction between the more value-neutral and descriptive (but no less spiritual) concept of nationality on one side, and the political, moral principle of the nation on the other.
Nationality, as developed by Herder, is simply a description of the truth of human consciousness through language and that fact. There are nationalities because that is the way humanity is, and whether we regard them as politically important is up to the individual thinker. For instance, a Marxist or a liberal could fully buy into the fact that there are nationalities that are linguistic and cultural, but decide not to put any particular political emphasis on them. They are characteristics of humanity like differences in customs, but they do not mean anything in and of themselves.
The nation, on the other hand, is a political concept and a moral action. It is not a neutral concept, but something that is an independent action toward a moral end. However, this is where the connection between the two ideas comes in: the nation is the action of nationality and its actualization into the real world. It is where nationality ceases to be merely a description, but a creative and moral force for humanity. It is this development that makes Mazzini's contribution to the idea of the nation unique. For him, the nation, understood as this moral and political principle, becomes synonymous with the concept of democratic nationality itself.
An important caveat here is that the more Herderian aspect of nationality also recognizes the action of nationality for the Volkgeist. The linguistic and cultural expressions of a people are examples of this action coming into reality. However, Mazzini completes this by taking it to its full political potential.
Why Is the Nation Relevant Today?
The idea of the nation and nationality might seem archaic in today's political context. Moreover, the apocalyptic results of rampant nationalism during the early 20th century should have marked the tomb of any movement wishing to base itself on national sentiment. Even today, the populist/vulgarist movements and Putinist revanchism from Russia are looked at as backward, nostalgic, and violent, and completely disconnected from today's realities.
Our Cosmopolitan World
The march of globalization has created a new world, and with the emergence of large supranational organizations, such as the European Union, the world seems to have achieved the cosmopolitan dream in spite of Mazzini's warnings. We are now more interconnected by technology, with the whole idea of national borders and divisions seeming entirely risible today.
However, not every community, class, or group has been successfully integrated into this new cosmopolitan world. The points are often made about the global disparities between West and East with the rise of cheap labor and international consumerism; however, there is rarely much focus on the national disparities between those who have benefited from globalization and those who haven't.
In this setting, the Mazzinian nation stands as a middle way between isolationism and homogenizing cosmopolitanism. Democratic nationality provides the dignity for the individual to be seen as an equal before humanity because they too take part in their own historical mission, bringing trade and commerce down to the subordinate level of citizenship, rather than being considered above it.
Spiritual Unity Over Sectarian Identitarianism
Beyond offering a middle way in a globalized world, the Mazzinian concept of the nation is critically relevant today as a potential unifying factor against the increasing sectarianism of our societies. With the erosion of nationality due to commercialism, identities based on religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc., are becoming more dominant forms that people increasingly fall into. The issue is that these identities do not possess the same moral or democratic purpose as that of nationality. They are mostly material identities and have no greater ends other than their own vindication.
The Mazzinian nation supplies that spiritual unity and crucial meaningfulness for an individual, allowing them to engage in democratic debate and processes, based on mutual recognition. This does not require the negation of any identity, but the recognition that the shared common language represents something higher and more fundamental to Humanity as a whole.
Highest Form of Humanity
If the European Union's project has proven anything, it is that the march towards a multinational federation is not likely to succeed without force or coercion. Though there is a European federalist movement, the reality is, as Herder points out, a large bureaucracy in Brussels would be unlikely to understand the needs of each society, even if made up democratically.
The nation is the highest expression of Humanity that we can tangibly recognize. This does not mean that multiple nationalities cannot make a nation: Switzerland has four separate nationalities that all choose to form the Swiss nation. However, the nation represents this highest form of association because it is the freest, most democratic, and most organic expression of a collective moral purpose—one capable of harmonizing the individual with Humanity without requiring coercion to sustain it.
The Principle of Democratic Nationality
Ultimately, Mazzinian democratic nationality is a moral principle. It posits that the nation, understood as the free association of a people with a shared heritage and purpose, is the indispensable link between the individual and Humanity. It is not the aggressive, chauvinistic nationalism of dynasties, nor is it a mere sociological fact. Rather, it is a sacred duty and a political action—the only sphere in which individual liberty and collective association can be harmonized to work for a greater good. It is one of the fundamental pillars for reviving Mazzinianism.