Tapping into perceptions of national character

A post of mine got me thinking about this conception of international relations, and I wanted to expand on it and discuss it among friends.

Peoples often think of themselves, collectively, as having a particular heritage or "national character". Ideologues and despots often tap into that Zeitgeist to manipulate their people, but the concept goes way beyond that. Indeed, it sometimes hampers international relations.

I'll give some stereotypes to justify these assertions: Americans like to think of themselves as "rugged individualists" who conquered the continent and the markets through brash individualism; The UK has thrived by "keeping a stiff upper lip" - the one that once kept them "large and in charge" and got them through two world wars; Iranians like to think of themselves as master strategists, manipulating conditions to their advantage, and once controlled much of the middle East; Turks, too, remember wistfully the Ottoman Empire and also want control as they did then; Russians like stability and emotional control; Koreans have a storied history and have suffered from outside control through much of it.... I can go on, and y'all can disagree vehemently.

Nonetheless, I think it is important in international relations to recognize some of these predilections in order to better understand motivations for various actions. For example: North Korea's desire to be a hermit kingdom, and resistance to outside influence; Russian expansionism and nostalgia for it's two empires; Chinese defensive imperialism; Iranian meddling in it's neighbor's affairs; Turkish defensiveness and desire for ethnic purity.

Food for thought, and discussion.

Well reasoned, and I agree.

As long as we're cognizant as much as possible of the nation's citizens' current ethos, which might be different than the generally assumed character & ethos of previous years.

Nothing ever remains the same ...

NWRatCon said:

A post of mine got me thinking about this conception of international relations, and I wanted to expand on it and discuss it among friends.

....

Food for thought, and discussion.

Click to expand...

NWRatCon:

I believe you are right but I also think that you have only scratched the surface with respect to the role of stereotypes in international relations. First, the widely held stereotype of one's own nation skews how your nationals will tend to view the world and the priorities which your national representatives will push in dealing with the world. Second, the perceptions of one's nation of other cultures, nations and states will determine how your nation views other foreign states or nations and how your people and your governmental representatives will react to the actions or inactions of foreign states. This is all fully understandable but is fundamentally based on a foundation of belief which is irrational rather than rational.

Which brings us to the notion of myths. These stereotypes are often myths, unrooted in reality. The notion that Americans are rugged individualists, who conquered the continent and world markets through brash and bold decision-making is not really true. Yes, settlers moved west to carve new destinies out of a virgin land to build a new beginning for themselves and their descendants but that image has very little to do with the reality of the growth of America. The land they conquered was not virgin it was owned/occupied by indigenous peoples and sometimes by peoples of other European empires. What really drove America's growth was corporations (not necessarily business ones). These corporations were groups of people who joined together and set aside their rugged individualism in order to cooperate so as to move, settle and defend themselves as they clawed away lands and resources from understandably hostile indigenous peoples and foreign empires. These settlers formed communities, militias, fur-trading companies, cattlemen's associations, land speculation companies, railway companies, etc. in order to survive and prosper in the face of hostile resistance by the indigenous peoples and hostile foreign colonial powers and their populations. Generally the truly rugged individualists were overwhelmed and died while those who tapped into community survived and later prospered.

As the process continued and the USA grew, new corporations emerged like a dependable, federally controlled armed forces which became instrumental in suppressing indigenous and foreign imperial resistance to American expansion across the continent and stepped up the process of annexation of land and resources to the level of wars of expansion. The military is anything but an institution filled with rugged individualists. It is an authoritarian hierarchy with top-down command not unlike like the social and commercial corporations which previously shaped the development of America. Those military forces were then released upon the world as America made the overt decision to become an imperial power in the late 1880's and 1890's. From there authoritarian hierarchies like the military and US corporations led the way in carving out a nascent territorial empire. No individualism involved here either. The territorial empire gave way to a commercial empire (with lower costs) in the early 20th Century, but again nowhere was there room for rugged individualism.

So the notion of what an American is, is a myth and that mythology colours how Americans see and act towards other peoples. That mythology is not unique to America as all nations have national myths which determine national identity and state behaviour to some degree or other. It is these myths which often drive perceptions and too often inculcate nation-states with the ideological and cultural scaffolding needed to build perceptions and drives which realise into strong nation destinies and to spread such destinies to those who don't share them and who oppose them, leading to conflict between peoples and theirs national mythologies.

Unfortunately I am being called to make dinner now, so I will have to continue to blather on later.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

These national mythologies take on a life of their own and quickly stand in stark contrast to reality. Sticking with the American Identity myth, which if it was ever real is now a myth, we can see that modern-day Americans are anything but rugged individualists. Most Americans are employed by others and therefore are not self sufficient. Most Americans are urbanised and lack the skills and self-confidence to survive in a wilderness, not withstanding the urban wilderness which some American cities have become. Cut the power and the communications infrastructure, suspend water purification and sewage treatment, interrupt just in time food deliveries and a very high percentage of Americans will either die or become pack-predators in order to survive. No individualism here either.

America is, on paper, a republic and a representative democracy. This notion is engrained in American minds through family, through schooling and through media. But that is a myth too, for the most part. America is an oligarchy and a timocracy or plutocracy where money and influence of powerful social or economic factions carry more weight in policy making than the electorate's franchise to vote. Who can Americans vote for? Only candidates pre-selected by the two main parties if Americans want their vote to count. These Congressional and presidential candidates are usually selected by institutional Tweedism through the party control of nomination processes. Only when a somewhat homogeneous slate of candidates is chosen can voters make their choice of groomed and preselected candidates. That is the status of American Democracy today. But the national project of spreading democracy internationally persists and is driven by an anachronistic and mythical notion of democracy which has not existed in America for over a century. America starts wars and conflicts to spread the myth of democracy while it allows its own democracy to suffer at the hands of its own powerful political, economic and military elites.

Just as the impulse to spread democracy is based on a myth, so is the nature of democracy which America spreads throughout the world a myth. America spreads top-down or even authoritarian democracy rather than republic and truly representative democracy, because top-down managed democracy serves its commercial and hegemonic (imperial) objectives far more efficiently than the kind of disruptive democracy which exists in Iceland for example. When democracy moves in directions which American statesmen/stateswomen disapprove then the American state has no problem attacking such democracy. Egypt, Algeria and Italy are examples of this.

So again the myths of identity and the sacred cows of nation-state's culture and ideologies drive their foreign policy either as an honest effort to spread a national project to those beyond its borders or as a cynical smoke-screen to disable the domestic electorate from mobilising to block policy which is antithetical to the mythos but serves the interests of elites.

This kind of psycho-social analysis can be done for any state, not just for America. I have done it for America because most readers here are American. In almost all cases the identity, cultural and ideological/religious drivers which shape state policy are myths. Lies, half-truths or intentional distortion which many in a state have chosen to believe about themselves and their state in order to smooth over the less than savoury but neccessary self-service of advancing domestic, elite-driven interests and blocking foreign interests.

Identity politics make people feel better about themselves because they belong to a greater group and the myths of that group seem to make those who belong feel pride in their group and by extension themselves. We can see how this causes problems when the myths of identity groups clash with the myths of the wider state but the process and the results are the same on the international level - conflict, often violent conflict. States don't like to have their fundamental identity, cultural, ideological or religious beliefs/myths challenged and they will react, often violently, when such pillars of necessary illusion are challenged. The people of states are no different.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Chomsky said:

Well reasoned, and I agree.

As long as we're cognizant as much as possible of the nation's citizens' current ethos, which might be different than the generally assumed character & ethos of previous years.

Nothing ever remains the same ...

Click to expand...

I agree, and a strong enough personality can shape these perceptions. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower are three Americans that I think did so. As I think about it, FDR and JFK did, too. Each seized their moment to stamp a set of principles in the American psyche. There are similar figures in other nations - Churchill, for England; de Gaulle in France - some for good; others, not so much (think Hitler, Mao, Pinochet).

Evilroddy said:

I believe you are right but I also think that you have only scratched the surface with respect to the role of stereotypes in international relations.

....

Click to expand...

Friend, you leave a lot to chew on. I'll be back after I think about it some.

In order to be cogent in my response, I'm going to attempt to identify conceptions and respond accordingly. This is, by the way, exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped to foster:

Evilroddy said:

...
First, the widely held stereotype of one's own nation skews how your nationals will tend to view the world and the priorities which your national representatives will push in dealing with the world. Second, the perceptions of one's nation of other cultures, nations and states will determine how your nation views other foreign states or nations and how your people and your governmental representatives will react to the actions or inactions of foreign states. This is all fully understandable but is fundamentally based on a foundation of belief which is irrational rather than rational.

Click to expand...

Exactly, on all points. These perceptions are borne out in polling, and often what are "acceptable" national policies are reflective of how widely those perceptions pervade the polity. Not to digress, but I think the low approval rating of Congress and Trump are a result of the dissonance between national self-perception and policy choices represented by actions. It also explains the disparity between approval of Trump and his cabinet members.

Having opened this can of worms, I started looking for scholarly works on the subject of national self-conception. It turns out, there are a lot. I can't tap into them now, but I expect you'll see references to them shortly.

But, I think you've identified some of the points I was perseverating over when I started this thread. "National mythos" is a good term to apply to it. And it also colors our perceptions of allies and enemies. More to follow.

NWRatCon said:

I agree, and a strong enough personality can shape these perceptions. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower are three Americans that I think did so. As I think about it, FDR and JFK did, too. Each seized their moment to stamp a set of principles in the American psyche. There are similar figures in other nations - Churchill, for England; de Gaulle in France - some for good; others, not so much (think Hitler, Mao, Pinochet).

Click to expand...

Well said, and you named some great men! Churchill is a personal hero of mine. And, who does't like Ike?

Chomsky said:

Well said, and you named some great men! Churchill is a personal hero of mine. And, who does't like Ike?

Click to expand...

Chomsky:

I know it's a tangent but while I have great respect and fondness for Gen./Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. Churchill was a very complicated man with a very dark side when it came to colonialism, the laws of war and people he saw as challenging the status quo power structures of the British Empire. Eisenhower was a good and great man. Churchill was just a great man who harmed many (millions at times) to win his greatness. Mr. Churchill was certainly the more fascinating one of the pair in my opinion, but monsters often are more fascinating than normal men.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Chomsky:

I know it's a tangent but while I have great respect and fondness for Gen./Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. Churchill was a very complicated man with a very dark side when it came to colonialism, the laws of war and people he saw as challenging the status quo power structures of the British Empire. Eisenhower was a good and great man. Churchill was just a great man who harmed many (millions at times) to win his greatness. Mr. Churchill was certainly the more fascinating one of the pair in my opinion, but monsters often are more fascinating than normal men.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

I'm not intimately familiar with Churchill, but am aware he was quite flawed. Obviously much of what we see of Churchill involves his leadership during the War, and for that I give him credit. "Hero" might have been a bit strong of a term, but I admire his courage.