Moderator

Ana Velitchkova, University of Mississippi

Panelists

Olga Shevchenko, Williams College;

Andreas Wimmer, Columbia University

Xiaohong Xu, University of Michigan

On March 1, 2023, the Culture Section of the American Sociological Association held a live discussion themed “Belligerent Nationalism in Big Power Politics,” as the second event of this year’s Culture and Contemporary Life Series. Ana Velitchkova (University of Mississippi) moderated the discussion. Olga Shevchenko (Williams College), Andreas Wimmer (Columbia University), and Xiaohong Xu (University of Michigan) participated as panelists.

You can watch the recording of this event on YouTube. Here are highlighted remarks from the discussion.

The first question focused on how we could better understand the contemporary practices of violence in the name of the nation especially in the case of Big Powers, which was represented by the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. It also questioned what are some significant manifestations of Belligerent Nationalism today. Olga Schevchenko addressed Benedict Anderson’s definition of a nation as an imagined community and sees belligerence as an answer to deny legitimacy of the overlap between this community and territory. She raised an interesting question about how we should see the relationship between nationalism and imperialism. Schevchenko also drew attention to the state and highlighted diverse forms of violence. She argued that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine can be seen as a way to distract or redirect the focus of attention from internal political or economic problems. Xiaohong Xu denied that belligerent nationalism should be seen as a natural expression of geopolitics. He pointed out that in history, the change of power status did not always lead to heightened nationalism. Andreas Wimmer agreed with Xu’s argument and added that today grand political ideology has fallen apart, and the old framing of the opposition between liberalism and communism does not work as well. Nationalism is a legacy narrative of the era of the Big Power rivalry.

The second question was about how the contemporary socio-political context influences belligerent nationalism. Xiaohong Xu suggested that four theories can help answer this question: (1) Lenin’s theory that capital competition amidst declining profitability could lead to heightened tensions and even conflict between big powers; (2) Polanyi argued that Fascism is a society’s counter-movement in a pathological form as a response to the erosion led by the market, war, and conflict are two of such pathological forms; (3) Gramsci’s theory that the alignment between the state elites,  and social conservative classes or paramilitary groups tend to rely on violence to reinforce its existence; (4) and Benedict Anderson’s communication revolution theory, which highlights people’s need to use violence to feel connected to a larger imagined community. Xu also called attention to the relationship between nativism and nationalism in past decades. Andreas Wimmer addressed the shift from empire to nation-states, during which anti-imperial, belligerent nationalism was usually framed in ethnopolitical terms such as the citizenship. Wimmer argued that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is part of the last wave of this transition regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. He also argued that belligerent nationalism is influenced by both neo-nationalism in today’s multi-polar world and the insecurity, precarity, and downward mobility brought about by economic globalization. Olga Schevchenko seconded Wimmer’s point and added that the Russia-Ukraine war reflects the traumas of the 1990s and the post-Cold War frustrations with the unfulfilled promises of democracy. She gestured to Mitchell A. Orenstein’s argument in the book Taking Stock of Shock that the post-socialist transition has been more significant than the Great Depression. It took the economy 17 years to recover from the 1989-level of production, which fueled the resentment and the nationalist turn, as well as the rise of authoritarian populism and xenophobia in countries, to be externalized and reorientated towards the “collective West”.

The third question was about culture: How does the culture of nationalism play a role in the resurgence of belligerent nationalism? Andreas Wimmer contends that certain nationalisms have embedded narratives of victimization by maligning foreign powers and memories of national trauma. These narratives provide the fertile ground for belligerent nationalism because they justify war-mongering sacrifice to redress the “wrongs” in the past. Olga Schevchenko suggested that there are at least two forms of nationalist culture in Russia, including the recognizably exclusive ethnic constructions of “Russianness” and an expansionist imperialism that does not target any particular territory. Xiaohong Liu talked about the gendered victimization discourse that framed the nation as a “mother” being violated by an external power. These discourses reflect insecure masculinity in the face of rising feminism.

The last question was about the panelists’ opinions on how de-escalation, as well as cultural and institutional resources, can be managed and mobilized to counter belligerent nationalism. Olga Schevchenko used the Russia-Ukraine war to indicate that de-escalation may not be a fair option. She also pointed out that the current national citizen political attitude survey in Russia does not provide a solid measurement for belligerent nationalism. In her opinion, some forms of professional solidarities can cut across boundaries of national belonging. Xiaohong Xu argued that the redistributed politics would help address the economic barriers experience by the marginalized, working-class people, and would hopefully build up the bottom-up civic life which has been declining when the extreme form of nationalism is rising. He agreed that internationalism and a highlight of the common challenges, such as climate change and the feminist revolution, can help curb belligerent nationalism. Xu also mentioned the possibility of democratic regulation to curb the externalization of nationalism on social media. Andreas Wimmer shared his reflections on his earlier point of victimization nationalism and argued that the “victors” nationalism is also significant, which motivates people to go to war. Regarding the question of how to counter belligerent nationalism, he suggested three major pathways: (1) constructing a social world with chances for upward social mobility or at least curbing the downward mobility, which basically drains the pool of voters from which neo-nationalists draw their support; (2) recognizing the legitimate security interests of rising powers including Russia and China, with a balance with the demands for self-determinations of smaller States and minorities; (3) Establishing a non-belligerent form of nationalism.

Two questions were raised in the Q&A session, where panelists discussed their opinions about the relationship between the authorities and the minorities within a nation, and the apocalyptic narratives in the popular mobilization for War, which is stated in Philip Smith’s book Why War.

The following CCL event was scheduled on Apr 17th at 1 pm central time, with the theme of “Theodicy and the Problem of Meaning”. We will have a report on this panel in our next issue.

Bios of Participants

Dr. Olga Shevchenko is Paul H. Hunn ’55 Professor in Social Studies at Williams College and does research on the issues of memory, photography, culture, and consumption in post-socialist Russia. Her forthcoming book, In Visible Presence: Soviet Afterlives in Family Photos (MIT Press, 2023), co-authored with Oksana Sarkisova, looks at Soviet-era domestic photo archives as moving targets of the Russian state’s memory politics, as well as points of contestation and possibility for the generational and individual efforts to grapple with the past.

Dr. Andreas Wimmer is Lieber Professor of Sociology and Political Philosophy at Columbia University. His research brings a long-term historical and globally comparative perspective to the questions of how states are built and nations formed, how racial and ethnic hierarchies form or dissolve in the process, and when this will result in conflict and war.

Dr. Xiaohong Xu is Assitant Professor at the University of Michigan. His research lies in the intersection of comparative historical sociology, cultural sociology, and political economy. He has investigated and published on patterns of contention in revolutionary China as well as state formation in early modern Europe. His current research focuses on the dynamics of politicization and depoliticization in modern China, ranging from the Communist revolution to the prodemocracy protests in contemporary Hong Kong.

Dr. Ana Velitchkova is Assistant Professor of Sociology & International Studies at the University of Mississippi. She is a global sociologist with an interest in theory. Her mixed-method research covers three areas: 1) Transnational social movements, civil society, and community; 2) Violence; and 3) Citizenship, global inequality, and migration.