Читайте также:
|
The nationalism concept in the western political science was widely discussed, and it isn't always understood strictly positively or negatively, it more versatile also can develop, change, transform. The nationalism can be defined differently. It is considered that it treats both ideas, and feelings and actions. Proceeding from works of foreign scientists, it is possible to draw a conclusion that understand both national consciousness, and the national organization, and development as nationalism. Anthony Smith defines nationalism as "the ideological movement for achievement and maintenance of an autonomy, unity and an originality" when the nationalism is ideology of the nation, but not the states in general. He claims that the nationalism, first of all, represents the cultural doctrine, to be exact, political ideology which main idea is the cultural doctrine. Keduri, the follower of tool approach to nationalism who is opposed to so-called basic approach, defines nationalism as the doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the XIX century. Gelner declares that the nationalism "creates the nations where they don't exist", and adds that it is the political principle which assumes coincidence of political and national units. Bendikt Anderson, also the adherent of tool approach, considers the nations as the imagined communities though he disagrees with Gelner who "so seeks to expose false claims of nationalism that doesn't distinguish the terms "create" and "invent" (Anderson B.) Haas considers that the nationalism is a convergence of territorial and political loyalty, out of independence of the competing centers of accessory – like relationship, a profession, religion, economic interest, race, or even language (Haas). Gelner considers the nationalist principle as ethical and universal concept. It is not vainglorious nationalism as it it calls, and as the doctrine it can be supported good arguments, such as desire to keep cultural diversity, pluralism of the international political system and aspiration to reduce internal tension within the states (Gelner, 1983: 1-2). It and other definitions are neutral in their features. And though Gelner continues that the nationalism not always was so "is delightful is rational", is neutral and universal, I am inclined to believe that in general the nationalism in the western science is defined as the term moderated and accepted, and his extreme forms of manifestation – as a deviation from this rather neutral understanding. Recent changes in understanding of nationalism. The last understanding of modern nationalism is connected with unequal economic development and identified as ideology of economic modernization therefore it is considered as one of nationalism options, that is nationalism economic. According to William E. Rappard, the economic nationalism doesn't seek to make the contribution to welfare and richness of the nation concerning growth of her independence of foreign influence. Therefore economic nationalism it is simple policy of national independence (Coffman). Modern Western scientists distinguish some types of nationalism. I agree with the statement of Hull that... there is no only, universal theory of nationalism, however it is possible to create certain the "second plan" outlining all various types of ideas of nationalism (Hull). Some scientists studying the nationalism phenomenon offered various classifications. Rogovsky, for example, allocates the following types of nationalism: the radical nationalism – is followed by a social revolution; the nationalism of the hegemonist – pursues assimilation of the lowest cultures; the protective nationalism – led by traditional elite, seeks to keep traditional culture; the conservative nationalism – is interested in achievement of wider autonomy; and the operated nationalism – led by elite to distinguish from not elite. Bryulli distinguishes the separatist, the building of the nation and association of national-isms. It is impossible to tell that this or that of these ways defined nationalism correctly or incorrectly. They simply different. Hutchinson, considers only two, but absolutely different and places even inconsistent types of nationalism: political and cultural. The nationalism neutrality in understanding of the western political science distinguishes him from understanding of nationalism in the Soviet political science.
83. The proble and perspectives or the ethno-antlo relations in port communist states At the heart of all Harris's work is the relationship between thnic andor national identity and politics Initially, her focus was on the relationship between majorities and minorities in the newly democratising post-communist states. While continuing to work on the relationship between democratisation and nationalism in Eastern and Central Europe, she is increasingly more involved in exploring identity related issues within the EU and beyond the state. In her latest book Nationalism Theories and Cases (EUR 2009), she questioned the relevance of traditional approaches to nationalism in view of new developments, such as the role of diasporas and other trans-national forms of collective identities, various forms of citizenships and general internationalisation of interethnic relations. Her latest research examines the methodologies with which we study ethnic politics, namely the scale and political consequences of the interplay between chno-national majorities (kin-state), their ethnic kin outside the home state (Diaspora) and nationalisms of host nation-states. The focus is on how partial citizenship an the definition of the nation in Eastern and Central Europe which in its borderless historically but non territorially bound character fast escaping thee well-established dichotomies between easiewf ethnic and western civic nations and indicates more complex Internationalised multi. ethnic nationstate and corresponding citizenship At the same time she is trying to draw sons kom geopolitics in and Central l me ar apply toother pans of the world, namely the Middle.
84. Foreign Policy in the Traditional Society (slavery, feudalism):
interaction of social strata and structures in the struggle for participation in foreign affairs of the state was expressed more quickly than in national affairs
foreign policy was considered as an exclusive prerogative of the supreme power, the sphere of activity of a lord or a relatively narrow group of people, participating in government
the states aspired to realize their influence through interstate relations, offering alliances(patronage and protection), playing off one people against another(on the principle of “divide and rule”), tries to manipulate by more or less secret means.
Дата добавления: 2015-02-16; просмотров: 100 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |