Think of England - what do you see in your mind’s eye? Rolling landscapes, villages, warm beer and you lazily lounging on the green at a local cricket match on a Sunday afternoon? Or think of Scotland - do you see mountains, eagles, wilderness, deer and mist rolling into the glen? Reality of course is somewhat different. Those things which symbolise Scotland, are a daily reality only for a tiny portion of the population. The same applies in England as in Scotland, over 90% of the population live in crowded cities or very large towns. In Scotland over 80% of the people live in a small fraction of the country known as the Central belt which spreads ugly between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Reality is a pressurised, crowded existence and whilst the symbols which represent both Scotland and England express freedom, space, peace and unity, it is a state of reality achievable only by an elite few or that small percentage who still choose the rural option.

The symbols of most modern nations are largely forged and necessarily so, as nations themselves have to be forged. Politicians have always been aware that ‘difference can cause discord’ and that discord assists social unrest, (which in turn threatens social control), it’s in the interests of a nation for the politicians to appeal to powerful, benevolent, proud, strong unifying symbols - the flag of the nation (arguably the most potent symbol of all being just one example). This is not to say the nations themselves have no justification in identifying and aligning themselves with certain symbols. Take the United States of America for example - I’m not an American and yet when I think of the USA I think in the first instance of a homogenous, unified people who would instantly recognise and rally round the symbols of their nation - Freedom, Democracy, Peace, Justice. Or at least I used to.

The United States is composed of 50 States and one Federal District; all of which have their own unique identity, people, local culture, laws, history of development and of course landscape. It’s a huge responsibility unifying such a diverse group and powerful unifying symbols are necessary. One of the things which made America truly great was that it claimed as its own some of the most powerful and yet ethereal symbols right from the beginning - peace, freedom, justice and democracy. Try arguing against any of those! But it is an interactive process - every nation has has to at least nominally accomodate the ideals those symbols represent. It’s why the majority of Scots will still symbolise Scotland with Eagles (something which the majority of people have never even seen but they do exist in Scotland), mountains (where only a tiny fraction of the population ever go, but again they are there should they choose to do so). In America’s case (regardless of what detractors will tell you) historically they really did try to represent freedom, democracy, justice and peace in the vast majority of their foreign policy. Where justice and freedom was concerned however, domestic policy was somewhat different (and still is) - just ask a native American or a Black person. However the notion that America represented the powerful symbols outlined above was enough to unify the majority, and at the end of the day that’s enough for the politicians to continue appealing to those symbols again and again.

Is it really the politicians who create this imagined landscape? It’s worth noting that during the Cold War, we in the west could conceptualise the Eastern Bloc nations as dark foreboding places, there was no joy in the East, oppressive regimes ruled (which was true politically) but this translated into the symbols we associated with those nations. East Germany for example was a heartless concrete landscape where no sun shone through the toxic clouds spewing from the heavily industrialised badlands. Now East and West have kissed and made up, slowly but surely the symbols in our minds are changing - Poland, Czeckoslovakia, Hungary and Russia to name a few are now home to breathtakingly beautiful cathedrals, churches, resorts, they have vibrant cities, historical treasures and more. Thing is, they always did have. All that has changed is the political landscape. So who was telling us otherwise thoughout the Cold War? I’m comfortable citing politicians as the source of the symbology we identify nations with.

Greater minds than mine have argued that nations are such a fictitious creation that none can define themeslves by setting out who and what they are, a Nation defines itself by who and what they are not. Scots are not English, the French are not German, Americans are not Canadians and so the pattern repeats itself the world over. Nations when looked at under the microscope are internally fragmented and typified by difference - shared, unifying symbology is essential for keeping the majority, however tentatively, recognising a greater ‘whole’ to which they belong. Britain stretched it’s territorial boundaries outwards and claimed half the world as its own, it over-reached itself because with every new culture, new race, new people it claimed for itself, new customs were brought on board, new languages, new practises, and inventing symbology to unify the whole became more and more problematic. Every new possession diluted the power of the unifying symbology - until only naked aggression was left as a means of control and legitimation, and that road leads to ruin. The good folks of the nations we oppressed had their own defining symbols and they never matched up with that of the British.

On this idea of symbology not matching reality - I indicated earlier that the USA has forever been associated with peace, freedom, justice and democracy. Indeed when I think of the America I love - it’s precisely how I conceptualise it. And yet I know currently America does not fit with that symbology. The actions of its Government over the last 8 years have flatly contradicted those lofty ideals. There is a real danger that as Americans suffer a kind of dissonance when trying to match its actions against it’s symbols, that patriotism will falter. They may well re-define themselves and quite how I’m not sure but it’s a worrying thought. They may do so along lines of State, Race, religion - I really don’t know, and I don’t know because the symbology which unified America held a vast range of competing and different people together. Arguably more ‘difference’ is locked inside the USA than any nation on earth. The unifying symbols had to be amongst the most powerful on earth - and what can be more powerful, more unifying than peace, democracy, justice and freedom? Lest I be misunderstood I should point out that that George W Bush could have cited any number of political reasons for engaging Americans in the war in Iraq or for constructing Guantanomo bay, but he didn’t cite political reasons, he cited moral reasons which were inextricably entwined with the very symbols that represent America . He forgot that all nations are forged, all nation states are states of mind upon whose continued existence the symbology must be aspired to and that the counterfeit offered has to, at the very least, resemble the real thing .

Ben

Share this article:

Close this WindowBookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments