Search results
Nationalism has reasserted itself today as the political force of our times, remaking European politics wherever one looks. Britain is no exception, and in the midst of Brexit, it has even become a vanguard of nationalism's confident return to the mainstream. Brexit, in the course of generating a historically unique standard of sociopolitical uncertainty and constitutional intrigue, tore apart the two-party compact that had defined the parameters of political contestation for much of twentieth-century Britain. This book offers a wide-ranging picture of the different theoretical accounts relevant to addressing nationalism. It briefly repudiates the increasingly common attempts to read contemporary politics through the lens of populism. The book explores the assertion of 'muscular liberalism' and civic nationalism. It examines more traditional, conservative appeals to racialised notions of blood, territory, purity and tradition as a means of reclaiming the nation. The book also examines how neoliberalism, through its recourse to discourses of meritocracy, entrepreneurial self and individual will, alongside its exaltation of a 'points-system' approach to the ills of immigration, engineers its own unique rendition of the nationalist crisis. There are a number of important themes through which the process of liberal nationalism can be documented - what Arun Kundnani captured, simply and concisely, as the entrenchment of 'values racism'. These include the 'faux-feminist' demonisation of Muslims.
the tonic of ‘muscular liberalism’ that David Cameron famously touted in Munich when delivering a speech that was, tellingly, about Muslims, terrorism and failed integration.15 This was allusive of the self-satisfied reading of the nation as a stable, coherent and enlightened entity into which minorities are tasked with the practical and moral burden of integrating.16 It is a form of nationalist posturing that is often captured in contemporary social theory as being the politics of ‘civic integrationism’, the underlying assumption being that the relevant ethnic
the twenty-first century in Europe has been an increasing focus on – and social anxiety about – Muslims, and a simultaneous rise in salience of religious diversity relative to race or language, for example. There has been growing intolerance of Muslim practices, ranging from banning minarets in Switzerland to banning full-face cover for women in France, and Muslims may be seen as the primary target of muscular liberalism. In contrast to these trends, it has often been remarked how Muslims seem to have been accepted in Irish society more easily than in some other
. Coming as it did during a period of intense unease and uncertainty for Americans, this ‘interplay between the “reality” of terrorism and its simulation/fiction’ played a significant role in helping to legitimise ‘a particular form of counterterrorism’ through, what oftentimes amounted to, ‘torture porn’. 42 After 9/11, Americans had to learn how to visualise the enemy and the security tactics that would be required for its defeat. 24 , in particular, excelled in helping them to do the latter. Pre-emption and muscular liberalism The complementary international
offer enough tools to adequately combat extremism in terms of the freedoms that it provides, especially through having individual liberty as its core principle. David Cameron took a more pragmatic stance in 2011 through his rejigged concept of ‘muscular liberalism’, where liberal countries could effectively combat dangerous Islamic doctrines through a more ‘extremist’ version of liberalism, in what can be viewed as profoundly oxymoronic ( Kundnani, 2015 ; Latour, 2012 ). The envy here is that liberalism promotes multiculturalism, which serves to allow rights and
failures in social cohesion – into individual rather than collective responsibilities. The responsibilisation of the migrant subject to citizenise fits with former European leaders’ Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron's dismissal of multiculturalism as a failed project in favour of what David Cameron called ‘muscular liberalism’ ( 2011a ) in a speech he gave, it is worth noting, at a European conference on security. The notion of ‘muscular liberalism’ marked a step away from the multicultural ethos of cultural recognition towards the
12 Taking intolerant liberalism seriously Bryan Fanning This chapter makes a case for taking intolerance justified by liberalism seriously, especially when embarking on projects that promote liberal ideals of tolerance and progress as a means towards solving social problems. It offers a critical application of the philosophical account of and case for ethnocentric liberalism made by Richard Rorty.1 This foreshadowed the muscular liberalism that came to the fore following the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 and, independently, the antimulticulturalism
, as regards populism and progressive nationalism, the following chapters will substantively situate contemporary nationalist discourse within the respective and contrasting political traditions that it calls upon. Chapter 3 explores the assertion of ‘muscular liberalism’ and civic nationalism. A sustained trend in academic political discourse over the last two decades, as led by figures such as Ignatieff and Habermas, contended that a national community need not be demarcated by its ethnic origins but by its civic, liberal principles (what is sometimes called the
underlining his Party’s distinctive identity. He thus stressed that: The current government is a coalition of necessity … It is not a national government, but it is a government formed in the national interest … In the next phase of the coalition, both partners will be able to be clearer in their identities … You will see a strong liberal identity in a strong coalition government. You might even call it muscular liberalism. 19 During what had thus been an electorally disastrous period for the
values’. Under the Conservative-led government from 2010, the policy is much more comfortable talking in a language of ‘British values’, as is most notably attested to in David Cameron’s Munich speech, where he stated that: Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I