The Distinctive Features of the Modern State - Essay Example

18 November 2007 A modern as the autonomous regional unit contains the spirit of hierarchically organized ethnic democracy and global integration. The challenge posed by minorities to state administrations has intensified. The paper consists of an introduction, four body paragraphs and conclusion. The paper argues that the distinctive features of the modern state involve high level of nationalism and multiculturalism, liberal institutions and importance of national culture, integration and lack of autonomy in the global context. The paper concludes that the uniqueness and distinctive attributes of the modern state are based on the concepts of national identity, multiculturalism and democratic freedoms. What are the distinctive attributes of the modern state The concept and framework of the modern state is difficult to define because it involves a combination of historical, economic, political and cultural factors. Historical mythologies and memories are shared, traditional routes of pilgrimage have united the nations of the continent in common religious bonds throughout history, and now they all share the same market (Morphet 517). It is possible to single out the following distinctive features of the modern state: high level of nationalism and multiculturalism, liberal institutions and importance of national culture, integrity and cooperation on the global level. Collective identity and individual freedom are the main characteristics of the modern state 9Richard Stillman II 23). The state is inevitably involved in recognizing and reproducing particular ethno-cultural groups, and so the politicization of cultural identities is, to some extent, inevitable. Modernization liberates people from fixed social roles and traditional identities, and fosters an ideal of autonomous individuality that encourages individuals to prefer choice and mobility over traditional ascriptive identities (Rubin 65). Modernization theorists argued that this ideal of autonomous individuality conflicts with a deep attachment to one's cultural group, particularly in the case of smaller nations or national minorities (Morphet 517). These smaller groups face strong economic and political pressures to assimilate into larger nations, and theorists assumed that the members of these groups would accept this process, rather than fight to maintain their cultural identity at the price of economic well-being or social mobility. To resist assimilation would require an irrational attachment to an 'ascriptive group' identity that was inconsistent with the modern ideal of autonomous individuality (Rubin 75). So there are many ways that government decisions play a crucial role in sustaining national cultures. This is not to say that governments can only promote one societal culture. So nationalist movements by national minorities are not rejecting the dynamic of modernization and nation-building. The modern state accepts the idea that a modern economy and democratic community requires a diffused common culture (Rubin 64). They are simply arguing that they form their own distinct economy and society within the boundaries of the large state. They are arguing that some countries are not nation-states, but are multination states, containing two or more national societies. In this case, "democracy has two aspects, authorial and editorial; democracy is authorial so far as it gives the collective people direct or indirect control of government; democracy is editorial so far as it gives people, whether in a collective or plural identity, the capacity to challenge government decisions; and as a feature of the plural people editorial democracy may be representative, reactive or regulative in character" (Pettit 527). Many liberal states do not make nationalism per se, but they introduce common use of the term nation and are clearly dedicated to a modern and unified administration, church-state reform, modern education and a liberal constitutional system. For instance, this is based on a general belief in the historic identity and unity of Spain from the early days of the kingdom of Asturias and the reconquest through the rise of Castile and the formation of the Spanish state (Rubin 82)> As the preferred strategy for achieving stable democracy in fragmented societies, integration remained an implicit preference in most of the post-modernization theories as well (Rubin 71). In addition to being central to political culture theories, integration became the preferred strategy for some of the anti-modernization theories as well. Critics underline "the diminishing policy autonomy of states and their inability to remain effective actors in international political and economic affairs" (Goodhart 527). Thus while dependency theory, for example, might have attacked nation-building on ideological grounds, it accepted the fundamental tenet that development (and democracy) required the maintenance of a unified or integrated community, whether the basis of that community be religious, ethnic, tribal or national. This conception of democratic multiculturalism derives from a positive notion of freedom that is implicit in Kymlicka's work but remains unacknowledged and undeveloped because of his liberal commitment (Kymlicka 23). Democratic multiculturalism refers to actual cultural, social and political capabilities and practices rather than to formal procedures and principles. Thus, the perspective of democratic multiculturalism is participatory; it cannot be satisfied with the self-protective view of citizenship characteristic of liberal thinking. A focus on the positive dimension of freedom also draws attention to the intertwinement of culture and economy (Kymlicka 29). By limiting himself to national or ethnic culture as the only relevant social context of individual choice, and marginalizing or ignoring all other cultural contexts - such as social classes, urban neighborhoods or professional communities of discourse- as well as the effects of economic conditions (Richard Stillman II 98). The challenge of cooperation with the enemies of yesterday should be seen in economic and political terms; fundamentally, it is a cultural challenge, a question of identity. Common markets or even common strategic spaces cannot be built on deep cultural cleavages and hostility (Rubin 53). The European Union is a good example; it is an alliance of democratic political systems institutionally synchronized with each other. The nations of the common European space share the same religion, a similar attitude to leisure, a common musical and artistic tradition, an affinity with the common European literary heritage, and similar habits of cultural consumption (Rubin 98). It provides clear policy guidelines that can be relied upon in every instance. It draws attention to two important points: the need to consider people's overall life-chances when discussing their personal autonomy; and the importance of involving all members of society in the democratic process of shaping its culture and way of life. At the very least, democratic institutions of the modern sate reify 'culture' and attribute a higher moral value to forms of consciousness than to the actual human beings who carry these forms of consciousness (Richard Stillman II 98). Furthermore, the orientation of multiculturalism towards minority cultures is participatory, rather than protective. In sum, the distinctive features of the modern state are based on concepts of national identity and increasing role of liberal freedoms. If guided by multiculturalism, the outcome of this involvement should not be the assimilation of minority cultures but rather the development of a richer, pluralistic culture encompassing the society as a whole. The modern state is marked by decreased autonomy and increased integration of all institutions. Works Cited 1. Goodhart, M. Democracy, Globalization and the Problem of the State. Polity 33 (2001): 527. 2. Kymlicka, W, Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995. 3. Morphet, S. Multilateralism and the Non-Aligned Movement: What Is the Global South Doing and Where Is It Going Global Governance 10 (2004): 517. 4. Pettit, Ph. Democracy, National and International. The Monist 89 (2006): 527. 5. Richard Stillman II, Creating the American State: The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1998. 6. Rubin, E.L. Beyond Camelot: Rethinking Politics and Law for the Modern State. 1) Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005. Read More