The Narcissism of National Solipsism: Civic Nationalism and Sub-State Formation Processes in Scotland, Part 3: (a) Changing power balances, (b) Tensions of group fusion and group survival and (c) Sub-state nationalism and British state-society
https://www.reddit.com/r/zeronarcissists/comments/1gyduwq/the_narcissism_of_national_solipsism_civic/
created by theconstellinguist on 24/11/2024 at 00:10 UTC*
2 upvotes, 0 top-level comments (showing 0)
The Narcissism of National Solipsism: Civic Nationalism and Sub-State Formation Processes in Scotland
- *Citation:** Law, A. (2017). The narcissism of national solipsism: civic nationalism and sub-state formation processes in Scotland. *Human Figurations: Long-term Perspectives on the Human Condition*, *6*(2), 1-24.
- *Link:** https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0006.206/--narcissism-of-national-solipsism-civic-nationalism-and-sub?rgn=main%3Bview=fulltext[1][2]
1: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0006.206/--narcissism-of-national-solipsism-civic-nationalism-and-sub?rgn=main%3Bview=fulltext
2: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0006.206/--narcissism-of-national-solipsism-civic-nationalism-and-sub?rgn=main%3Bview=fulltext
- **Full disclaimer on the unwanted presence of AI codependency cathartics/ AI inferiorists as a particularly aggressive and disturbed subsection of the narcissist population:*** https://narcissismresearch.miraheze.org/wiki/AIReactiveCodependencyRageDisclaimer[3][4]
3: https://narcissismresearch.miraheze.org/wiki/AIReactiveCodependencyRageDisclaimer
4: https://narcissismresearch.miraheze.org/wiki/AIReactiveCodependencyRageDisclaimer
Changing power balances
- *Mutual fear and suspicion took over the UK and ruling elites gave into deception, hypocrisy and violence in the Machiavellian tradition to show unrestrained self-interest. The idea that the royal family is a business first and foremost is a product of that unrestrained self-interest collapsing into antisociality in what should otherwise be a government.**
1. On becoming the ruling elites of the state, the middle class subordinated the humanist we-image in their dealings with rival states. As ruling elites, they came under the pressure of mutual fears and suspicions and adopted the expediencies, deceptions, hypocrisy, diplomacy and violence of the Machiavellian tradition of unrestrained self-interest that characterized dynastic regimes.
- *Machiavellian code of conduct transcended the we-feeling of social solidarity. Though this might be based in something competent that certain behaviors start at the nervous system level and lead to less ethnic tensions and violence, it devolved and lost its way just becoming an expression of class contempt in many cases instead of competence with the situation. In contrast, there was a we-feeling of generally identifying as the subordinate and the feelings of abuse that came with that.**
1. Yet the Machiavellian tradition depended on an aristocratic code of conduct that transcended state boundaries, stronger than any ‘we-feeling’ of social solidarity with the lower classes of their own country. For dynastic elites, as Elias put it, ‘attachment to their own state did not yet have the character of an attachment to their own nation’ (2013: 157).
- *Not being subjected to an external superordinate power is an absolute value. This means that any attempt to violate sovereign state-society are not appropriate or due, but generally considered an act of war that has mistaken an autonomous state for a sub-state. This is especially likely to happen if a country is so ethnically splintered that it is used to one ethnic group being in a sub-state to another.**
- *On one side, the fundamental equality of individuals represents the highest human ideal while, on the other side, the collective self-interest of the nation as a sovereign state-society subject to no external superordinate power is solidified as an absolute value.**
1. In contrast to narcissistic nationalism, as Kidd (1996: 374) argues, the Scottish Enlightenment induced a revolt against the vulgar errors of national solipsism: at this level it is particularly inappropriate to classify North Britishness as a manifestation of a national identity. The sociologists of the Scottish Enlightenment deconstructed at an abstract level the whole phenomenon of patriotism.
- *A disturbing “pleasures of war” allegiance is seen while reinventing prosocial chivalry norms in a deeply antisocial state (war/murder/homicide). Rationale went beyond the mere legitimation of self-defense to “just and honorable” offense. To consider “just and honorable offense” chivalrous shows an underlying dysfunction of terms. The prevention of war crimes may be seen as a self-defense to the basic moral standard core of humanity, but the “pleasure of going ethically to war” ceases in this purpose and has become an oxymoron. The oxymoron is thrown into even deeper relief by the use of chivalry in the context of war.**
1. Fuelled by imperialism, racism and social Darwinism, that orientation [patriotic militarism] celebrated the “pleasures of war” while reinventing notions of chivalry in defense of the thesis that force was indefensible unless it promoted a just and honorable national cause (Linklater 2016: 327).
- *The Union of Crowns under James VI of Scotland did not last very long at all, unable to stop the centralizing, uniformity domination process with the monarch transitioning to James I of Great Britain. This inability to remain in a union of autonomous states is behind the impulse of Brexit as well.**
1. Indeed, the term ‘Great Britain’ was minted to refer less to the inherent value of a unified nation than to the new sense of the enlarged state formed by the Union of Crowns in 1603 under James VI of Scotland on becoming James I of Great Britain (Levack 1987).
- *The UK prides itself on its ability to get along diplomatically, and views it in contrast to pseudoscience racial narcissism. However the external perception of this is very different with a disturbing amount of haughty superiority not even sufficiently veiled giving a similar impression of narcissism and entrenched vanity. This is especially narcissistic as highlighted that in addition to viewing themselves as different to an ethnic group like the Germans on their comparative diplomatic skill, they are actually perceived as duplicitous, superficial and dishonest.**
1. For Elias (2008c: 234) the bourgeois habitus was shaped increasingly by the easing of external threats to a specifically ‘British way of life’, characterised as a tacit, practical and moral ‘ritual of social friendliness’ and polite manners, in contrast to the more formalised, impersonal objects of serious collective self-worship in more insecure national we-ideals such as Germany. Indirect, coded and evasive turns of phrase and an ironic, self-deprecating sense of humour, learned across generations, appear to British people as well-mannered and decent, but may be viewed by other nations as superficial, duplicitous or dishonest.
Tensions of group fusion and group survival
- *Integration often has a struggle when trust is relatively low or being dominated or annihilated. In areas that feel or experience as a reality more genetic homogeneity, less of this may be seen and overall conflicts may be lower. Research on the effects of diversity to mutual trust support this.**
1. For if two groups become more, or more reciprocally, interdependent than they were before, each of them has reason to fear that it may be dominated, or even annihilated, by the other. The struggle may result after many tests of strength in a fusion. It may result in the complete disappearance of one of them in the new unit emerging from their struggles (Elias 2008a: 111–2).
- *The UK has an ongoing history of struggling with state sovereignty in the favor of making a uniform governing mechanism “for the sake of efficiency” that has not proven itself as competent as it has thought itself to be. There is an ongoing impulse to absorb that does not actually integrate well and does not actually have a strong result, such as Brexit.**
1. Sovereignty in the UK is similarly argued to rest with the ‘unitary’ character of the state, that is, as a centralised apparatus that rules through uniform controls. In this approach, the Union is understood not as a union state but as an ‘incorporating state’ where the Scottish parliament was discontinued and incorporated into an extended but essentially English parliament.
- *Scots post-integration were overrepresented in the corps and the military started to skew heavily towards the Scots defending the “cannon fodder” ethnicism that has started to flirt with just sheer racism.**
1. While the English Act of Union was concerned to establish the rule of a single monarch in both realms, the Scottish Act of Union preserved Scotland’s separate Presbyterian establishment within the union state. In practice, the new parliament inherited the prevailing balance of majority English governance from the 1688 Revolution while preserving Scots law and religion and opening up the offices of the imperial British state to Scots, not least for service in the merged British army, with Scots over-represented in the officer corps as well as the ordinary ranks of ‘privates’. As well as a merged military force, among the common relations of state were also a cohesive customs union, a single system of taxation, a common currency, shared symbols of statehood, the monarchy, and the bicameral Parliament.
- *The Navy was a hotspot for a lot of class integration and forcing the British monarchy down to earth as attempting to instantiate a feeling of social inferiority was not working in organizing and working with their mercenary forces.**
1. As an island state-society, British military power derived from its naval establishment, a relatively porous figuration that allowed middle-class and aristocratic codes to come into contact with each other in ways that proved impossible for the rigid social segregation of the officer corps of Germany’s standing army or the officer castes of absolutist Spain and France (Elias 2007). British monarchs found themselves more dependent on social inferiors than European dynasties and felt pressure from below to comply with bourgeois morality: ‘From being rulers of the state [monarchs] became symbols of the nation’ (Elias 2008a: 181).
- *The “gentlemanly code” comes from a presupposition that the other party is not in an annihilative, homicidal state and will not work in such cases.**
- *Manners and morals can be considered maintenance for a strong shared social foundation of good-enough mutual regard and is entirely inappropriate where that social foundation is experienced as deeply and profoundly fraudulent and unjust with strong evidence for such a thing.**
- *For instance, minding one’s p’s and q’s while being victims of crimes of theft, attempted homicide and r*pe is a disgusting act and obvious immediate way to reignite ethical tensions that dilapidated in the country and isolate it from its international community.**
- *Such a result would generally also then be seen as an act of governmental incompetence, unable to determine when certain things were and weren’t appropriate including the impression of politeness/manners on an ongoing violent crime that is inherently antisocial so calling prosociality betrays a massive gross incompetence with the situation.**
1. Manners and morals were gradually reconciled by the greater social interdependencies and political stability among ruling elites. Elias places particular stress on the intermediary role of the untitled gentry between the aristocracy and the middle classes as ‘a unique social formation’ not found in absolutist regimes (Elias and Dunning 2008: 13–5). United by a ‘gentlemanly’ code, different factions of the landed classes felt sufficiently confident that their own survival was not in danger to adopt non-violent political methods in their political dealings with each other.
Sub-state nationalism and British state-society
- *British state nationalists actively prevented a free Scotland in 1997 afraid of an independent Scottish State.**
1. Indeed, many British state nationalists supported Scottish devolution in the 1997 referendum, with the expectation that it would act as a permanent barrier to the formation of an independent Scottish state.
- *The Tories led the Vindication of Scottish Rights in 1850. The demands were the usual when seen in poor supervision; more equitable redistribution of state revenue, decentralization of those features of the government that had allowed it to get that inequitable, and respect for Scotland’s specific traditions. These are usual demands in the face of poor supervision.**
1. In the 1850s, an initial spurt of sub-state nationalism, the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights, was led by romantic Tories, but harboured disparate party affiliations concerned with a more equitable redistribution of state revenue, decentralization of certain state functions and, more derisorily, respect for Scotland’s heraldic traditions (Morton 1996).
- *When an attempt to integrate fails and continues to fail over and over, the dominating force trying to force the integration should step back, allow for autonomous recovery,and only reattempt if a more competent force for the act comes forward. The same one cannot be tried again. This was reflected in the demand of Scottish Home Rule to manage their own affairs through a federation, which is much less top-down, and instead through an incorporating union which has mutually autonomous features with tighter than usual interactive power.**
1. The Scottish Home Rule Association was formed by radical Liberals to demand ‘the right of the Scottish people to manage their own affairs’ through ‘a Federal not an Incorporating Union’ (SHRA 1888: 3, 14). Modern Scottish nationalism emerged out of this tension. A state compromise established the Scottish Office, an administrative concession to sub-state sentiment that profoundly shaped the apparatus of both the Edwardian liberal-welfare state and the Keynesian welfare state (Cameron 2012).
As predicted, a sense of failed self-government was palpable but the alternative did not also seem comparatively more competent.
- *Thus, administrative devolution continued into the 1930s.**
1. Between the wars, sub-state nationalism was simultaneously a response to, and was hindered by, industrial decline and cultural dejection. Discourses on ‘the end of Scotland’ bewailed a perceived loss of distinctive national qualities and a fear of becoming an administrative province of England (Finlay 1994). Even middle-class Unionists felt a debilitating loss of ‘national spirit’. This was fostered by a growing sense of economic dependency on the Union and despondency about the national capability for self-government. Unionists responded with further administrative devolution, in the late 1930s relocating the main functions of the Scottish Office from London to Edinburgh, token reforms that left the centralized nature of the British state largely unaffected.
- *As usual when such things happen where there is a demand to strip a group of self-government by a party that does not have markedly greater competence. In some disturbing cases, markedly inferior competence by the intervening party can be seen. An example is the aggressive and bad English intervention of an infantile prosociality in Russia, a country riddled with disturbingly insidious Tsarist scars, prevalent and popular antisocial disposition quite antithetical to the English assumption of how humans thinks and operate, and relatively poorer self-integration compared to the UK. Even where some criticisms are valid, ethnic essentialism begins to show itself, beginning the process that can lead to buying these ethnic definitions through blood.**
- *It is not enough for criticisms to be valid to subordinate a state.**
- *They must be markedly more competent with resolving the issues at hand. Again and again the UK has shown an international proclivity to wage relatively valid criticism but not have anything near an upperhand in resolving it while still aggressively trying to dominate to “resolve” the situation as if they did.**
- *This is entirely inappropriate and can be factually viewed as a violation of real international law on respecting the sovereign state as an absolute value.**
1. In such a context, the fifth spurt of sub-state nationalism began to shed its social movement character and acquire its modern form as a political party, albeit one shrouded in ethnic essentialism (Mitchell 1996: 180–6).
- *A Scottish fascism emerged that was also similarly unsuccessful in self-integrating just as the English were. It included hardline Celtic racial mysticism. When combined with the attempted fascism, the racialization that created the foundation there for Brexit became apparent. Johnson and with it Trump impulses could be seen in 1934.**
1. Galvanised by the Scots National League and its splinter group, the Scottish National Movement, the founding of the National Party of Scotland in 1928 was a peculiar brew of moderate devolutionism, ‘spiritual values’ and hardline Celtic racial mysticism, including calls from the poet Hugh McDiarmid for a form of ‘Scottish fascism’ (Finlay 1994: 83). The NPS’s brand of radical Celtic nationalism was itself challenged by the founding in 1932 of a right-wing, home rule party of Empire, the Scottish Party. This led ultimately to a new merged party in 1934, the Scottish National Party. The new party was immediately plunged into internal disarray, unable to unify incompatible left–right ideologies, strategies and personalities.
- *Sub-state nationalism expressed itself through a strangely middle class violence like blowing up a mailbox specifically embossed with the insignia of new Queen Elizabeth.**
- *In a class analysis, this sub-state nationalism showed that the middle class was not just a latent body ready for upper management but had its own class specific violence impulses with a markedly antisocial bent.**
- *The processing of the Queen as an enemy was not only a cognitive handhold for misogyny, but an expression of class inferiority as well. The implications of the intersection can be strange, but may explain things like Trump’s Johnson-influenced cognitions such as “The women are secretly the smart ones now, we all know it.”**
- *This comes with a strange combination of masculine denialism combined with an aggressive class resentment that can even become violent. This particular strain of misogyny is particular strange.**
1. The irrelevance of sub-state nationalism in 1950s Scotland was further illustrated by derisory middle-class symbolic stunts like seizing the Stone of Destiny (used in coronations of Scottish monarchs until taken to London in 1296 by Edward I) from Westminster Abbey and blowing up a mail box in Edinburgh embossed with the insignia of the new Queen Elizabeth II (on the basis that there had been no Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland).
- *Around the mid-1970s Scotland clung to the hope of oil to fund its release from the British state showing how oil discoveries can fuel what were before dormant resentments of unsatisfactory supervision.**
1. However, as the post-war Scottish economy began to flag the electoral fortunes of sub-state nationalism revived, heralded most spectacularly by the SNP’s Hamilton by-election victory in 1967. Yet again, however, the expected nationalist breakthrough did not materialise. Electoral prospects faltered until the twin crises of economy and state in the mid-1970s created new stresses and strains for the UK that nationalist grievance eagerly seized upon. Moreover, the discovery of oil within the territorial waters of Scotland appeared to reverse the relations of fiscal dependency on the British state. The high watermark for the SNP came in the General Election of October 1974 when it achieved an unprecedented eleven MPs.
Comments
There's nothing here!