Whatever it means to be human varies in some way from person to person. Yet everyone has a collective albeit oftentimes both unexpressed and inexpressible understanding of this common denominator. Similarly, nations differ from how they understand their ‘group’ and ‘other groups’ while all calling these unique sets using similar terms.
In the twenty-first century especially, it may be simpler to define ‘states’ instead as these are more commonly based on legalities or formal agreements (Smith, 2000). As in the case of nation and nationalism, while formal systems of thought, such as the sciences and academic institutions, may with its theories contribute to a deeper understanding of organic human phenomena, they are ultimately insufficient. Kim (2016) reminds that mere analyses “are insufficient for understanding the genesis and dissemination of modern nations and nationalism” (p. 47).
Going further but more generally, nationalism may simply be defined as a belief in the idea of a nation, but this very idea has no clear borders, even to those with a strong sense of nationality. Modernity blurs the line even further, with globalisation making locality much less of a factor: a whole culture can be shared with just one click, and ‘nationals’ living in a different nation are no longer uncommon. This, however, does not mean the two ideas would eventually wither away. On the contrary, they continue to serve in its essence: as a means for social beings constantly longing for stronger, more intimate connections.
Hence, the key to a thriving nationalism, at least in the non-English-speaking world, may be this: language, the very essence of culture. Sejong the Great obsessed over a new script because “the sounds of [their] nation’s language are so different” and so everyone can “express themselves” (Kim, 2000). The Korean writing system 한글 is more than just a linguistic tool but Korea’s symbol of autonomy with its “pragmatic and ‘democratic’ utility of the script that anybody could easily learn” (Pae, 2018). And thus, while scholars or netizens may argue over food origins, one cannot deny that 짜장면 is Korean and 炸酱面 is not.
This also does not mean that language becomes the basis for what defines a nation. Rather, language may only reflect, in ways more tangible, the state (here meaning ‘conditions’) of a said nation. Take the Philippines for example where the idea of a “national language” remains unsolved, that such “is expected… with a long colonial history and numerous indigenous languages” (Paz, 1996). Issues with language show how the main issues in social and cultural conceptions of oneness—a primary characteristic of a nation—manifest in the day-to-day.
In this time of English’s reign as lingua franca, the concept of a nation or nationalism may be best understood in the vernacular.
Note: the original paper previously submitted and written as an introductory reflection for a university course, Introduction to Korean Culture and Nationalism (A.Y. 2021-2022, semester 1). Revisions have been made. Probably more if I get to go back to this.
References
Anderson, B. (1991). Introduction and Cultural Roots. In Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (2nd edition) (pp. 1-36). London: Verso.
Kim, C. (2000). The Legacy of King Sejong the Great. Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. Retrieved from
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/9635/SLS2000v30.1-05Kim.pdf.
Kim, K. (2016). National Identity, Nationalism, and Nation Building in Korea. In The development of modern South Korea: state formation, capitalist development and national identity (pp. 145-163). London and New York: Routledge.
Maceda, T. (2003). The Filipino Language: Discourse on Power. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines. Retrieved from:
http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/maceda2003filipino.pdf
Pae, H. (2018). Writing Systems, Reading Processes, and Cross-Linguistic Influences. Chapter 16: The Korean writing system, Hangul, and word processing (pp. 335-352). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Paz, C. (1996). The Nationalization of a Language: Filipino. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines. Retrieved from:
http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/paz1996nationalization.pdf
Smith, A. (2000) Theories of Nationalism: Alternative models of nation formation. In Asian Nationalism (Edited by Michael Leifer) (pp. 1-20). New York: Routledge.