I just returned from an hour-long chat with Professor Gable which was very interesting and enlightening. I went to discuss with him the cultural points of my argument, and we ended up talking at length about many different aspects of the entire topic, from Little Italy to David Ricardo. First, I brought up something which he had talked about earlier in the semester, that is how people form bonds based on arbitrarily set borders. This is the basis of the idea of nationalism which I am trying to debunk. People tend to categorize themselves for a number of reasons, and these connections are often irrational but not thought about. Of course, he reminded me, there are other types of bonds than the territorial ones which make up nation-states. For instance, the Catholic Church is an example of a non-territorial sovereignty. People fundamentally connect to a nation-state to be functioning members of society, and other bonds are out of emotion or sentiment. Quite quickly, those nation-state bonds become bonds of sentiment as well. We become Americans because we were born in America, but we soon also identify as Americans because we love apple pie and baseball, because we’re Americans. The territorial identification is not irrational, at least not in today’s society, but it can certainly lead to irrational thinking.

I’m not arguing to forsake our nationality to become world citizens, but I am arguing that it’s possible to love one’s country while also being a world citizen. As international collaboration and interaction becomes easier, identifying with one’s country becomes less a fundamental necessity for functionality. This is exactly what will cause the death of irrational nationalist thinking. Right now, this progress is being hampered as war and fear politics force upon us a deeper national commitment, driven by either fear, guilt, or pride. If not for functionality, than for what other rational purpose are we bound to those born within the same border? Because they’re human, but just as human as a foreigner is. And this, I think, is where we will move. It is possible to retain national identity as global citizens. We Americans should know this concept better than anyone. During high periods of immigration, and even now today, people from all over to America to look for work. Communities popped up, such as Little Italy, in which people who all considered themselves Americans still celebrated their cultural heritage. As such, it’s not unthinkable that connection to nation-states can become more sentimental than pragmatic, and we consider ourselves to be humans with an American heritage rather than Americans who need to compete as a team against other groups of humans.

All people have a natural tendency to categorize themselves somehow, and as previously stated, it’s not always territorial- that’s simply just the most basic and practical bond in an unflat world. Other people can commit themselves more to an organization, such as an executive who travels all over the world and interacts with many different types of people. He may no longer consider America to be anything more than a sentimental rooting and a place in which his company must be headquartered. That’s not to say that he’s renounced America entirely, but just that he considers himself a citizen of his company for all practical purposes, and is only sentimentally tied to the United States. Another example also illustrates the prominence and irrationality of collectivist thinking: a Mexican immigrant comes to America looking for a job. He’s generally shunned by the public for being an intruder, someone sub-human (sub-American) who’s going to steal an American’s job. By working, he supports his family, but others oppose his opportunity to work because immigrant labor is detrimental to American solidarity and he’s accused of not being altruistic. Well, he is, just not to the collective nation. His primary bond is to his family, and even though he’s an American, he’s not working for America, nor should he. Collectivist thinking is dangerous, as it leads to irrational xenophobic prejudices and barriers to hamper the recognition of humanity outside of the collective.

Beyond the hypothetical rhetoric, he shared with me some of his experiences in less developed countries. We’ve already discussed how educational systems must be formed for a people to prosper, but what we’ve not considered is, what if that education can’t be put to use? In Guinnea-Bissau, he found that there was a functioning, if horribly underprovided, educational system. It produced literary citizens, but there was nothing for them to do. Guinnea-Bissau does not have an educated service industry for anyone to work in, nor is there a demand for one. That sort of higher market is necessary for a nation to raise its standards, but one had simply not developed and educated children ended up making shoes. How does a skilled labor market develop in a manufacturing country? How did it develop in China? I’ll be sure to take a look at that.

Through a lot of the discussion we touched on some economic questions and talked about Thomas Friedman and David Ricardo. One of the interesting things we talked about was how a strong rooting to national identity and belonging can inspire the sort of protectionist policies which advocates of the global market try to fight against, and how both of our political parties contribute to that in one way or another. Democrats come right out and attack outsourcers for ruining the American economy and people, even though the numbers tend to disagree. Republicans have a much more indirect way to shoot themselves in the foot. Though they support global economic policy, the way in which the Bush administration has promoted blind Americanism also creates xenophobia and a distaste of the foreign, causing Republican supporters to cry out against good old American countrymen being replaced by dem darn macacas. Again, I’m not telling you about the general philosophy of America, indeed, the truth of it is heading in the opposite direction of what I’d like. I’m telling you about the general philosophy and mindset that America should have which would be most condusive to the global free market and development of all nations involved.