Papers by Zlatko Hadžidedić
Routledge eBooks, Feb 15, 2022
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Godišnjak Bošnjačke zajednice kulture »Preporod«, 2016
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Academicus International Scientific Journal
Most theories of nationalism labelled as ‘modernist’ tend to overlook the fact that the phenomeno... more Most theories of nationalism labelled as ‘modernist’ tend to overlook the fact that the phenomenon to which they vaguely refer as ‘Modernity’ is defined by a single, very precise and consistent socio-economic system, that of capitalism. However, this fact makes nationalism and capitalism, rather than nationalism and ‘Modernity’, practically congruent. From this perspective, the essential question that arises is whether the emergence of these two was a spontaneous but compatible and useful coincidence, or nationalism was capitalism’s deliberate invention? In the capitalist era, society has become merely a resource whose existence enables functioning of the market. Such a society must destroy all traditional communal ties on which the maintenance of traditional society was based, so that the principles of reciprocity and solidarity be replaced by the procedures of asymmetric economic exchange. Once the procedures of asymmetric economic exchange become the central principle of human re...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
As a doctrine of political legitimacy, liberalism introduced nations as the only legitimate units... more As a doctrine of political legitimacy, liberalism introduced nations as the only legitimate units through which liberty was to be articulated. In historical reality, liberalism has affirmed the concept of liberty through the self-legitimising acts of national liberation, thereby generating nationalism as its historical by-product. My thesis focuses on their common conceptual core, through textual analyses of several classical liberal authors, each of whom represents one century and is granted one chapter. Algernon Sidney (17th century) was the first author who defined nations as the sole, self-referential source of political legitimacy, whose liberty was to be achieved through establishment of their own legislative institutions, by which they self referentially legitimised themselves as ‘nations’. Rousseau (18th century)defined liberty as identification of man’s individual will with the presumed will of the entire society, which provided nationalism with a sociopsychological mechani...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
" Ethnic conflict " has become a very fashionable notion. However, it was not always so. Indeed, ... more " Ethnic conflict " has become a very fashionable notion. However, it was not always so. Indeed, in the not-so-distant past such a notion was practically unknown. In the pre-modern times, conflicts were assumed to take place between power-holders, over pieces of land. The former sought to seize, control and exploit all resources within the latter, including the population that was also perceived and treated only as yet another resource for exploitation. Ethnic identities of the population residing within particular territories were totally irrelevant to the power-holders and hence did not serve as a source of disputes and conflicts between them. Indeed, having been treated as yet another resource for exploitation, the inhabitants of the targeted lands were regarded as essentially identity-less. What mattered to the power-holders was the land itself, with all its resources, including the subjects residing there. And the subjects themselves, no matter whether they had several diverse ethnic identities or a single unified one, were so powerless as to be unable to launch a conflict between themselves, let alone a rebellion against the power-holders. Thus the powerless could only serve as the powerful's assets for the land's occupation and exploitation of its resources. Given the increasing presence of the term " ethnic conflict " in the public communication, we may rightfully ask whether the nature of power, and hence the nature of conflict, has changed so much as to make identity, rather than power itself, the source of the modern type of conflict?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Zlatko Hadžidedić
FORCED TO BE FREE:
THE PARADOXES OF LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM
How can we... more Zlatko Hadžidedić
FORCED TO BE FREE:
THE PARADOXES OF LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM
How can we possibly relate liberalism to nationalism? By definition, liberalism is universalistic, individualistic and tolerant; nationalism is particularistic, collectivistic and intolerant. However, they are both based on a set of common concepts, such as liberty, equality, popular sovereignty, self-determination, etc. They have both inaugurated the nation-state as the framework for these concepts’ application. Their simultaneous spreading in the last two centuries has decisively shaped modern society and its values. Is this overlapping to be interpreted as accidental? Or, does it imply that the politics of nationalism is to be understood as a part, or a by-product, of the politics of liberalism? This book analyses five paradigmatic liberal thinkers (John Stuart Mill, Algernon Sidney, John Rawls, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lord Acton) and demonstrates that nationalist principles are built into the very core of the liberal doctrine. It shows that liberalism’s fixation on the sovereign nation-state as the only legitimate model of governance necessarily invites nationalism as a means to reproduce such a model. Due to this built-in ‘error’, political efforts to apply liberalism’s principles regularly cause various manifestations of nationalism, including those commonly denounced as illiberal and anti-liberal. The symbiosis between liberalism and nationalism is an inevitable consequence of liberalism’s endorsement of the nation as the exclusive unit of political legitimacy, and of nationalism’s endorsement of liberty as the ultimate value which universally legitimises its political claims. The existing liberal-democratic discourse thus serves as an umbrella under which liberalism’s individualistic and universalistic aspects appear side by side with nationalism, rather than in opposition to it. And the omnipresence of liberalism in modern society keeps nationalism omnipresent, too.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Zlatko Hadžidedić
FORCED TO BE FREE:
THE PARADOXES OF LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM
How can we possibly relate liberalism to nationalism? By definition, liberalism is universalistic, individualistic and tolerant; nationalism is particularistic, collectivistic and intolerant. However, they are both based on a set of common concepts, such as liberty, equality, popular sovereignty, self-determination, etc. They have both inaugurated the nation-state as the framework for these concepts’ application. Their simultaneous spreading in the last two centuries has decisively shaped modern society and its values. Is this overlapping to be interpreted as accidental? Or, does it imply that the politics of nationalism is to be understood as a part, or a by-product, of the politics of liberalism? This book analyses five paradigmatic liberal thinkers (John Stuart Mill, Algernon Sidney, John Rawls, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lord Acton) and demonstrates that nationalist principles are built into the very core of the liberal doctrine. It shows that liberalism’s fixation on the sovereign nation-state as the only legitimate model of governance necessarily invites nationalism as a means to reproduce such a model. Due to this built-in ‘error’, political efforts to apply liberalism’s principles regularly cause various manifestations of nationalism, including those commonly denounced as illiberal and anti-liberal. The symbiosis between liberalism and nationalism is an inevitable consequence of liberalism’s endorsement of the nation as the exclusive unit of political legitimacy, and of nationalism’s endorsement of liberty as the ultimate value which universally legitimises its political claims. The existing liberal-democratic discourse thus serves as an umbrella under which liberalism’s individualistic and universalistic aspects appear side by side with nationalism, rather than in opposition to it. And the omnipresence of liberalism in modern society keeps nationalism omnipresent, too.
FORCED TO BE FREE:
THE PARADOXES OF LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM
How can we possibly relate liberalism to nationalism? By definition, liberalism is universalistic, individualistic and tolerant; nationalism is particularistic, collectivistic and intolerant. However, they are both based on a set of common concepts, such as liberty, equality, popular sovereignty, self-determination, etc. They have both inaugurated the nation-state as the framework for these concepts’ application. Their simultaneous spreading in the last two centuries has decisively shaped modern society and its values. Is this overlapping to be interpreted as accidental? Or, does it imply that the politics of nationalism is to be understood as a part, or a by-product, of the politics of liberalism? This book analyses five paradigmatic liberal thinkers (John Stuart Mill, Algernon Sidney, John Rawls, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lord Acton) and demonstrates that nationalist principles are built into the very core of the liberal doctrine. It shows that liberalism’s fixation on the sovereign nation-state as the only legitimate model of governance necessarily invites nationalism as a means to reproduce such a model. Due to this built-in ‘error’, political efforts to apply liberalism’s principles regularly cause various manifestations of nationalism, including those commonly denounced as illiberal and anti-liberal. The symbiosis between liberalism and nationalism is an inevitable consequence of liberalism’s endorsement of the nation as the exclusive unit of political legitimacy, and of nationalism’s endorsement of liberty as the ultimate value which universally legitimises its political claims. The existing liberal-democratic discourse thus serves as an umbrella under which liberalism’s individualistic and universalistic aspects appear side by side with nationalism, rather than in opposition to it. And the omnipresence of liberalism in modern society keeps nationalism omnipresent, too.