Introduction
The term nationalism is used to describe attitudes or actions that particular members of a nation have having concerning their national identity. On the other hand, national identity denotes members of common ethnicity, origin or cultural ties, something that has been referred to as individual membership in a nation. Nationalism is constructed politically and socially. Alternatively, national identity is a resource in the hands of the people, and one does not need any action or attitude to be granted (Ozkirimli 164).
Comparison
a. Differences
The primordial account emphasizes inherent and historical social practices as the source of national identity and nationalism. The prehistoric version maintains that national identity is given. In all nations there exists certain primordial that are irrational attachments based on religion, blood, race, and language that gives one his identity hence nationalism. Primordialists have a strong belief that nationalism is deeply rooted in people’s historical experience, hence offered to the subsequent generation (Coakley 324). Islamic religion forms an example, which can be used for illustration. When a child is born in an Islamic state, he or she automatically becomes a Muslim.
Unlike the primordial account, the constructivist justification says that nationalism and national identity are formed in response to historical events and nationalism is just a method through which replacement of lost identity is sought. Contrary to primordial reasoning that nationalism and national identities are natural and fixed by the basic historical experiences which family and other primary groups undergo, the constructivist account states otherwise. The Constructivist account links the roots of nationalism to an entire process of evolution. the primordial account argues that nationalism is characterized by deep emotional attachments similar t those of kinship ties. People identify themselves with sex groups, regions, families, ethnic groups and particular national communities. In addition, constructivist accounts by saying that states play a great role in the construction of national identity that later create nationalism. In this way, constructivists argue that the introduction of industrial economies and modernity created a new social dimension that broke the original traditional bonds which used to hold the need for a national identity of members (Goode and Stroup 724).
b. Similarities
At some common point, these two accounts seem to agree that although social bonds may be natural, to a greater extent they are fixed by basic experiences that people undergo through, hence are given. For example, African parents living in Western countries may give birth to children who do not recognize the African culture, because their parents have been assimilated into the European culture.
Another striking similarity between these two alternative accounts is that both accounts agree that common culture is the binding factor for having shared national identity and nationalism. Both philosophers agree that recognition of shared duties and rights to each other forms the basis of having a common national identity hence embracing their nationalism.
Conclusion
In summary, it can be concluded that nationalism and national identity are achieved through the combination of two theoretical approaches. They are founded on constructivism and primordial acts as a building block of national distinctiveness. The work presented above illustrates that national identity is majorly the entity identification where one belongs whereas nationalism is mainly refers to the way an individual self-identify him/herself by having an attachment to a given nation.
Works Cited
Coakley, John. "‘Primordialism’in nationalism studies: theory or ideology?" Nations and Nationalism (2017): 318-329.
Goode, J. Paul, and David R. Stroup. "Everyday nationalism: constructivism for the masses." Social Science Quarterly 96.3 (2015): 717-739.
Ozkirimli, Umut. Theories of nationalism: A critical introduction. Springer (2017): 160-166.
