[Translated from Contradictio]
National identity indicates a peculiar explanation of the commitment to a fatherland. It concerns the assertion that people do not live (merely) as a result of external coercion and want to live (merely) from their political calculations about their theoretical and practical advantages under a certain national supervision – but because they belong to an always special breed of human with whom they share certain characteristics. Independent from the particular and changeable political will of a citizen there should be a natural national character, which not only stresses the connection with one’s own kind, but equally the subordination under the same – precisely one’s own national political authority.
“National identity” is a modern racist formula for the irrecusability of nationalism; a dogma which indeed has no proof, but some exhibits. They are supposed to illustrate original, “pre-state,” common characteristics, which make a number of persons into a people, even when they are not the people of one (and the same) state.
immediately shows, however, the same simple procedure of reinterpretation, according to which these indications are chosen: commonalities, which developed due to an enforced state interest, are presented as pre-political peculiarities which the state would have to take into account. A national language is, in the end, not a product of the natural-primitive development of the originally spoken dialects, but an artifact of political domination; sometimes a “standard language,” as a common language enforced within a dominion; sometimes an “officialese” established as an official and business means of communication without regard for the random locally adopted idioms.
The question is, furthermore, which “identity” is supposed to be formed therewith. There is no common interest that would appear due to a common language among those who speak it. Whether they have the same or different views and objectives has nothing to do with their language – it is indiscriminately available for expressing thoughts to anybody in command of it. That conversely all conflicts and differences become irrelevant by the commonality of the same language is a gross deception and plausible only to those who demand that next to “national identity” all other interests have to keep quiet.
has a similar snag. If works of art are regarded as national cultural properties, this can lie neither in the works of art themselves – musical notes and rhymes carry, in the end, no national color; and not because they generally please – judgments of taste are, as is well known, subjective, and do not depend on the origin of a work of art. The fact that art, which should otherwise always be an expression of the most individual of individuals, is nevertheless regarded as national property, owes itself again only to a state interest. With the appropriation of intellectual products, state power itself wants to participate in the intellectual world, and celebrate itself therein. Therefore it also ensures that the people know “its” poets and thinkers, at least by name. They are taught art history through national eyeglasses and memorize “great works” as a matter of national pride – also and especially if they do not have artistic inclinations themselves, or have their entertainment needs otherwise covered.
is even less a reason for patriotism. Whoever summons it as a unifying bond does not mean anyhow the past maneuvers of pre-state hunters and gatherers, but what can demonstrate the political achievements of the current state and its legal predecessors – and their imposition was, as a rule, a history of smaller and larger massacres, which have their serene life and health in the political procedures of today’s subjects. The present population should look back on this history not as a harmful blunder for them, but as the foundation of a common destiny. For this one can feel pride or shame – however, in either case it is to be thought of as an unconditionally common thing that encompasses national rights and duties, completely independent of every individual interest.
What is meant by it in each case is politically decided. Whether it is regulations and conditions relating to domestic affairs, or foreign policy claims on the resources of other nation-states: it is the concern of the people to understand the political ventures of its rule as national concerns, and to identify with them. Therefore it is always necessary to forget the small disparity between those on top and those below, ruler and subject, state and citizen. If that succeeds with the people, then the state can appoint itself as their higher authority. The required obedience then no longer appears as submission under its power, but as an expression of the will of the people. And the larger the national tasks, the more useful is the image of a popular will, which lives as second nature in the citizen, whether he particularly wants it or not – exactly that "national identity" which puts his state in the right. Some commonalities that function as supporting evidence for this ideology are, in the end, always found.