If we see from the evolutionary perspective, we’d realize that we never existed in isolation, because if we did, I wouldn’t have been able to make so far to question anything. Thus, being in a group was mandatory for our survival. I believe our individual identity is the outcome of the convenience we inherited from the struggle of our forefathers. As the individual’s survival isn’t under threat now, so it is giving way to the existence of an individual’s identity.
Saying that an individual can exist in isolation now still won’t be justified because if we see from the bird’s eyes perspective, we are still profoundly interconnected through a lot of smaller systems. Though I don’t grow food, I still need food for my survival. We all don’t stitch our clothes, but we indeed are wearing one. So, in a macro-system, innumerable smaller systems are working in synchronization to make things look seamless.
Living together resulted in a shared sense of identity as well as competition for limited resources, and hence, a thought which would come a long way to define harmony and agitation, war and peace, identity and its crisis- the thought of US vs. THEM. Not everything is as perfect as it seems to be, so, the blessing of group cohesion based on similarities also brought the curse of group distinction on the grounds of differences. The thought of US vs. THEM has been so strong that it became the foundation stone of how we perceive ourselves who we are today. Through the thick and thin course of the history, the identity of the individual kept evolving, and so does the ways to define it and measures to protect it.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine yourself to be an onion and collect all the labels you think defines you and put them together like the layers of the onion. You would identify yourself having a name, belonging to some gender, some community, some educational institute, some work-group, any religion, some political ideology, your city, state and country, etc. Now, let’s peel off one layer at a time; you don’t have a name, don’t belong to any gender, any religion, any community, any city, any state, any country and so on. Now, what are you left with? A body, which is an emotional, psychological, and intellectual being which will survive for some time and will die someday, essentially all of us.
The experiment isn’t about presenting the life very gloomy or going into an existential crisis that what’s the purpose of living. Instead, it is to ponder upon who we are, how far we’ve come in the course of evolution, and what makes us, US. What makes you, YOU!
Biologists will say our genetic makeup makes us unique, but we also share a huge chunk of our DNA with other primates. So, we can conclude that we’re just another part of the living world, and nothing much is unique about us. It’s just that we evolved differently using cognitive abilities compared to our counterparts, and we’ve a better developed and organized social structure.
Sociologists would argue differently, giving more weight to the social condition, stratification of people based on work or belief, or ideology, etc, and its contribution in reaching till the present time.
Someone else might choose to be in the middle ground and emphasize the contribution of everything starting from the biological basis to social condition and its complex interaction with each other. The nature vs nurture debate is still going on, so one is free to explore and comment on it.
So, for answering what’s my idea of a nation, it is equally important to have enough reasons for why is this question necessary at all.
Through the previous arguments and experiment, it can be inferred that the nation is just a layer of an onion, not literally. A nation is that man-made construct of classification based on certain features like religion, language, geographical factors, ethnicity, race, shared history, political ideology, etc. A nation is a way of categorization for convenience to identify oneself, and to differentiate oneself from others. The nations exist because of our immense need to be in the labelled boxes to save us from the cognitive load. It gives us an identity of belonging to a place or people. It provides us with safety being in the group from the fear of unknown. It gives an individual with the comfort that he is not alone.
So, can we say that nation is just a colossal tribe having something similar to identify with? Maybe yes, like theocratic nations, e.g., Pakistan, Iran, Iraq; or a union of different nations sharing common identity like Europe; or India which is the amalgamation of different religions, multiple languages, and belief system yet it is governed by the spirit of its constitution which is pluralistically inclusive in its political stance.
Nation-building started to keep the individual safe, and now an individual’s life is under threat because of a nation. Not only an individual identifies with the nation, instead, but the nation itself also defines the individual. There is no choice of separating our identity from the nation’s identity as we’ve certain religious beliefs and some fundamental rights just by virtue of our birth in a particular religion or nation. Nation is the extension of our identity, of our sense of self, of who we are, of what makes us, us. At the same time, the nation also deprives us of the opportunity of who we could have been or would want to be. A nation is a constant intellectual conflict between who we are and who we want to be. A nation is a dynamic being in itself which is in a state of degradation and formation at the same time. A nation is that Indian parent who puts food in your plate but also dictates who should you marry. A nation is a bunch of thoughts and even the belief that these thoughts are important for us, for our survival.
As Karl Marx has said, “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Similarly, I believe our need to identify is the sole reason for the existence of a nation. Only if we could find better ways to define ourselves, maybe the world would have been a little less chaotic. This thought brings me to another thought experiment. Let’s jump in.
Imagine you’ve a group of hundred people comprising of adult males and adult females, children and old people, 25 each. They don’t have any conventional label of identity as ours, like that of religion, city, state, etc. Your job is to create a system for them which suits everyone’s requirements, fulfills basic necessities, and gives them substantially equal opportunities to nourish themselves in best possible ways, promote and sustains a life of dignity. What will be your basic principles? Principles of governance and of morality which will be the foundation of your system. Which strategy you’ll follow to divide the labour which can give equal pay as well as respect?
I don’t know the exact answer, but I found something else. I went through a bunch of preambles of the constitution of different nations and found that the underlining idea of who we are or maybe aspire to become is pretty much same. We all have a similar sense of morality and the need for social, economic and political justice. A similar line of thought when we talk of equality and brotherhood, and of peace and prosperity. We all talk about a place where women are treated with respect and children have the opportunity to educate themselves. A place where there is sufficient food for everyone and people live a life of dignity, where people have a sense of liberty, a safe place where they can express their views. A place where there is social harmony and transparency in the conduct of public affairs, and where human rights are respected and safeguarded.
Our ways might be different, but our struggles and ambitions are the same- a dignified identity.
Image Courtesy: https://wallpaperscristaos.com.br/christianwallpapers/from-every-nation
Just Me 