Psychopolitics of the Current Nationalism: Article Summary

The article Psychopolitics of the Current Nationalism by Karl Umbrasas from the Journal of Strategic Security seeks to explain today's rise in nationalism through behavioural science. It begins by considering the compatible relationship between charismatic leaders, who represent nationalism, and their followers, who have an unclear sense of self, are unsure of their place in society, and are narcissistically wounded, which results in feelings of inadequacy. Such people tend to find strong leaders appealing because of the their apparent strength and promise of hope, placing their allegiance to them on a kind of continuum, the extreme of which being complete devotion, and any point of which serving as psychological gratification.

The article explains that not only do these two parties have a compatible relationship as it is due to receiving psychological gratification from each other, but there are also currently various socioeconomic factors that have made the nationalist leaders even more appealing to the ideal-hungry followers. The fact that it is not specifically the nationalist leaders that attracted this following becomes apparent by noting that they have not made any exceptional attempts to attract followers, but rather their relationship developed naturally. It is then prudent to consider socioeconomic factors that may have resulted in this development. It is discovered that many people feel wounded by the rapid and profound impacts of globalization. Most countries view global economy and increased social mobility as security threats, and many working class individuals are impacted by it financially due to salary reductions and unemployment. Nationalism acts as a source of empowerment that compensates these feelings by contrasting present time with memories of a better past, which includes higher paying and more stable jobs, and clearer understandings of one's place in a community. The article proposes dealing with such a profound change that has resulted in nationalist movements by introducing policy changes. A nationalist foreign policy can result in wars, human rights violations, and various injustices, as a nationalist ideology implies isolationism and divisiveness between states. The article also makes the distinction that economic interdependence will be unsuccessful in preventing conflict fuelled by nationalism, since states have historically engaged in war even with thorough understanding of its severe repercussions. Nationalism can also cause problems inside the state if the state's citizens are divided in their views of the regime, which may result in uncontrollable conflict. The article points out that this can result in information warfare used to attack internal structures, which in turn causes more conflict. Alienation of nationalists can also cause problems if the excluded nationalists revolt against the exclusion, which would lead to a radicalization process. It is impossible for Western societies to avoid globalization altogether since the modern world is so globalized, so they must consider policy changes to adjust to the current nationalist issues. When considering all policy changes, the article points out, it is important to involve the nationalists in order to avoid extremism. One policy change suggestion, which is built on the belief that people may become less nationalist if they had a more realistic national identity, is the United States' withdrawal from the Tran-Pacific Partnership. This would reverse American worker displacement, acting in the interests of the nationalists. The West, according to the article, should also consider changes to social and news medias. Restricting or monitoring social media would oppose Western freedoms important to many nationalists, which could result in more conflict. Thus, social media should not be influenced, and, similarly, news media should remain objective to solidify trust between the news outlets and the citizens, and actually disclose this objectivity. Propaganda can deteriorate trust, once more resulting in conflict, so it should be avoided. The article finishes with offering critiques of its arguments. It first notes that a current behavioural science perspective, due to the advancement of the field, is more advantageous to considering nationalism than what the article offered. As well, the article states that some critics believe that it is more difficult than is apparent to identify the results of globalization. Nevertheless, the article stands firm on its belief that globalization policy should be used to address current nationalism.