Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (1)
- But today is a kind of second introductory lecture
where we're gonna be thinking about
the origins of the nation in particular, as with last time,
I'm gonna toss you some what I think are softballs,
but also feel free to raise your hand and interrupt,
because that can help me when I understand
that something's really not coming across
or something is unclear.
So just feel free to interrupt
and ask a question anytime you want.
So this lecture is called The Genesis of Nations,
and it's about a question, which I raised last time,
which has kind of been a question puzzling philosophers
from the beginning of philosophy,
which is how do you get from something to nothing?
At some point there wasn't a Ukrainian nation
and at some point there is a Ukrainian nation.
How does that happen?
How do you get social forms to come into existence
that didn't exist before?
It's a really interesting question.
And you can ask it with other social formations as well.
There didn't used to be classes,
but now we don't have any difficult--
I don't mean the classes that you're in.
I mean, social classes, right? Economic classes.
Those didn't use to exist either,
but now we don't have much trouble identifying,
oh, he's middle class.
Actually we're in America, so everybody's middle class.
Thinking that everyone's middle class
is part of the class struggle, I'm sure you know that.
So if you all think you're middle class,
that means you're already in, okay.
Sorry that wasn't our subject today at all.
We're gonna move back to nations.
Although the Marxists
are gonna get a little shout out later on
because actually Marxists were some of the first people
to think about the nation.
But when we're thinking about this social form
of the nation, what makes it particularly tricky
is that the nation, once it exists, lays claim to the past.
So the nation didn't always exist
but once it comes into existence,
it tells a story about the past
and the story that the nation tells about the past is wrong.
That's the short version.
It tells a story which clears out the past
and that story calls itself history.
Although it's not really history, it calls itself history.
And so this new social form has a story
about how it's very old and that confusion is confusion
that basically everyone lives their whole life with.
Unless you're American.
If you're American, then your national story
is that you're new and you're fresh
and you're all about the future,
which is ironic because the American nation
is actually comparatively speaking, quite old.
It's funny, right?
It's actually older than most of the European nations,
but don't tell the Europeans and don't tell the Americans,
'cause that would mess everybody up.
So the trick though is that the nation is modern,
but it lays claim to the past
in a way which if we ourselves are at all nationally minded
and many of us probably are, feels comfortable and right.
And that makes it very hard to answer this question
of where the nation came from
because the nation is already giving you an answer.
The nation comes equipped with an answer.
It comes equipped in the most banal
and obvious practical sense,
which you've already encountered in your lives probably,
which is that as you're educated,
as you go through elementary school,
middle school, high school,
if you're in anything like a national educational system,
you're given answers to these questions,
which seem self-evident as to where the nation came from.
But of course, there's a circular phenomenon here,
which is that once there's a national consciousness,
once there's a national identity,
then the educational system takes on a national character
and then reproduces that national consciousness and identity
in a way which then starts to seem unproblematic
and commonsensical.
So there's a circular quality about this,
which is very hard to break out of
when you're seven years old.
I mean, I'm sure all of you are smarter than average
and each one of you is smarter than the person next to you.
I'm aware of this, you're Yale students,
but when you were seven, you pro--
Okay, six.
When you were six, you probably weren't raising your hand
and talking about the constructed character of national--
Right? You probably weren't.
You were probably, I don't know.
Correct me, but I imagine
that what they told you about the past in your schools,
you were probably either ignoring it
or somehow taking it in to some extent, right?
Thank you for those nods. That's very affirming.
So the obvious way that this happens
is the institutional way.
The nation takes over the state,
the state takes over the education,
the education takes over the kids
and then the kids believe the things
which are commonsensical and 99 times out of a hundred
and I say this as a historian
who gets trapped in cocktail parties all the time in corners
with people who know what really happened in the past,
99 times out of a hundred, you never break free, right?
99 times out of a hundred,
you're basically trapped where they pinned you down
when you were seven.
The less obvious way that the nation gets hold of the past
has to do not with the institutions,
but with the form of the story.
And I'm gonna tell you a couple forms of the story
and try to make them seem less commonsensical
or less obvious, less natural than they are.
I called this maybe a little bit too preciously,
I called this lecture The Genesis of Nations,
because now I'm gonna talk about Genesis.
A great story about the nation
is that there once was innocence and the innocence was lost.
That is a big story about the nation,
especially nations that emerge out of empires.
Especially nations like the Russian.
I'm not gonna talk about too much about America,
but it's certainly true of America too.
There's an American imperial story
about how things were at some point,
the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s.
At some point, things were fine.
At some point, things were good.
And then somehow the immigrants got in and we lost control
and now things aren't so good.
That's a story of innocence.
If you're about making the country great again,
like a cycle.
You go back to a cycle where there's a point
or the founders are another good example of this.
So some people think that the moment of 1776 or 1789
is a kind of moment of innocence.
The founders got it basically right.
That's a very attractive idea.
The founders thought of everything,
they're kind of demigods.
They walk the earth, leaving huge footprints behind them
and the footprints were filled with the water
and residue of righteousness.
And that's all you have to know.
That's a very attractive view.
Somebody got everything right at one point in time.
Most of the Supreme Court now
pretends to believe this at this point.
By the way, you know what the problem with originalism is?
I realize this is not our subject at all
so you don't have to take notes.
But there's a school of thought called originalism
about the American Constitution,
which says that you have to take the Constitution
only in terms of what it actually says.
But you know what the Constitution doesn't say?
It doesn't say that you have to take the Constitution
the way that the Constitution actually says.
That is to say the originalist position
is self-contradictory because the originalist position
is not actually in the Constitution, right?
Okay. I've blown your minds, right?
All right. (students laughing)
But I'm only saying this by way
of this general imperial nation problem
of wanting to go back to a moment
where somehow we got everything right.
In Russia today, this is very evident
in the thought of a character called Ivan Ilyin,
who for several years Putin read
and who takes a view like this, that the world is flawed.
The world itself is flawed, but Russia has a kind of mission
of restoring the innocence of the world.
I mean, it's kind of ironic,
but very often it's the imperial nations,
the post-imperial nations that are focused on innocence.
They're focused on a time when everything was all right.
Nations that are peripheral
or are anti-colonial, anti-imperial
very often have a different structure of story,
which I wanna try to make seem
both familiar and unfamiliar to you if I can.
And that's a three part story. And again, it's biblical.
So the story of lost innocence is of course,
the story of Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden.
There's also a longer story in the Hebrew Bible,
the Old Testament about a people which had a state,
but then that mistakes were made
or bad people came and they lost their state.
But at some point they're gonna get their state back.
And when they get their state back,
everything's gonna be fine.
That's a structural story that's inside the Bible.
People have different views
about how it's gonna be right again.
The Christians say Jesus came and then everything was fine.
Zionists might say we made Israel, then everything was fine.
You can be in disagreement about when everything is fine,
but there's still the basic three part story
of everything was once good, then we lost it somehow.
Probably not our fault, probably somebody else's fault,
but we lost it.
But then there will be a moment of redemption.
So the nation takes over this story very easily.
You've probably heard phrases
like national renaissance, a rebirth.
The whole idea of rebirth
is if you think about it just for a second,
in some kind of literal way, it's a very weird idea.
It's very weird.
If you just think for a quarter of a second,
what it would be like to be reborn,
wouldn't that be strange, right?
Okay, this may be a little too Freudian,
you just left home, I know.
But a rebirth is a strange idea
if you think about it at all.
So the idea of a national rebirth
is that you're going back to that time
when everything was right.
You're going back to that golden age.
Usually the nation says we're in some kind of middle period
where things have gone wrong,
but everything used to be right.
And if you're an anti-colonial or a post-colonial nation,
the story usually has to do with the people.
The people were right and good.
They're still somehow basically right and good
and we're gonna restore that rightness and goodness
by giving them a state and then things are gonna be fine.
There's been a middle period,
which involves a diaspora or an empire
or something messing things up.
But in the future, things are gonna be good.
So notice the three part story.
The three part story is very widespread. Very widespread.
Classical examples are the Jewish national story,
the Greek national story.
And I mentioned in the last lecture, the Jews and Greeks
are actually the oldest documented inhabitants
of the territory of Ukraine.
But basically, every national story
has cottoned onto this, has followed this pattern.
So I'm gonna say the obvious thing now.
It's not that this is true.
It's not that there ever was a pure nation.
It's not that there was an ethnicity
which existed a thousand years ago and still exists today.
I hope I'm not shattering anybody's illusions,
but that never actually happens.
I know I'm breaking something to you now,
but somebody has to at some point.
Relationships are a lot more complicated than that, right?
Fatherhood and motherhood and sex.
It's a lot more complicated than a straight line