The State And The Nation

The State And The NationAlthough the devil call nominate and dry land have different nastyings they tend to be utilize interchangeably and identically bringing confusion to the use of the term twain in intellectual and popular discourse. The terms take mess bestride a legal and political entity while the term earth denotes a group of pack that share common characteristics such as phrase, holiness and ethnicity In spite of the dissimilitude between the devil patterns of kingdom and kingdom, the 2 terms tend to overlap collectable to m whatever reasons mainly the sexual climax of communityalism, Wilson fourteenth point which made the democracy- affirm an ideal form of government and the tendency to be a nation-state. This research paper will analyze the difference between the deuce concepts and the reasons behind the confusion about the two terms. The commencement ceremony part is devoted to the difference between nation and state by giving their definitions and the second part deals with reasons behind the confusion between the two terms.Before analyzing the difference between the state and the nation, the two terms privation to be defined. First, the state is a legal and political entity that has fivesome geographic components territory, world, government, organized economy and a circulation scheme in addition to two political components sovereignty and recognition. (Glassner and Fahrer, 31-32). Second, The etymology of the word nation as a Latin word natio means birth or descent (Schulze,99), foreigners that are inferior to Romans, it excessively means a group of university students. The modern use of the word nation started in the 16 century to mean a group of people that share matching characteristics. (Visvanathan, 533) According to Hagen Schulze, the nation is a state of mind, a community that exists as spacious as it is willed and have it aways in the hearts and minds of its members and which perishes when it no longer e xists in their thoughts and aspirationsNations come to know themselves through their common chronicle (99).According to those two definitions we can discern many differences between the nation and state. First, the state has many tangible components such as territory and population while the term nation is merely establish on ideas and concepts that prompt the risk of disappearing if no one believes in them. In addition, foreign the nation, whereby the link between its nationals is a moral one religious, linguistic, ethnicthe sexual intercourse between the state and its citizen is a legal one that is channeled through institutions. Second, the state is a legal entity that has authority, a government that represents its citizens and needs both the five geographical and the two political components to be recognized as a state. While the nation is rather an invention (Visvanathan, 533), that is based on annals that is modified to serve the purpose of the nation even if it never ex isted as long as it serves the purpose of uniting people, this means usually play such negative events in history into positive ones. For instance, the state of Israel apply the siege of Masada as a symbol for the glorification of the Judaic nation during their battle against the roman whereby many Jews preferred to commit suicide rather of succumbing to the Romans. Although historical and scientific research shows remains of pigs in the area, a circumstance which stains the event as it used to glorify people who adhere to Jewish law. Basically history is used selectively by any nation to advance its agenda (Gelvin ,6-9). Besides, it is not conditioned for a community to run short to a nation based on the entire cultural characteristics, sometimes one feature is enough. For instance, the concept of the Israel as a nation is based on religion while language and culture did not effect during its construction. While for the Kurds it is based language and ethnicity. Finally, since a nation needs just now one common binding point between its community and the state needs rigid requirements, there are more nations than state to the result that there are multinational states mostly administered through federal system such as Russia and India.Definition of the Nation StateThe term nation-state was invented to brand name the homogeneity of a state in terms of having one unified nation. This term is going to meet problems as it A nation-state has been a unreal goal, a great deal sought, but never fully achieved (Walby, 532) due to its impracticality. According to Saadia Toor The nation-state is a particular form of representative state, wherein it is assumed that the people who live inside the territorial boundaries of a state are members of a unified community-a nation-whose integrated interests the state represents. (187) this term is popular among ruling elite and those who espouse to regain as it is The ideal composite of rule and its legitimacy in the present-day(a) world, (Saadia Toor, 187) For instance, the country of France needs legitimacy. This term brought a problem of making this role of state being sought by any nation in the world as term denotes that Each nation had a objurgate to its own state (Saadia Toor, 188)The Reasons behind the Confusion between the Two priceFirst, According to Weber since the nation means a community of plan which normally tends to produce a state of its own, (Reis, 252) therefore it is the nation (that) tends to bring forth state (Reis, 252) the basis of this argument lies on the German nation make in which the state was built from the bottom. Even Marcel Maus defined the state as society integrated in material and moral terms, with a shelter and permanent central power, fixed frontiers, and a relatively stable moral, mental and cultural unity among the inhabitants who consciously respect the state and bear out by its laws. (Reis, 253) The reasons behind this confusion between the stat e and the nation is due to the shared space which is regarded by the nation as a mother country and the state is a basis of territory upon it sovereignty lies. Another study source of perplexity in the use of the term lies in the concept of self determination which was brought by the fourteens point of Wilson to denote the right of any nation to have its state therefore the two terms became two faces of one coin. Furthermore, even the use of the word United Nations and league of nation before WWII creates confusion in the use of the term nation to mean a state. The use of the term nation in the UN is ironic because the cheek is composed of states instead of nations.Nationalism brought together to be two faces of the analogous coin and an ideal form of government as it stated by Ernest Gellner Nationalism contains that they (nation and state) were destined for each other that either without the other is incomplete, and constitutes a tragedy. But before they could become intended for each other, each of them had to emerge, and their yield was in babelike and contingent. The state has sure enough emerged without the help of the nation. Some nations have certainly emerged without the blessings, of their own state (6). Moreover, the emergence of nationalism after the American diversity and French revolution brought an upheaval to the territorial state as it tightened the sexual congress between state and society (Axtmann, 260). Before the two revolution, population used to pay allegiance to religious communities and dynastic realms but with the coming of the age of enlightenment people found nationalism to be a unexampled way to be attached to their community and this brought the idea of the nation state as The ideal composite of rule and its legitimacy in the contemporary world (Toor, 187), which in its way brought confusion to the use of the two terms.Second, other important source of confusion is due to the fact that nation is nice an important posse ssion that any human being should have as it is stated by Ernest Gellner Having a nation is not an inherent judge of humanity, but it has now come to appear as such (6). And regarding the conflict the state predates the nation even though the term exited for a long time because the modern meaning of the nation came into being only in the 16th century. In fact the A nation-state has been a mythical goal, often sought, but never fully achieved (Walby, 532), to the extent that even the countries currently hold to be nation-states are not homogenous for instance, one of the most parochial country Japan has a nonage of Ainu in Hokkaido as healthy as a different language spoken in Okinawa island, France has both ancient and new minorities and even Bangladesh which considered one of the most homogenous countries in earth in terms of religion has a Christian minority in Chittagong.Third, one of the reasons behind the confusion between the two terms has two with some shared characteristic s between the two. For instance, as it is stated by Christopher Pierson nations reflect claims of sovereignty at a particular level (not local, not cosmopolitan). They reflect the formalization of borders and the importance of a shared legal apparatus. They too evoke elements of the citizenship side of the modern state rights shared within a particular community, authority deriving from the will of the sovereign people, the state as an expression of this collective will and so on (48).The example of Pakistan forward to the cessation of Bangladesh exemplifies states that regard themselves as nation-states in which the integrity-and indeed authenticity-of a nation-state were dependent on the existence of a bounded and unitary national culture, of which language was a crucial part (Toor, 186), which means complete disregard for the cultures of minorities that live in the country mainly the Bengalis, the same can be verbalise regarding the Kurds in Turkey that were obliged to assimil ate into the nation of Turkey endingTo conclude, the terms nation and state tend to be used interchangeably in spite of their different difference due to the belief in the right of each nation to have a state obligate by such concept as nationalism and self determinism.