Analysing Media and Culture Essay

National identities will not survive into the 22nd century?
Analysing Media and Culture

National identities are an imaginative form of identification of people with their nation-state, they are said to give the people a sense of nationalism, of loyalty, and belonging. Is it required to replace nationalism with another form of identification, another way in which we can belong to a larger organisation? Or is it possible that in the future that people will not require such a thing? In this discussion I will point out several items in which if changed we can hypothetically rid the world of what I feel is a large source to the world’s discrimination from one person to another. Things like Education, War and Travel.

In a world of increased mobility there are ever-increasing challenges to national borders. States continue to be an important container for social identities, but the rise in global flows bodies, goods and information now makes the nation only one of a number of competing sites of allegiance. (Hopkins 2009)

Nationalism is shifting to globalism, with access becoming easier our views must change. People today take a longer look at foreign affairs in every aspect of life. This is the result of increased flows of information, people’s cultures and discourses of living. Americanisation was once seen as an intrusion on English nationalism, but today we see it the other way, that being open to ways of thinking and living is the only way live. One day it may be possible that we do not see a flow of cultures from on to another, that culture exchange is just something that happens.

The term ‘only one of a number of competing sites of allegiance’ shows that some people today don’t see a national identity as something that can define them. In a world of open information and the apparatus that provide it, people start to feel less belonging to a nation-state but to things like niche social groups. The internet is a good example, the modern day person take advantage of free information and things on the internet like social networking and forums. The internet kills nationalism, because when we communicate, there is no assurance that we are talking to people of our nation, and that we could be communing with other people and their cultures.

Culture also refers to, or is based upon communication. It is through language that a group becomes aware of itself. Language and place are inextricably interconnected. (Sarup Page 131)
A difference in language is the barrier between national identities. Not only is it how we become aware of ourselves and our cultures, but also how it is a symbol to how different cultures are. We can link the Italian language with art, religion and a nation of wine drinkers. Whereas they may see when they hear the English language a nation of beer guzzling, bacon butty eating bulldogs, who have a strange affection to its royalty. This kind of discrimination is imbarasing but apparent in the world today and it is because we are at opposites with other nations. We see ourselves as different.

I find it hard to believe that a culture will change overnight, only in a hundred years may it be possible, it is our children and their children that will make this a reality or not. How we teach them in school at home and in other institutions, like through the media or religion is the way in which ideology and a change of culture can happen for the next generation.
Althusser states that ideology exists in apparatus like the education system. Schools and universities are the source of ideological reproduction in power and social relations. And i must say I agree. Today we teach our children to prepare for the info-structure of later life, if we were to teach them different social values then overtime they will spread.

The state specializes in the maintenance of order through the rule of law. To a considerable degree this is achieved through a monopoly of legitimate violence. (Barker Page 181)
Violence is manufactured in today’s world. The weapons that are used come from high street companies who invest in trading arms and the development of new ones. Wars may have changed overtime. They are fought for different reasons, and are fought in different ways. But in order to change the fact that wars are a great promotion of our homes nation-state and a demotion of our enemies, the ideals of war must be changed at home. With this view of one side against another, attacking each other because this is our nation, and that is not, we will not allow them to attack it. It is the worst example of antonymic behaviour. I think in this case it is hard to see a world without national identities, as they are a way to set yourself apart from your enemies, your friends and everyone in between. If people feel at opposites of someone else, and they feel it needs to be indentified then there will always be some form of citizenship.

From what I have found, I am un-able to make a definite opinion of whether or not i think national identities will survive. I have thought about other questions throughout this discussion, whether or not national identities are a good entity or not, and if it is wise to see them disappear within a hundred years.

However I believe that this issue is too large, in the sense that identifying on self to a nation state is rather broad. I wonder whether people will one day distance there identifications from either being a legal member of a community or people being activists in their communities social and political affairs.

There is one thing I can say I believe, it will take longer than a hundred years for national identities to come to an end. The global community must come closer together before it can exist in a state of no discrimination.

Bibliography
L. Hopkins. Continuum: Journal Of Media & Cultural Studies. Vol. 23, No. 1, February 2009 Page 19-32
C. Barker. Cultural Studies, Theory & Practice. Sage, London, 2008 Page 181
M. Sarup. Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World. Edinburgh University. Edinburgh. Page 131