Democracy and Nationhood: Rousseau and the Myth of the Nation

• In Event: Rousseau and Democracy: The People and the Nation

Abstract

Rousseau has been described as both an apostle of democracy and the father of modern nationalism. This raises questions not only about the nature and consistency of his political theory, but also about the broader relationship between democracy and nationalism. If indeed Rousseau should be reckoned a theorist of nationalism, then one would assume that his nationalism must be of a variety consistent with the commitments of democracy. Given what we know of nationalism and the threats it ostensibly poses to democracy in the contemporary world, however, what kind of nationalist can he be?

Despite ubiquitous mentions by scholarly and popular commentators on nationalism, the precise nature of Rousseau’s concept of the nation remains poorly understood. Some defenders portray Rousseau as a “civic nationalist,” committed to a strictly rational and formal understanding of the bonds of the political community. Conversely, many critics lament his alleged support for blood-and-soil rhetoric of “ethnonationalism.” Still others doubt whether a “cosmopolitan” Rousseau endorses the concept of nationhood at all. Even among those who have been most attentive to his writings on nationalism, confusion persists about the basic terms of Rousseau’s treatment of nationhood and nationalism.

In this paper I examine Rousseau’s political theory of the nation in light of social theorist Georges Sorel’s conception of “myth.” By approaching Rousseau through a Sorelian lens, one can make sense of a number of apparent tensions and paradoxes in his thought. First, the concept of myth explains how it is that nations for Rousseau can be simultaneously conventional—artifacts of the process of civilization that tragically differentiates and divides humanity—while at the same time appearing natural to citizens themselves. Second, I examine how the myth of common biological descent plays a central role in forging this sense of the naturalness of nations. Third, I argue that Rousseau’s sense of how nations come into being reflects some of the best insights of both the social constructivist and primordialist theories of the nation. Finally, while Rousseau recognizes the dangers of myth, his endorsement of patriotism as a matter of national pride is calculated to distinguish an affirmative love of country from an invidious and aggressive nationalism. It is through the idea of nation as myth that Rousseau attempts to bridge the gap—so evident to contemporary observers—between democracy and nationalism.

Author

• Richard Boyd, Georgetown University