NATIONALISM. – It is that sentiment of attachment to the national community which arises spontaneously in the hearts of its members. Its appearance as a sentiment distinct from patriotism is of rather recent date and is due to ideological causes and particular historical circumstances. It is commonly held that the movement of nationalities began under the influence of the ideas propagated by the French Revolution. The Enlightenment rationalism of the 18th century, having proclaimed man free by nature and subject only to the law dictated by his reason and accepted by his will, also attributed to him the power to criticize and overthrow existing social institutions in order to rebuild them according to his own criterion.
From the affirmed total autonomy of man to the autonomy of peoples and the consequent principle of self-determination the step was short and was easily taken. The principle of self-determination of peoples included two postulates, which were merely different orientations of the same fundamental assertion: popular sovereignty and the principle of nationality. The former refers to the internal political structure, ensuring the people the free choice of their rulers; the latter concerns the delimitation of the State, proclaiming the right of citizens to establish the boundaries of the political community. Nationalist romanticism seized upon this principle to launch its resurgence.
Political and social circumstances helped to accelerate this ideological process and convert it into nationalism. The hegemonic attempt of Napoleonic France, which while proclaiming itself the champion of the freedom of peoples oppressed them, and the political intrigues to which the Treaty of the Holy Alliance gave rise, awakened the dormant national sentiment both in Germany, where the manifestations of German nationalism are seen in Fichte’s *Addresses to the German Nation*, producing the unification movement led by Prussia, and in Italy, where they inflamed spirits against the arbitrary interventions of the so-called European Directorate, provoking the uprisings that later led to national unity.
The nationalism thus born was sharpened by the general tendency of the modern State, which is sovereign and absorbs all aspects of social life, jealously guarding its power and unity and therefore tending to level linguistic and cultural differences. In the ancient State a population could change sovereignty without any alteration in its customs; in the modern State, however, the change of political sovereignty and, even more so, subordination to a foreign government, impose new constraints on populations that appear intolerable to the sentiment of national pride.
For these reasons nationalism has almost constantly taken on a violent and reactionary character and has been judged by many as a deformation of the patriotic sentiment corrupted by selfishness. The teaching of the Church has been more objective. Whenever ecclesiastical authority has condemned it as contrary to morality, it has had in view “exaggerated or excessive” nationalism and the evils of national selfishness, which must not be confused with nationalism seen in its essence. Pius XI, in the encyclical *Ubi arcanum*, in fact considered the love of country or nation as an incentive to many virtues, condemning only its selfish degenerations. According to the definition he outlined, nationalism is nothing other than the moral virtue which inclines one to love one’s nation and to fulfill all the duties that piety imposes toward those united by a common origin and culture. That the core of the concept lies in love for the nation is demonstrated by an analysis of the various historical forms it has taken in different countries. Although reality does not present two nationalisms equal in their immediate attitudes and ideals, nonetheless, at bottom, in all of them one can find that love of nation to which each feels drawn by natural impulse.
There is therefore a close kinship between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism has as its immediate object of affection the fatherland, and only mediately refers to the people; nationalism, on the other hand, concerns the ethnic group immediately and the role of its cohesion mediately. When fatherland and nation form a single social entity, patriotic sentiment and national sentiment are unified into a single love. When, however, fatherland and nation do not coincide, the center of attraction of nationalism either falls outside the borders of the fatherland or, if it lies within them, does not extend to the entire society to which the national minority belongs.
All other elements that are adduced as distinctive features of nationalism are accidental and serve only to distinguish one historical form of nationalism from another, according to the different modalities in which it presents itself. Thus, for example, the more vigilant attitude of nationalism for the good of the nation, its care to strengthen power and reinforce internal unity, the systematic character of its doctrine and practice in order to enhance social life are accidental aspects that could also belong to a patriotism that was systematized, and are due in large part to the historical circumstances in which the various movements with a national orientation arose. Their reactionary nature depends on the moments of internal and external crisis that often determine their very birth.
A different judgment, however, must be expressed regarding those forms of nationalism which elevate the nation to the level of the absolute and subordinate all the values of individual and social human life to its good and power. In this case, the nation is conceived as an organic and perennial whole, which includes within itself past, present, and future generations, endowed with autonomous life, of which man is merely a transitory and relatively valuable moment, the source of which resides in the nation. In domestic politics this conception leads to totalitarian forms of regime, inasmuch as it considers the human person as a means for achieving the higher ends of the nation and consequently strips it of all original dignity, denying its rights. In foreign policy it fosters national selfishness, which, heedless of the good of others, seeks only its own, measuring the morality of its attitudes by the criterion of interest, for which it is willing to trample on the rights of others. In this extreme form it was expressly condemned by Pius IX in the *Syllabus* (prop. 64). The manifestations of such false nationalism degenerate into movements of violent expansion, particularly at the expense of the weak, in which one sees a constant assertion of power. They are one of the principal causes of division among peoples, fostering hatred among them and irreconcilable conflicts in international life, where they hinder mutual understanding and collaboration for the common good.