Sever Voinescu: What is there to say about the nation

Not long ago, I participated in a discussion about our national identity in a European context, at the invitation of a group of independent experts who agreed to advise the President of Romania regarding Romania's presence in the European Union. I am not a member of this group, but I was invited as a guest specifically for this discussion. I believe that my concern for the issue of Romanian identity in today's Europe, often expressed in this corner of the page and in almost all my public appearances over the last decade, led to my invitation. President Nicușor Dan was also present at the discussion, accompanied by several advisors. The group drafted a report, synthesizing several written contributions sent in advance. This synthesis became public under the more or less inspired name of "Report." I believe the document stated correct things, which is why it was heavily criticized from all directions.

I have followed the criticisms directed at this document with attention because, as I said, the theme fascinates me. I did not take into account the criticisms directed at the meeting as such (what else does the president have to do? why were these people called when there are better experts? etc.). I also passed insensibly over the attacks from notorious anti-Nicușor people – individuals who hate the president so much that they would denounce him as a legionary if they saw him crossing the street at a green traffic light. I also passed over the "scientific" criticisms of those who reproached that the so-called Report lacks academic bibliography and methodology or that it does not use "up-to-date conceptual apparatus" or does not define its terms. Moreover, I easily noticed the frustration of many of the "scientists" that they are not the ones called to show the president how much they know, and I believe that the group of experts who invited me this time would do well to invite them too, on a future occasion.

Therefore, among all the criticisms I have read following that meeting, I am left with a single truly important question: in what terms can we talk today about nations and national identities in Europe? Obviously, in many ways, but which is the appropriate, the useful one? I believe there are several types of discourse on this theme and that each is suitable for its own field. More precisely, politicians speak in one way, "academics" in another, ordinary people in their conversations in another way, journalists (they are the interface between politicians and citizens) in another way, corporate leaders in another way, jurists in another way, diplomats, etc. In turn, these categories of discourse subdivide – in the academic spectrum, for example, psychologists speak in one way, historians in another, and literary scholars in another about national identity, etc. There is no single valid way to talk about national identity even if some inevitably claim the superiority of their discourse.

Let me give you an example. It seems to me that a discourse like the one delivered by Ernest Renan in 1882 at the Sorbonne is infinitely more appropriate and relevant than many studies of psychology or "political governance" about nation and national identity today. 1882! Immediately, many will rise to tell me that it is an old thing, that it is outdated, that today's "scientific studies" are advanced in other directions, etc. I am used to the arrogance of recent scholars as well as that of professors, so I move on. I believe what Renan said about French identity is relevant because the times are similar.

In 1882, France was wounded by the loss of Alsace and Lorraine as a consequence of the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, the Third Republic was just consolidating, trying to encompass a deeply divided society in which monarchists and republicans, Catholics and atheists could barely coexist. It is also the era in which anti-Semitism was becoming increasingly furious and anarchist socialists were becoming more radical. France in 1882 was a nervous country, and Renan's conference sought an answer. Do you see why I say it is, after all, relevant? Often, it is this context that puts an intelligent person in a position to formulate a good idea. Renan said on that occasion: "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things which, to be honest, are one and the same, constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One comes from the past, the other is in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich heritage of memories, the other is the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to give value to the heritage we have received indivisibly."

Renan is, to my knowledge, the first to formulate so clearly that a nation is, at the same time, a heritage and an act of will, a given and a construct. Today, few can think in these terms. Simple minds cannot accept "and-and," they want "either-or." In fact, you cannot be a nation if you have not received something from the past, even if you want to, and you cannot be a nation if you do not want to be a nation, even if you have received something from the past. National identity is not, in this sense, a prison. You can very well de-nationalize yourself if you wish, and there are many people who have renounced their nation. Heritage, in fact, makes the difference between citizenship (you can have any, if you want) and nationality (you can have it only if you have received the heritage). And more clearly, Renan, in the same conference: "A nation is [...] a great solidarity constituted by the feeling of sacrifices that have been made and of those we are willing to make in the future." This is, in fact, the will to have a national identity: the willingness to continue a sacrifice that those before you made. And it is precisely this volitional element that distinguishes a nation from an ethnicity. Paraphrasing someone (I won't give the name as it would disrupt my entire presentation), I also say that the Romanian people is an ethnic mix, which makes it more than an ethnicity, it makes it a nation.

https://www.dilema.ro/tilc-show/cite-ceva-despre-natiune