In “Inhabit your Democracy”, Corey brought up the topic of Nationalism and how he had a turn-around on this topic after some discussion with his more conservative leaning integrally informed friends.
Well: I am hoping for some enlightenment on this myself (I think this is honest, and not just a way to pretend to want to be “enlightened”, when in reality I just want to prove that my opinion is the right one–at least I hope it is)
So, here is how it appears to me: I can absolutely see many positive, secondary qualities that can come out of nationalism, or qualities that can be honed through nationalism. These include: self-sacrifice for something larger than self (or family or narrow tribe), togetherness and love for others (again a larger group than may be natural to human nature), self-esteem (if it is otherwise lacking), the simple joy and beauty of joining in some common traditions or values, and there are probably a few others.
BUT: I cannot quite see how this is more than a transition-phase or a stepping stone, or how these qualities aren’t even more present and even stronger and have far fewer down-sides, when moving to a more world-centric view. So, I can see nationalism as a transition-phase (obviously, if you’re centered in Red, it is a great step up), but not how it is in itself such a valuable thing that needs to be preserved as we move beyond it. Why is nationalism required in a world-centric world? How is the very concept of “a nation” not completely arbitrary? (yes, historically it is what we have to deal with, but how is it a universally true concept that needs to be preserved, as we move on?
It bothers me to some extent that I cannot quite understand this, and I interpreted Corey’s comment at the end of the video to mean that he understood nationalism now as something universally true and good and necessary (and not just something that he tolerates in people as a kind of: “well that is great, that you have this as a stepping stone, but eventually you’ll grow out of it, as I have”…which, I am afraid to admit, is closer to how I see it, when I am truly honest.)
So: What is a good argument for the universal value of nationalism that can not be replaced or transcended by world-centrism or what would be lost, if we found ourselves in a world where nations (and therefore nationalism) simply weren’t a reality?