-------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT 4 (5), OPTION 2
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
What particular significance do media systems have for the construction of national identities? How far, if at all, is it possible to have a (sense of) national identity without the media?
-------------------------------------------------

Introduction

I will argue that national identity is a problematic concept, constructedthrough imagined indicators of unity, as well as through a process of othering. I will look at how national identity is more valuable for political and commercial purposes, than for the development of authentic or peaceful national and internationalcommunities.Furthermore, I will explore howdominant national power influences identity, with education as the foundational cornerstone, andmediaas the toolfor the normalisation and reinforcement of national identity.

Debunking the homogeneity of national identity

Das and Harindranath write that individuals’ ability to identify themselves through nationality signals a “shared acceptance of the nation-state as a reasonable and ‘natural’ way of organizing social and political life” (2006: p.7). However, the fallibility of the homogeneity that is presupposed to constitute a national identity becomes apparent when examining various related definitions. In the case of nation-states, Smith writes that they must have “a measure of common culture and a civic ideology, a set of common understandings and aspirations, sentiments and ideas, that bind the population together in their homeland” (Smith, 1991, p.11). But how can a sense of common cultureorcivic ideology, two such shiftingintangibilities,be measured?A set of common understandings and aspirations, sentiments and ideas, could just as easily be shared between two people from opposite corners of the globe, as it could be between people with a shared nationality. Finally, the idea of a homeland, which in itself is a highly contentious and politicised term, is also undefined here. While a country can be defined along geographic borders, when considering the concept of a homeland, Das and Harindranath write that the symbolic importance of territorial borders is based on certain assumptions, including “that people must ‘belong’ to the space they inhabit, and that a territory must be occupied almost exclusively by a homogenous population” (2006: p.5). With ever-expandingglobalisation, the reality of a homogenous national population is, and for a long time has been, simply unthinkable.

In another attempt to define national identity, Stalin explains it as “a common language, a common territory, a common economic system, and a common psychological make up (1994, p. 20). This definitionhighlights the power dynamics employed to construct a national identity. For example, in the case of a common language, the dominant languages in so many post-colonial countries today (mostly French or English) betray the long-term effects of a powerful (though minority) infringement on various parts of the globe during the colonial era. Of the psychological make up, Das and Harindranath describe national psychology as “not a fact of kinship that ethnic affiliations allude to, but a myth of kinship” (2006: p. 11).

Das and Harindranath ask whether national identity is “an inevitable, natural outcome of community existence constructed through tradition and history… or… artificially constructed by powers that be, an insidious notion created to hegemonically control individual thought and dissent?” (2006: p. 5). To answer these questions, we can assess the most common and easily identifiable elements that constitute a national identity – “flags, anthems, history books, and the larger political culture of the country” (Das and Harindranath, 2006: p. 13). It becomes apparent that these elements are not only constructed, and as a result largely imagined, but are interchangeable with the political identity of a nation, and can as a result be influenced and adapted to suit the ruling power. Flagsare somewhat of a prerequisite for the identification of a nation, on an international scale. They are signifiers of nations, which require no real explanation or understanding. Anthems, with their dramatic melodies and often emotive lyrics, are sung mostly at national events which are aimed at inspiring a sense of unity. The potential power of an anthem sung at a public setting,then broadcast through the media, can be understood through the way that Das and Harindranath explain India’s telecast of national events as “highly emotive, aiming to elicit a reciprocal chord in the viewers’ minds” (2006: p. 27). While media is a useful tool for the wider reinforcement of the value of these national elements,since flags and anthems are used mostly in communal settings, the development of a sense of national identity is by no means dependent on media.Of its key role in helping to connect people, Das and Harindranath write that “the media enable entire populations to participate in the everyday life of a country-wide community, uniting individual members of the national family into a shared political and cultural rubric” (2006: p.20). However, public media, which is largely controlled by existing economic and political national powers, is easily and often employed to convey constructed messages which suit national agendas and maintain the status quo.

If the concept of national identity is mostly based on imagined elements and so problematic to concretely define, let alone realise, why does the pursuit for it continue? The most apparent rationalisation, it would seem, is rooted in an innate need for connection with others, and as society changes and expands, this connection becomes increasingly complicated to attain. “Modern nation-states are, as Anderson suggests, large and impersonal forms of socio-political organization. Our primary knowledge of our country and compatriots comes not so much from personal face-to-face communication as in earlier collectives, but from more impersonal and widely-dispersed agencies of socialization like the education system, institutions such as museums, and the mass media which make possible the participation of vast numbers of people in a ‘national’ life through, for example, nation-wide broadcasts of national ceremonies and rituals” (Das and Harindranath, 2006 p. 6). This quote speaks to the social changes that society has undergone. Where before nationhood or a sense of community could be imparted through interpersonal relations, based on experience or the perception thereof, the significant advancements of media in recent times increasingly allow for the mass messaging of narratives of sameness and ideas of what the nation, as well as of the individual, should be aspiring to.

Celebrating sameness at the expense of exclusion

National identity, by virtue of its basis on sameness, does little to accommodate people living in the geographically defined nation that do not comply with the status quo. Das and Harindranath ask how we “establish these boundaries of similarity and difference? By what means do we come to believe in a common cultural bond that unites us with our compatriots? Or indeed, do we? Do all members of a country share a similar identification with it?” (2006: p. 6). They also ask what these definitions based on ‘sameness’ mean for the true nature of nation-states and their multi-ethnic populations (2006: p.12). Of course, all nations are made up of considerable diversity, which ultimately means that minority groups within any nation must either conform to the dominant narrative, or be classified as ‘alternative’. Smith explores the fate of minority groups within newly forming national identities when he says that “the culture of the new state’s core ethnic community becomes the main pillar of the new national political identity and community. Other cultures continue to flourish, …[but]… the identity of the emerging political community is shaped by the historic culture of its dominant ethnic group” (Smith, 1991 p. 110). But what is a ‘core’ community that determines the shaping of a national identity? Is it the majority group present in a region? The legacy of colonialism tells us that it is not. It tells us that the ruling political power, which helps to construct national history and with considerable stakes in national public media, determine which culture flourishes most, and influences all other cultures and realities within a nation.

Education as a cornerstone and media as a reinforcer of national identity

In the case of British education, which helped to form a sense of national identity and patriotism based on national pride, Scannell and Cardiff write that “there was a national education system to inculcate, as part of the curriculum, the achievements of British history and the glories of English literature” (Scannell and Cardiff, 1991: p. 277). Such education, which helps lay the foundation for a sense of national identity, can be reinforced through media. “The respective roles of media and education may be different as between the generation of national identity in the years of national formation, and the maintenance of a sense of national belonging in the case of an established nation-state” (Das and Harindranath, 2006: p. 19). The role of media in helping to reinforce a national identity was exemplified in South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy, in the early nineties. After the demise of the oppressive apartheid regime in South Africa, the country underwent an identity overhaul, which both the national education and media systems had to ensure was as inclusive as possible, to help build a cohesive and unified new nation. Alexander, Dawson and Icchharam write about how this transition played out at the national television and radio stations of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) during this crucial national transitional period: “The SABC celebrated the idea of unity by promoting its programming with the jingle Simunye” (2006, p. 160).Simunye, a Zulu phrase meaning ‘we are one’, was also the tagline of the SABC’s channel one television station. This rebranding of the national broadcaster – formerly the mouthpiece of the apartheid regime – promoted a sense of acknowledgment and belonging for all South Africans to identify with.

However, as Das and Harindranath highlight, “the idea of an unproblematic unity within the boundaries of a nation-state proves dubious and difficult to sustain” (2006: p. 8). South Africa is a prime example of a new country’s need for the formation of a national identity through media, that laterneeded deepening and nuancing of that media messaging for it to resonate in a maturing democratic country. Now a twenty-year-old democracy, South Africa’s Simunye ‘rainbow nation’ branding no longer inspires the same euphoric nation-building that it did during the country’s transition period. The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation’s 2014 edition of the South African Reconciliation Barometer notes the nation’s need for more nuanced and deepened engagement with what it means to be South African, based on the principles of transformation and the continued authentic and meaningful engagement with racial-identity politics, to move the nation beyond the early media messages of unity (Wale, 2014: p. 8).

National identity for sale

Why, despite the maturity of democratic countries and the rise of globalisation, do national identities remain relevant? Is the process of globalisation, which is largely dependent on international flows of media messaging, bringing the world closer together by fostering intercultural, interracial and international understanding? According to Hamelink, “globalisation means both integration and polarization. It promotes both social movements that fight for the respect of human rights and social movements that further racism, ethnic divisions, and fundamentalism” (2002: p.29). There are so many different ways of being in the world, that in order to make international story-telling comprehensive, media may in fact also be dependent on clearer, more definable identities or stereotypes with which to explain the world. It cannot be ignored that a form of stereotyping based on nationality can also be useful for business marketing purposes. Das and Harindranath write about the “ability of multinational capital to combine the national and the global within a singular narrative of commodity fetishism” (2006: p. 34).

Alternative media; alternative identities

Despite the oversimplification that national identity offers for media marketing purposes, “an attempt to uncover the relationship between media and national identity must treat mediations as a central theme” (Das and Harindranath, 2006: p. 23). It is important to note that the audience is capable of resisting dominant media messaging (Das and Harindranath, 2006: p. 18), and is therefore not simply vulnerable to indoctrination, but able to deconstruct and challenge the status quo. As Ang reminds us, audiences are able to “actively and creatively make their own meanings and create their own culture, rather than passively absorb pre-given meanings imposed on them” (1990:p. 242).

This need for nuancing of or alternatives to pre-given meanings has not only resulted in audience resistance to mainstream media, but has also inspired the rise of alternative media, or “those media which, because of some deficiency in mainstream media, supplement or challenge the mainstream with alternative structures, styles, content or use” (Lewis, 2006: p. 5). The launch of the Al Jazeera television news network, first in Arabic and then in English, is an example of the development of alternative media. Sreberny writes that “it has helped to provide a different news agenda to the Western agenda, to open up the political environment of debate by recognizing “this opinion and the other opinion”, and has triggered a whole generation of new channels” (1994: p. 21).

The internet is another example of a media tool that can be used for mainstream as well as alternative content. “Its possibilities as a form of many-to-many communication, and the blurring of distinction between producer and receiver have made it an attractive vehicle for alternative cultural and political initiatives” (Lewis, 2006: p. 13). More specifically, social media provides real time exchange between participants, giving both parties equal opportunity for engagement.

Conclusion

The concept of national identity will maintain some form of relevance for as long as political and economic powers need to market themselves to the public, and for as long as individuals share a desire to belong to a community, whether imagined or real. While the media may be used as a tool to unify citizens who will likely never meet each other, because of its robustness of content, interpretation and ownership, it is not only possible for media to contribute to the development of national identity, but also to the deconstruction thereof, as well as to the rise of alternative identities.

References

Alexander, P., Dawson, M. C. and Ichharam, M. (2006) Globalisation and New Identities: A View from the Middle.Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

Ang, I. (1990) ‘Culture and communication: Towards an ethnographic critique of media consumption in the transnational media system’ in European Journal of Communication, Vol. 5: No. 2-3.

Das, S. and Harindranath, R. (2006) Nation-State, National Identity and the Media. Leicester: University of Leicester.

Hamelink, C. (2002) Trends in World Communication. Leicester: University of Leicester.

Hutchinson, J. and Smith, A.D. (eds.) (1994) Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, P.M. (2006) Alternative Media. Leicester: University of Leicester.

Scannell, P. and Cardiff, D. (1991) A Social History of British Broadcasting: Volume One 1922-1939: Serving the Nation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Smith, A.D. (1991) National Identity. London: Penguin Books.

Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. and Mohammadi, A. (1994) Small Media, Big Revolution: Culture, Communication and the Iranian Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wale, K. (2014) SA Reconciliation Barometer 2014 –Reflecting on Reconciliation: Lessons from the Past, Prospects for the Future.Cape Town: Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.