Tea time and the English

Karen Cronick

The custom of English tea time has been described affectionately in novels and poetry as a comforting ritual of family and social connection. Its objects, the steaming kettle, and the table with its china tea-cups have become symbols of both well-being and good manners. It is a table-ware that can be simply placed in the kitchen, or more elaborately set out in the dining room.

I’m going to have a bit of fun with this essay. In fact, more than an essay, it’s a playground scamp through my storybook memory, and a few new poems I found on the Internet.[1]

The English began drinking tea between the XVII and 19th century, just as their island began to turn into an imperial kingdom. Tea time became a refined domestic ritual. I will begin, however, with a reference to coffee that they began to drink about the same time. Coffee houses became places where the intellectuals gathered. These emporiums became known as "penny universities" because philosophers, playwriters, novelists, and scientists would meet there and discuss their ideas. People like Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Donne, Isaac Newton would gather there, their conversations laying the foundations for the Enlightenment. England was becoming the world’s first modern democracy. It never had a constitution; it has maintained its monarchy since the tenth century[2], and its parliamentary government is based on “common law” and tradition.

With time, however, the English began to prefer tea over coffee. The two beverages are associated with the idea of “empire” because their grains and leaves became available in England due to the increasing presence of the English navy on the world’s seas. International commerce grew, and colonial occupations began.

Although this essay deals mostly with tea, I will begin with a poetic reference to coffee, because both coffee and tea became associated with good manners and genteel social customs.

Coffee was the most popular at the beginning. It will be fun to begin with Alexander Pope. He was born at the end of the XVII century. He wrote a satire on the traditions and the glories of the Greek gods in his poem The Rape of the Lock (MaggieO, n.d.), He used the style and tradition of classical Greek drama, like the story of Zeus’ seizure of the princess Europa.  In the Greek story, Zeus, the king of the gods, fell in love with the Phoenician princess Europa. He transformed himself into a white bull to capture her and carry her away to Crete.  

In Pope’s poem, however, the English Baron Lord Petre only snips a lock of Belinda's beautiful hair in a living room gathering. It all happens in a genteel aristocratic salon, satirizing patrician self-importance. Pope’s character, Belinda, is protected by the sylphs but even so she loses her lock.

There are mock battles in the poem, but they are really simple afternoon shenanigans, mocked at one point as a card game (Canto III, Lines 94-98):

And now (as oft in some distemper’d State)

On one nice Trick depends the gen’ral Trick

An Ace of Hearts steps forth : King unseen

Lurk’d in her Hand, and mourn’d his captive Queen.

He springs to Vengeance with an eager Pace,

And falls like thunder on the prostrate Ace.

 

The cards are the warriors in this salon battle. In this rarefied society, the aristocrats deal and shuffle their decks, and eat and drink as though they were divine creatures. Pope sets his battles in the manor’s parlor where they sip coffee from warm cups. In this setting, Lord Petre approaches Belinda with his evil scissors (Canto III. Lines 12-16): 

And frequent Cups prolong the rich Repast.

Straight hover round the Fair her Airy Band ;

Some, as she sipp’d, the fuming Liquor fann’d,

Some o’er her Lap their careful Plumes display’d,

Trembling, and conscious of the rich Brocade.

Coffee (which makes the Politician wise,

And see through all things with his half-shut Eyes)

Sent up in Vapours to the Baron’s Brain.

 

He snips off a lock of her hair and pandemonium ensues.

Then flash’d the living Lightnings from her Eyes,

And Screams of Horror rend th’ aff righted Skies.

Not louder Shrieks to pitying Heav’n are cast,

When Husbands, or when Lapdogs breathe their last,

 

We can leave Lord Petre and Belinda here to their comical battles. We have set the stage for a review of England’s salon life with its beverages and good manners, and can now concentrate on tea time. It is the beverage of the empire on which the sun never sets[3]. Edmund Waller’s poem puts tea time directly in Buckingham Palace and its overseas possessions.

 

Venus her Myrtle, Phrebus has his bays;

Tea both excels, which she vouchsafes to praise.

The best of Queens, and best of herbs, we owe

To that bold nation, which the way did show

To the fair region where the sun doth rise,

Whose rich productions we so justly prize.

The Muse’s friend, tea does our fancy aid,

Repress those vapours which the head invade,

And keep the palace of the soul serene,

Fit on her birthday to salute the Queen.

 

Tea-time is a ritual of good company and delicious things to eat. It isn’t like breakfast or lunch that are mostly nutritive, rather, it’s a time for cucumber sandwiches, cakes, biscuits, creams, and, of course tea. Sometimes, a liquor is included for the adults.  It’s mostly a social encounter such as Rupert Brookes described in the XIX century  with his memories of how the people and the objects come together in one happy, complete ritual:

When you were there, and you, and you, 

Happiness crowned the night; I too, 

Laughing and looking, one of all, 

I watched the quivering lamplight fall 

On plate and flowers and pouring tea…

 

Tea time can include a whole, ample family and their friends, or it can be just tea-for-two as in this poem by Marianna Arolin (MaggieO, n.d.). She combines the kettle and cups of the ceremony with friendship, and they become parts of the tea-rite. She evokes an almost infantile sensuality of flavors.

My copper kettle

whistles merrily

and signals that

it is time for tea.

 

The fine china cups

are filled with the brew.

There's lemon and sugar

and sweet cream, too.

 

But, best of all

there's friendship,

between you and me.

As we lovingly share

our afternoon tea.

 

Children anticipate tea time with its flavors and relaxation. A.A. Millne describes this cheery expectancy with his usual humor:

 

The king of Peru

(Who was Emperor too)

  Had a sort of a rhyme

    Which was useful to know,

If he felt very shy

When a stranger came by,

  Or they asked him the time

    When his watch didn’t go; […]

Or, whenever the Emperor

Got into a temper, or

  Felt himself sulky or sad.

He would murmur and murmur,

Until he felt firmer,

  This curious rhyme which he had:

Eight eights are sixty-four;

Multiply by seven.

When it’s done,

Carry one,

And take away eleven.

Nine nines are eighty-one;

Multiply by three.

If it’s more,

Carry four,

And then it’s time for tea

 

Tea time is also an English morality play for children. King John's Christmas by A.A. Milne (n.d.) makes this point.

 

King John was not a good man—

He had his little ways.

And sometimes no one spoke to him

For days and days and days.

And men who came across him,

When walking in the town,

Gave him a supercilious stare,

Or passed with noses in the air— […]

He stayed in every afternoon...

But no one came to tea.

 

Sometimes the poets just have tea by themselves, but there is a sense of being accompanied by the ritual itself. It goes beyond snacking, and we have the feeling that tea time is a participation even when one is alone, or an affirmation of English identity, as in this poem by Jessica Nelson North (MaggieO, n.d.).

 

I had a little tea party

This afternoon at three.

'Twas very small-

Three guest in all-

Just I, myself and me.

 

Myself ate all the sandwiches,

While I drank up the tea;

'Twas also I who ate the pie

And passed the cake to me.

 

It’s a custom in a defined, self-conscious culture, as Faith Greenbowl (MaggieO, n.d). describes:

 

Steam rises from a cup of tea

and we are wrapped in history,

inhaling ancient times and lands,

comfort of ages in our hands.

 

Poetry for children is filled with tea-time. This poem by Peter Dixon (MaggieO, n.d.)[4] is a fantasy about children’s language and thinking. It has a sharp twist at the end when the child realizes that a tea-bag can only be used once.

 

l'd like to be a teabag,

And stay at home all day -

And talk to other teabags

In a teabag sort of way . . .

 

l'd love to be a teabag;

And lie in a little box -

And never have to wash my face

Or change my dirty socks . . .

 

l'd like to be a teabag,

An Earl Grey one perhaps,

And doze all day and lie around

With Earl Grey kind of chaps.

 

l wouldn't have to do a thing,

No homework, jobs or chores -

Comfy in my caddy

Of teabags and their snores.

 

l wouldn't have to do exams

l needn't tidy rooms,

Or sweep the floor or feed the cat

Or wash up all the spoons.

 

l wouldn't have to do a thing,

A life of bliss - you see . . .

Except that once in all my life

I`d make a cup of tea!

 

Tea drinkers may have fastidious tastes. In his poem, Snow Water, Michael Longley (Bogart, 2015) describes how he prefers particular kinds of tea, and not any-old water to brew it in.

 

A fastidious brewer of tea, a tea

Connoisseur as well as a poet,

I modestly request on my sixtieth

Birthday a gift of snow water.

 

Tea steam and ink stains. Single-

Mindedly I scald my teapot and

Measure out some Silver Needles Tea,

Enough for a second steeping.

 

Tea-time, being a cozy custom and an identity vehicle, must still be enmeshed in the warp and woof of the existential waverings of ordinary people. T.S. Eliot (n.d.)  has captured how hard it is to say what one feels, and has connected this with the banal comings and goings like tea-time and mannered encounters in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.

 

[…] And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!

Smoothed by long fingers,

Asleep ... tired ... or it malingers,

Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.

Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,

Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis? ….

 

And would it have been worth it, after all,

After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,

Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,

Would it have been worthwhile, ….?

 

Tea time is to be taken seriously even if it’s a casual custom and a marker of the time of day. One doesn’t dress up for it, but one longs for it. It is a backdrop and a stage for everything else. It helps to define the English, and reminds them that they once ruled the waves.

 

THE COMPLETE POEMS:

 

Rupert Brooke’s Dining-Room Tea

When you were there, and you, and you,  
Happiness crowned the night; I too,  
Laughing and looking, one of all,  
I watched the quivering lamplight fall  
On plate and flowers and pouring tea
And cup and cloth; and they and we  
Flung all the dancing moments by  
With jest and glitter. Lip and eye  
Flashed on the glory, shone and cried,  
Improvident, unmemoried;
And fitfully and like a flame  
The light of laughter went and came.  
Proud in their careless transience moved  
The changing faces that I loved.  
 
Till suddenly, and otherwhence,
I looked upon your innocence.  
For lifted clear and still and strange  
From the dark woven flow of change  
Under a vast and starless sky  
I saw the immortal moment lie.
One Instant I, an instant, knew  
As God knows all. And it and you  
I, above Time, oh, blind! could see  
In witless immortality.  
 
I saw the marble cup; the tea,
Hung on the air, an amber stream;  
I saw the fire’s unglittering gleam,  
The painted flame, the frozen smoke.  
No more the flooding lamplight broke  
On flying eyes and lips and hair;
But lay, but slept unbroken there,  
On stiller flesh, and body breathless,  
And lips and laughter stayed and deathless,  
And words on which no silence grew.  
Light was more alive than you.
 
For suddenly, and otherwhence,  
I looked on your magnificence.  
I saw the stillness and the light,  
And you, august, immortal, white,  
Holy and strange; and every glint
Posture and jest and thought and tint  
Freed from the mask of transiency,  
Triumphant in eternity,  
Immote, immortal.  
 
 Dazed at length
Human eyes grew, mortal strength  
Wearied; and Time began to creep.  
Change closed about me like a sleep.  
Light glinted on the eyes I loved.  
The cup was filled. The bodies moved.
The drifting petal came to ground.  
The laughter chimed its perfect round.  
The broken syllable was ended.  
And I, so certain and so friended,  
How could I cloud, or how distress,
The heaven of your unconsciousness?  
Or shake at Time’s sufficient spell,  
Stammering of lights unutterable?  
The eternal holiness of you,  
The timeless end, you never knew,
The peace that lay, the light that shone.  
You never knew that I had gone  
A million miles away, and stayed  
A million years. The laughter played  
Unbroken round me; and the jest
Flashed on. And we that knew the best  
Down wonderful hours grew happier yet.  
I sang at heart, and talked, and eat,  
And lived from laugh to laugh, I too,  
When you were there, and you, and you.

 

 

Edmund Waller’s poem:

Venus her Myrtle, Phrebus has his bays;

Tea both excels, which she vouchsafes to praise.

The best of Queens, and best of herbs, we owe

To that bold nation, which the way did show

To the fair region where the sun doth rise,

Whose rich productions we so justly prize.

The Muse’s friend, tea does our fancy aid,

Repress those vapours which the head invade,

And keep the palace of the soul serene,

Fit on her birthday to salute the Queen.

 

KING JOHN'S CHRISTMAS by A.A. Milne (n.d.)

King John was not a good man—

He had his little ways.

And sometimes no one spoke to him

For days and days and days.

And men who came across him,

When walking in the town,

Gave him a supercilious stare,

Or passed with noses in the air—

And bad King John stood dumbly there,

Blushing beneath his crown.

King John was not a good man,

And no good friends had he.

He stayed in every afternoon...

But no one came to tea.

And, round about December,

The cards upon his shelf

Which wished him lots of Christmas cheer,

And fortune in the coming year,

Were never from his near and dear,

But only from himself.

 

 

 

Snow Water, by Michael Longley (Bogart, 2015)

 

A fastidious brewer of tea, a tea

Connoisseur as well as a poet,

I modestly request on my sixtieth

Birthday a gift of snow water.

 

Tea steam and ink stains. Single-

Mindedly I scald my teapot and

Measure out some Silver Needles Tea,

Enough for a second steeping.

 

Other favourites include Clear

Distance and Eyebrows of Longevity

Or, from the precarious mountain peaks,

Cloud Mist Tea (quite delectable)

 

Which competent monkeys’ harvest

Filling their baskets with choice leaves

And bringing them down to where I wait

With my crock of snow water.

 

My copper kettle by Marianna Arolin (MaggieO, 2008)

My copper kettle

whistles merrily

and signals that

it is time for tea.

 

The fine china cups

are filled with the brew.

There's lemon and sugar

and sweet cream, too.

 

But, best of all

there's friendship, between you and me.

As we lovingly share

our afternoon tea.

 

From AA Millne: The King of Peru

The king of Peru

(Who was Emperor too)

  Had a sort of a rhyme

    Which was useful to know,

If he felt very shy

When a stranger came by,

  Or they asked him the time

    When his watch didn’t go;

Or supposing he fell

(By mistake) down a well,

  Or he tumbled when skating

    And sat on his hat,

Or perhaps wasn’t told,

Till his porridge was cold,

  That his breakfast was waiting

    Or something like that;

Oh, whenever the Emperor

Got into a temper, or

  Felt himself sulky or sad.

He would murmur and murmur,

Until he felt firmer,

  This curious rhyme which he had:

Eight eights are sixty-four;

Multiply by seven.

When it’s done,

Carry one,

And take away eleven.

Nine nines are eighty-one;

Multiply by three.

If it’s more,

Carry four,

And then it’s time for tea

Footnotes 

 [1] I have cited only fragments of most of the poems I mention in this essay, but at the end I have include the complete versions. When they are very long, as in Alexander Pope´s The Rape of the Lock, or T.S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, I have not repeated them here, but they are cited in the references and can be consulted online.

[2] The first king considered to be a monarch of all England was Athelstan (or Æthelstan), who consolidated the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms the beginning of the tenth century. He was crowned in 925. William the Conqueror was crowned as the first Norman king in 1066.

[3] The phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" has described the British Empire because it was so big that some part of it was always in daylight. This phrase has also referred to the Spanish Empire in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Originally it described the Roman and Persian empires.

[4] I'd Like to be a Teabag from I'd Like to be a Teabag and other Poems. BBC Books

References

Bogart, Julie (2015, March 31).  Blog: A brave writer’s life in brief. https://blog.bravewriter.com/2015/03/31/tuesday-teatime-a-poem-for-tea/

Brooke, Rupert (n.d.). Dining room tea. All Poetry.  https://allpoetry.com/Dining-Room-Tea.

Eliot, T.S.  (n.d.). The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.   The Poetry Foundation. (T. S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" from Collected Poems 1909-1962 by T.S. Eliot).  https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/44212/the-love-song-of-j-alfred-prufrock

MaggieO (2008, June 20). Tea poems. Library Thing. https://www.librarything.com/topic/39088

Millne, A.A. (1927/n.d.) Now we are six. A project Gutenberg eBook.  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/70516/70516-h/70516-h.htm

Pope, Alexander (1896/2004). The rape of the lock. Sovereign Sanctuary Press. http://93beast.fea.st.user.fm/files/section2/The%20Rape%20of%20the%20Lock.pdf

Richardson, Bruce (n.d.). The First English Poem on Tea. Blog: The tea master’s blog. https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea-blog/first-english-poem-tea

Stevenson, Robert Lewis (2006, November 6). A child’s garden of verses. Project Guttenberg.   https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19722/19722-h/19722-h.htm 

A brief note about stupidity

 

K. Cronick

The news is full of insults about how absurd the “other side” is. The word seems to be a catch-all to describe people we don’t understand. It is a custom now to call those who do not have access to scientific or traditional philosophical information "stupid", "idiots", or some other denigrating epithet.

People have beliefs, some of which are hard to understand, and intolerances, some of which are unfortunate and sad.

But this is not a sign of stupidity. These beliefs and intolerances are learned, usually from childhood. They form part of a culture of fear, and misunderstandings in relation to what they have seen, heard, and felt.

Calling these people “stupid”, and what they say “idiocy” is no help. It only erects a barrier to understanding, above all to their own personal self-understanding. These people must be listened to. We need to be empathetic with them. Not doing so simply hardens their beliefs and prejudices, and may lead to reinforcing their misconstructions, and even to violence.

AN ESSAY ON NATIONALISM, CITIZENSHIP, AND BORDERS

Karen Cronick 

INTRODUCTION

“Nationalism” and “citizenship” are belief systems based on “us-them” exclusion cultures. In our times they manifest themselves as social constructions (Berger and Luckmann, 1967) related to political structures such as nations. These concepts are also characterized by, either a collective need to erect protective walls and garrisons against “foreign” invasions, or the tendency to organize local armies to invade and occupy other lands. 

This essay is built on the idea that culture is a social construction with historical determinants. The very idea that people can have some sort of “knowledge” about their shared reality -and can call it “culture”- is socially constructed over time. The formal concept of social constructions has been elaborated chiefly in the writings of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann; they affirmed that:

 […] reality is socially constructed and […] the sociology of knowledge must analyse the process in which this occurs. The key terms in these contentions are 'reality' and 'knowledge', terms that are not only current in everyday speech, but that have behind them a long history of philosophical inquiry (p. 13). […. ] the sociology of knowledge is concerned with the relationship between human thought and the social context within which it arises. It may thus be said that the sociology of knowledge constitutes the sociological focus of a much more general problem, that of the existential determination (Seinsgebundenheit) of thought as such. Although here the social factor is concentrated upon, the theoretical difficulties are similar to those that have arisen when other factors (such as the historical, the psychological or the biological) have been proposed as determinative of human thought (p. 16).   

I will not develop Berger’s and Luckmann’s theory here. Suffice it to say that this essay purports to examine “the concrete relationships between thought and its historical situation” (p 17) in a particular social and historical context, that is, one in which ideas of nationalism and citizenship can develop, and how they influence our own modern age.

I will not consider the Marxist idea of “false consciousness”, because it is based on the idea that there can be a true sociological consciousness, which is, in itself a social construction, and furthermore it is irrelevant to this essay. Also, I will not develop the idea of provable scientific knowledge, because here I will limit my reflections to non-provable ideas that have to do with how human beings interact with each other, and their relationship to power. The role of science in this context would be limited to registering and documenting opinions in a given context.

In this essay I will consider the problem of nationalism in terms of cultural exclusivity and xenophobia. I will also review: a) the historical development of the concept of citizenship, b) the idea of the common good when it is a restrictive value, c) political identity values and the social consciousness that underly them, and the d) concept of community as a cultural identity.

I will review present-day and historical development of these concepts. Their origins are deeply held cultural manifestations that explain, justify, and elaborate current social beliefs, and come from religious doctrines, loyalties to a king (or other sovereign), and in-group bonds.  It is important to examine their etiology in order to understand their present impact. We have inherited these ways of understanding the world through ancestral ties that are still deeply felt. In order to question them we must understand their heritages.

NATIONALISM, DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY

Nationalism is profoundly tied to identity values, and has ancient origins. We can begin to explore the concept as a political allegiance that unites individuals to their native land (and later political state) as a supreme value surpassing all other allegiances. Miller, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008), defined nationalism as:

the supremacy of the nation's claims over other claims to individual allegiance and which features full sovereignty as the persistent aim of its political program. The state as a political unit is seen by nationalists as centrally ‘belonging’ to one ethno-cultural group and as charged with protecting and promulgating its traditions.

The nation that requires this loyalty may, however, contain diverse ethnicities, religions, and political views. Miller (2025) observes that:

Nationalism as a system of beliefs, or ideology, comes in many different shapes and forms, and can be combined with other belief systems. Thus one can be a conservative nationalist or a socialist nationalist; one can also be a Christian nationalist, an Arab nationalist, and so forth.

He therefore placed nationalism as a modern ideology, that is, as a global belief system that can be compatible with other beliefs.  

Hans Kohn (2025) emphasized the supremacy of this system which he perceived as ethically higher than other locally occurring structures (such as religious or neighborhood attachments); it is an “ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.” Miller, also, has made this dominance explicit; he said: “nations are ethically significant, in the sense that people who belong to them have special duties to their compatriots that are not owed to human beings in general.”

This last observation is crucial. It not only places nationalism above religion, ethnicity, and other values, it creates a hierarchy of “human beings”, in which people from within one’s nation have more value than others do. When nationalists consider other nations as enemies, the lives of the people who inhabit them are less respected than those of their own country.

Kohn observed that, defined as an ideology, nationalism is relatively modern. However, people have always been attached to their native soil and to their inherited traditions; the idea of “nation” has only become an explicit motive for political action since the XVIII century. But it has a long history. We can also consider it as an ethic/historical posture, and as a long-standing political mien: the idea that the interests of one’s own soil, polis, kingdom or country override those of other political bodies is not new. For example, Aristotle’s ideas of the self-sufficient polis included the notion of Greek identity and the value of the exclusive common good of the Greek homeland generally, and Athens in particular. He distinguished the Greeks from the "barbarians” and favored Greek in-group loyalty.

CONNECTION TO COMMUNITY

The Open-Learn editors (n.d.) linked national identity to the idea of community. They asked, “who is Them, and who is Us?” And they noted that there can be many, overlapping communities, and people can belong simultaneously to a range of them within a given nation. But, as we have observed, people see themselves as national subjects first, and their various personal and collective identities are surpassed by their national uniqueness. Even on a state level, and even in situations of dramatic change such as revolutions or coups d’état, in which governmental leaders may change, the national political entity remains mostly intact. When large migrations happen, and people become stateless because of poverty or war, these national and cultural attachments weaken, but do not disappear. They remain as nostalgic attachments in which names, cuisine, music, and other identity features live on.

Ownership

 Nationalism is also a variant on the idea of the community’s ownership practices. It is based on the possession of a shared territory, that is, a combined extension of land that “belongs” to a given group of people. They also share a ethos with historical importance, and symbols that enforce a common identity. Their land has resources, and their culture includes policies favoring domestic control that are designed to protect their people and their belongings against foreign aggression.

Often nationalism is related to private property as foundations for sovereignty. Ownership relates to nationalism through the ideas of property rights, colonialism, racism, and dispossession. Erik Fuglestad (2022, p. 145) observed that:

Historically and geographically, there have existed many different kinds of property regimes. There are forms of collective property or state property found in the former Soviet Union, there is feudal property with overlapping rights and dues, and property regimes where rights of use are more important, or at least as important as rights of ownership. There were also different kinds of ancient property regimes, such as those that existed in ancient Egypt and Israel, or in Babylon. These systems varied, but were generally marked by a combination of individual ownership rights and imperial or monarchical rights over land and property.

He also observed that local power structures are connected to regional property rights: economic power, dominium over others and various forms of authority.

Max Weber (1930) has linked styles of economic management with religious affiliations, affirming that the protestant ethic motivated the members of the protestant religions in Germany to save their money, and thus they promoted national wealth. However, in a very interesting criticism of this position, Felix Kersting, Iris Wohnsiedler and Nikolaus Wolf (2019) examined the population data of the German Empire of Weber’s time, comparing statistics about economic development with religion, and found little correlation between Protestantism and economic growth. They found that the German Empire was characterized by ethnic and religious fragmentation, especially in relation to the Polish and Germanic sectors. These ethnic differences affected development more than the Protestant influence did[1].

Nationalism is related to the idea of the general physical wellbeing of the people who live there. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, written in 1776 (2012) spoke of an "invisible hand," that moderates individual efforts to maximize their own gains. There have been, however, doubts that the general good can be achieved as a naturally occurring collective phenomenon. Garrett Hardin (1968) criticized this position because he felt that collective groups like nations cannot solve their problems by social or technological means. Hardin argued that the unregulated, collective use of “the commons” will inevitably ruin it. The only way to preserve the common good is to legislate its use. In this sense, the commons, as a concept, is like all cultural possessions, in that it must be processed, evaluated, constituted, and regulated. This requires the introduction of new political concepts regarding definitions of what, precisely, is the common good[2].

Not all identity concerns related to territory have been exclusive. They are generally divisive, but at times there have been leagues and treaties that have recognized and promoted cooperation between different kingdoms or nations.  For example, the Iroquois Confederacy was an alliance that lasted for centuries. It included six indigenous nations in North America (the Seneca, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Tuscarora tribes). They promoted mutual peace, and employed a self-governing system that they called the Great Law of Peace. Their decisions were largely consensual and counted on the participation of the women (Clan Mothers) in leadership positions. Other examples include the Hellenic Leagues in ancient Greece, formed by distinct city-states, with the objectives of promoting trade, collective security, and the prevention of internal wars. The Roman Empire also achieved a sort of internal armistice with the imposed peace of the “Pax Romana”, in which a compulsory internal order existed inside the Empire; it lasted until the death of Marco Aurelio in 180 a. C. And then it reappeared in the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages.

A modern example is the European Union (EU), which began to function with the participation of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany in 1948. It now includes 27 countries[3], and has given Europe internal peace for almost 80 years -an unprecedented achievement for the region.  The EU has gone beyond the ideas of trade or defense agreements, because its charter promotes the idea of an inviolable human dignity that surpasses nationalistic culture. The citizens of the EU enjoy an unlimited freedom of movement that permits them to cross the Union’s internal borders and to reside in whatever member country they want to. Individual liberties such as the freedom of thought, expression, religion, and assembly are guaranteed by the EU Charter.

CITIZENSHIP

The concept of citizenship has always been closely related to the ideas of territory and ownership. In ancient Greece it was related to the tradition of extended families, and was recognized for all men who descended from citizen parents. It was a status closely related to military service in each city-State. Athens had, perhaps, the most complex idea of what it meant to be a citizen of all the Grecian states, and was a concept that changed radically during the first millennium (b.C.).  It was always a restricted advantage, reserved for free, adult males with both Athenian parents. Citizens had voting rights, and could own land, but as has been usual throughout history, women, slaves, and foreigners were systematically excluded. The idea was formalized by Pericles' law in 451 B.C. to protect democracy by limiting who could participate. There was a special class of foreigners/residents called “Metics”[4] that were not citizens, but came from other Grecian polices. They held a status similar to that of modern permanent residency, being permitted indefinite residence without political rights.

In the polis of Sparta there were three classes of citizens with different rights and obligations. All of these categories were acquired from birth: a) the Spartiates were citizens with full rights, b) the Mothakes and Perioikoi were free but were not considered citizens, c) and the helots were agricultural serfs who had almost no rights except to cultivate an assigned plot of land, and who also served in the military. The helots underwent an austere military training from childhood and formed the army’s foot soldiers[5]. All these strata were ruled by a diarchy of two kings and an oligarchy of elders and ephors. Free Spartan women enjoyed somewhat greater legal rights than elsewhere in classical antiquity.

Roman citizenship was similarly restricted in the early days of the republic, but as Rome became more imperial, the idea was expanded to include all free (male) people across the Empire (Edict of Caracalla, 212 AD)[6]. It was a considered a privilege and was hierarchical with the upper classes having the most advantages. In some cases, people from conquered lands, and even slaves, eventually gained access to freedom and citizenship.

 In the Middle Ages, the idea of a collective, geographically restricted identity was related to urban centers and fiefdoms. Burghers and feudal lords had rights such as parochial protection, trade privileges, and a certain local voice based on their payment of taxes, and their collaboration when military action was required.

There are long historical traditions in which conquerors and kings have claimed land and territories as their own. Within each of these spaces their followers could then claim land and resources, and erect palaces or castles there to affirm their ownership. They surrounded these possessions with “their” peasants, serfs, crofters or sharecroppers. At each level the inhabitants considered that the land was “theirs”. Collectively they all belonged to an ethnicity, kingdom or a nation, although there might exist a certain cultural diversity. They felt that they had shared interests, which were mediated by their loyalty to their monarchs or political leaders, and this loyalty was a sort of undefined enfranchisement, or a right to belong in a given group.

They all had some sort of interests of their own to defend because they were subjects of a king whose territory also belonged to them. They were part of a culture that defined them, but they also had their own power over certain “things”, like their dominions, their plot of land, their crops and animals, their castle, their house, their shop, or their place in the open market.

In modern times people own or control strategic industries or resources. The idea of domestic control is linked to limiting “foreign” takeovers, and is formalized through decrees and laws. Ownership itself historically has formed a basis for national identity and sovereignty. It is the legal and political bond between an individual and a state, and defines the rights and duties (like voting rights, legal protection, allegiance, taxes, and military obligations[7]). It signifies full membership in a political and legal community, and reciprocal responsibilities.

Some countries allow dual citizenship while others do not. In democracies, this implies an active involvement in civic life. As a rule, citizenship cannot be revoked. Citizens have a right to acquire a passport, thus assuring the international recognition of their status.

Both historically and in modern times, however, there have been discriminatory laws associated with disfranchisement and outright apartheid, that have limited the rights of some classes of citizens.

AUTHORITY

Mkrtchyan’s (2025, p. 47) interpretation of the concept of authority in Arendt (1994) described a belief structure that commands respect and even obedience. It

precludes the use of external means of coercion; where force is used [and it is] incompatible with persuasion, which presupposes equality and works through a process of argumentation. Where arguments are used, authority [is in] abeyance. [In this concept Mkrtchyan perceives] “several core aspects that more broadly illustrate authority’s distinctness […] [A]uthority’s solid foundation is voluntary obedience; it requires a hierarchy whose rightness and legitimacy” are recognized.

This interpretation has several implications. First, the power structure must be intricately interwoven with the belief system that sustains it. This could relate to a belief in democracy, but the author also says that “Arendt purports that authority rules out any persuasion backed by arguments and implies an unquestioning recognition” (p. 49). Thus, since democracy has at its core an unending process of citizen debate, this understanding of authority precludes a belief in parliamentary government.

Cronick (2025b) examined closed belief systems that, although not enforced by repression and violence, can lead to their unquestioned acceptance. She revisits the story of Abraham, the Old Testament patriarch who unquestioningly obeys what he believes to be God’s command to scarify his son Jacob. She observes that:

Abraham, a wealthy Israeli patriarch from prehistoric times, appears in the Old Testament as Noah's heir. The sequence of events is: God tested Abraham saying that he must take his only son, Isaac, to Moriah, and offer him as a burnt offering. Abraham obeyed, and erected an altar, laid out the wood, bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. Then he took up a knife with the intention of killing him. But the Angel of the Lord called him from heaven saying not to do it. Once Abraham had shown obedience, it was not necessary to actually carry out the sacrifice.

Cronick (2022) observed that this kind of obedience signifies the acceptance of a doctrine, an ideology or the simple acceptance of an existing authority. This system can be based on ideas of national or racial superiority, a religious identity, or just an existing ethnic culture. It can also be the keystone that supports a complex belief structure that has, in fact, been created by political leaders to justify their claims to power. Although the leaders may hide these motives, they may appear in euphemisms.

FINAL REFLECTIONS

In this essay we have reviewed the concept of nationalism as an exclusive belief-system that underlies the defense of the nation-state, and justifies its leaders’ expansionist intentions. It has been characterized as a supreme, all-encompassing identity structure, a social construction that surpasses all other, more local identities, and has, for its adherents, a profound ethical importance. It even surpasses the moral implications of a collective humanity, because it attributes greater value to the lives of co-nationalists than it does other peoples. It essentially divides people into two categories: us and them.

It has strong ties to ownership in that the land, the buildings, the crops and animals, and other objects that are “owned” by the inhabitants are considered to be intimately related to the nation. In this sense it is also related to well-being, and the members of the national groups feel they are entitled to a reasonable amount of security, health, and prosperity. These people are “citizens”, that is, they are exclusively enfranchised to benefit from the wealth produced in the nation, although there may be hierarchical limits to this expectation. In turn, the citizens are expected to comply with certain obligations such as paying taxes and military service. The right to citizenship has been restricted historically according to birth-right, sex, and other requirements.

Nationalism is strongly related to the concept of authority. This may imply the voluntary acceptance of core, cultural beliefs, such as the right that the country’s leaders have to legislate the realm’s laws and expectations.

Cronick (2025a) has considered possible ways of overcoming unquestioned nationalism and other inherited belief systems. She reviewed certain cultural aspects involved in undisputed obedience, and also ways to confront undue compliance.  In another essay (2025b) she reviewed how G.H. Mead (1972) understood obedience, and also ways of overcoming it.  Mead said that the person is not completely subject to the norms of society; they can say "no" using their inner voices.  According to Mead, the person is structurally divided into the "I" and the "me", and can create an inner dialogue that permits them to challenge cultural norms. The “I” represents immediate experience, while the “me” contains people´s already elaborated identities. Thus, new experiences can modify old identities.[8]

She asked, what are the collective mechanisms for awakening a social consciousness? In this essay I have concentrated on the more onerous forms of nationalism. She said that clarifying the meanings and implications of rules that we obey may facilitate the formation of new appreciations about them. New experience may enhance new judgments. One way of doing this is to question the origins of these beliefs, that is, to examine their sources. And it is important to listen to dissident voices. Mosovici (1996) told us that one important tool of resistance is found in the social environment, especially in the presence of an active minority that can help relieve the pressure to conform. Hearing just one contradictory voice can allow us to express our ideas more independently.

In short, all ideologies can eventually be questioned, and nationalism and other ethnocentric loyalties are no exception. The tools for doing this are to be found in understanding their historical justifications, in permitting dissidence, in questioning authority, in accepting diversity, and in establishing cooperative agreements such as those that promote free trade, peace and tolerance.

 

Footnotes 

[1] Weber had called these ethnic differences “racial”, and maintained a stance of anti-Polish nationalism.

[2] Jean-Jacques Rousseau's (1995) idea of General Will does not refer to inherited beliefs that lead to wellbeing. Rather, it is a reflection on how self-determination might be achieved. It is an idea of the common good seen as source of convened decisions that overcome factional desires, and that lead to the formation of popular sovereignty. Citizens obey laws derived from the General Will because they believe that they, as individuals, form a decisive part of a collective interest.

[3] Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

[4] In France, the word «métèque» is used to refer to immigrants in a xenophobic sense.

[5] The Helots were probably the original inhabitants of the land around Sparta, and were semi-enslaved by the Dorians. In spite of the severe indoctrination they received, they staged several rebellions, most notably during the Second Messenian War (c. 660-650 BCE), and later around 464 BCE. They were essential for the survival of their Spartan masters, but also, they were feared by them.

[6] The Edict of Caracalla was a decree issued by the Emperor Caracalla. It granted Roman citizenship to nearly all free (masculine) people in the empire. In a practical sense, it expanded the tax base, but it also created a general sense of civic identity.

[7] And the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”….

 [8] Sartre (1989) and Schütz (1993) had similar ideas about people’s capacities to modify their previous identities.

REFERENCES

Arendt, Hannah, (1994). The Origins of Totalitarianism, San Diego, A Harvest Book/Harcourt, Inc.

Aristotle (1894). The politics of Aristotle. MacMillan.  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/The_politics_of_Aristotle%2C_books_I-V_-_a_revised_text_%28IA_cu31924071172922%29.pdf

Berger, Peter L. & Luckmann, Thomas (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. The Penguin Press.  https://amstudugm.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/social-construction-of-reality.pdf

Bernstein, Richard (2018) Why Read Hannah Arendt Now. Polity Press Ltd., Cambridge

Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2014, January 14). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Cronick, K.  (2022, November 8). De la Boétie y Hobbes: El contrato social. Blog: Reflexiones4-Karen.  https://reflexiones4-karen.blogspot.com/2022/11/hobbes-el-soberano-y-el-contrato-social.html

Cronick, Karen (2025b, February 2) Obedience and collective conscience: their roles in social change and empowerment. Blog: Reflexiones4-Karen.  Blogspot.com. https://reflexiones4-karen.blogspot.com/2025/02/obedience-and-collective-conscience.html

Cronick, Karen (2025a, December 14). Band of brothers (The military mind) Blog: Reflexiones4-Karen. https://reflexiones4-karen.blogspot.com/2025/12/a-band-of-brothers-military-mind.html

Fuglestad, E. M. (2022) “State of Nationalism (SoN): Nationalism and Private Property”, Studies on National Movements 9(1), 15. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/snm.85313

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243. downloaded from: https://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/Modeling/Hardin,%20Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons.pdf

Kersting, Felix; Wohnsiedler, Iris & Wolf, Nikolaus  (2019, November 12). Weber Revisited: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Nationalism. Collaborative Research Center. Discussion Paper No. 199.  https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/199.pdf

Kohn, Hans (Dec. 28, 2025). Nationalism. Britannica AI.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

Mead, G. H. (1913/1972). Spirit, Person and Society. (Espíritu, Persona y Sociedad). Buenos Aires: Paidós

Mkrtchyan, N. (2025). Authority: Arendt's vantage point and contemporary developments. Cogito, XVII(4), 43-61

Miller, David (2025, June 19).  Nationalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

Moscovici, S. (1996).  Psicología de las minorías activas. (The psychology of active minorities.). Barcelona: Morata

Open-Learn editors (n.d.) Political belonging: loyalty, community and statehood.   OpenLearn. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/politics/nationalism-self-determination-and-secession/content-section-2

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1995). Œuvres complètes [Complete works] (5 volumes). Bibliothèque de la Pléiade (en francés). París: Gallimard.

Sartre, J.P. (1943/1989) El ser y la nada. (Being and Nothingness).  Madrid: Alianza.

 Smith, A. (2012). Wealth of Nations. Wordsworth Editions.

 Schütz, A. (1932/1993). La construcción significativa del mundo social. (The phenomenology of the social world).  Barcelona: Paidós.

 Weber, Max. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translation: Talcott Parsons.

 

 

 

 

 

---