How important would you say that cultural similarities are to a national identity?
Asked by
Nullo (
22009
)
January 17th, 2010
Say a person moves from Morocco to France. He obtains French citizenship, but sticks to the local Moroccan community and doesn’t put any real effort into learning French language or culture. Could he really be said to be French, then?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
22 Answers
This is a great question. A great model to look at that has enough historical perspective is the Donauschwaben resettlements of German people in the mid-1700s. In a nutshell, the Hapsburgs acquired land and territory in the “eastern wilderness” and resettled German people into the Banat area. They offered free land if people would go, and literally split villages in half, copied town records from the old village, and resettled people in a new place. They tended to stay clannish among themselves, continued to speak German, and not migrate out of their village until the early 1900’s – 1930s, when many migrated to the US and Canada. The Schwabens in Banat be came more Germanic than the Germans in their culture, clinging to a 1700’s form of culture.
But to answer your question, without common language, it is difficult for the French culture to influence the French-Moroccan culture. As children are educated in the French public school system, the assimilation process begins, and the culture changes with each generation. You eventually end up with a culture that is neither Moroccan nor French. However, the Moroccan culture becomes different than the culture of Morocco, because the citizenry there are subject to their own outside influences that are not shared by Moroccans living in France. Hence, like the Donauschwaben, you end up over time with a segment that self identifies as a group that they no longer entirely match.
On the surface he is.
In the deep level he is not.
I believe common ties within a community, a province and a country are important. Separating into little groups divides a country. Sectionalism does not promote peace in a country as a whole. How can people who isolate into communities based on race or beliefs hope to live and work together with other communities successfully? There has to be something – a strong something – that holds a nation together as one.
Think of Quebec and Canada. On paper, Quebec is a province of Canada. Yet this province has revealed a desire to be its own country. Why? Quebec is the product of a French heritage, while the rest of Canada leans toward the English side. Two cultures (historic enemies), struggling to exist as one country, and yet not having any revolutionary success. You see the same thing in America and the UK on a smaller scale.
Common ground among all citizens is essential. Without it, a country is weak and subject to failure. The Moroccan in your example is not helping France, but rather harming it by upholding sectionalism. How can someone who works against the common good of France be considered French?
@Spinel, but to that point, when they show French Canadian films in France, they often put in French subtitles…
@PandoraBoxx French Canadian culture has evolved away from the original French. But a strong flavor still remains, a flavor strong enough to drive a wedge between them and English Canada. The national identity of Canada is shaky, yes?
In my example the differences between France and French flavored Canada are irrelevant. The two are not on the same continent, much less trying to survive as one country. Quebec defies the belief that all cultures within a country’s borders will melt down naturally into a single, workable substance. There needs to be a conscience effort among citizens to be strong and unified…otherwise the concept of “country” doesn’t work.
I was very friendly with an Indian man in Glasgow years ago. He spoke with a strong Scottish accent, and you couldnt distinguish between him and someone born and bred Scottish. One day I was invited up to his house for something to eat – and found his wife could hardly speak English at all, and he communicated with her in Gujarati !!
It felt weird.
@PandoraBoxx Quebecois and standard French are just enough different to require subtitles. I spoke standard French when I met my wife, it’s almost like learning a new language
In a refugee situation, preserving cultural unity is important. Once immigrant staus or citizenship is obtained, you should integrate into the host culture as much as practical. Preserving language, religion, customs are fine; but there should be an outward conformance at least. Stubbornly refusing to do so will only invite discrimination.
No, your friend is still a Moroccan living in France. We have the same sort of thing here with Mexicans moving to the United States to find work. Some come intending to stay; some just hope to earn enough money to buy a small farm (or something) and move back to Mexico. As long as you have jobs that native Frenchmen simply won’t do, they will continue to come, and you might as well tolerate them.
They don’t really pose any threat to the national identity. If they stay and have children, the children will be almost completely assimilated within one generation—unless, of course, your society has barriers preventing them from doing so. In any case, the children readily assimilate into the host culture, and they help socialize the parents.
Most of the people I met in Morocco when I lived there spoke at least some French, particularly in Tangier. So, his culture is already more influenced by yours than yours is by his.
Any culture is a mix of subcultures based on location, profession, income and age among other things. Without having seen any studies on this, I would guess that most subcultures have a relatively small degree of separation. I would think that a subculture based on language is different. Language creates a barrier that is difficult to cross, making the subculture a world unto itself.
none of these things make any sense to me – nationalities are unnecessary, imo…what does even mean to ‘be French’ or ‘feel French’? ridiculous.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir “none of these things make any sense to me – nationalities are unnecessary.”
An interesting point of view. Could you expand on that, please? :)
@Spinel I find these particular social constructions to be more damaging than necessary – the fact that one is born in a particular place is nothing we did to deserve – in that we could have been born anywhere so no one needs to draw pride from that – and all else that comes after our birth is just a group’s way of othering people because ‘our culture is this way and their culture is that way’ – I find absolutely no value in patriotism and nationalism…some of my ideas are informed by Anderson’s ideas here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities
@Simone_De_Beauvoir I see, and I have never really thought of it from that side before. So if the concept of country, and if the world’s races were to melt into only one…would these be positive changes in your opinion?
Any nation worth living in will have a broad range of cultures that exist within it. The greatest nations and empires in history have always been multicultural.
I wouldn’t ever want to live in a nation that only allowed itself to be defined by a “monoculture.”
@Simone_De_Beauvoir
Nationality encapsulates culture. Not as much of late as a few decades ago, but it does all the same.
@Nullo we need to move beyond sewing by hand then.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir
YOU try putting the button back on your shirt with a machine, then. Tape it, then post it to Youtube; I wanna see that.
@Nullo wouldn’t it be counterproductive to put it on YouTube since you wouldn’t have a computer
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
