Introduction:
national identity and globalization: confronting one of the most fundamental challenges of the modern age
“national identity and globalization” today is not merely an academic or political debate, but an existential question for nations—
a question that asks: How should we define ourselves in a world where cultural and economic borders are collapsing?
In the past, national identity was largely defined based on relatively fixed and ascriptive elements:
shared language, a unified religion, historical culture, and even race. These components were able to function as social glue for centuries.
However, with the world entering the age of widespread communication, multilayered migration, and a globalized economy, these elements have gradually lost their cohesive power.
Thus, many societies witness a major contradiction:
On the one hand, globalization opens borders and proposes new alternatives for lifestyles, values, and social interactions.
But on the other hand, sharp returns to ethnic, linguistic, and religious identity politics have intensified.
In other words, globalization has not only failed to weaken national identity; in many cases, it has made it more crisis-ridden, reactive, and fragile.
However, the key question is this:
Which part of national identity can remain stable, functional, and even reinforcing of national cohesion in the face of globalization?
Contemporary theorists argue that what can truly play a role in this era is no longer a national identity rooted in inherent characteristics (language, race, religion), but the constructed dimension of the nation:
that is, the process of “nation-building” based on shared political experience, civil society, rule-governed life, and citizen participation.
As a result, this article focuses not on defending traditional identities, but on the need to redefine the nation as a political and civic project—
a project that can remain afloat in the turbulent sea of globalization.
Ultimately, this guiding question shapes the direction of the article:
How can national identity be freed from the constraints of language, religion, and race, and rebuilt on foundations that remain functional, flexible, and future-oriented in today’s networked world?
-
The Historical Roots of National Identity and Their Critique
1-1. The origins of the concept of nation: from tribe to nation-state
To understand the challenge of “national identity and globalization,” we must first know how the nation itself emerged. Contrary to common belief, the nation is not a natural or eternal thing.
Humans originally lived within kinship structures, tribes, clans, and multi-ethnic empires.
They did not have a unified language, nor a unified religion, nor a “collective identity” in the modern sense.
With the rise of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and then the Industrial Revolution, the Western world gradually entered a stage where dispersed populations needed to be organized under a unified political and economic order.
Thus, modern states, to create cohesion, undertook the “invention of the nation”—a nation meant to unite people into a large spiritual “we.”
In other words, the nation was the result of a political project necessary for governing territory and generating loyalty to the state, not an organic or natural formation.
1-2. Shared language: a political tool, not an inherent essence
Today, many assume that a shared language has always been at the heart of national identity.
But historical analysis shows that it was not language that created the nation—rather, the nation created and standardized language.
1-2-1. Language as a tool of state-building
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, states:
- compiled official school textbooks
• established national media
• marginalized or banned local languages
• standardized grammar
and thereby advanced the process of Tehran-centric, Paris-centric, London-centric, and Istanbul-centric linguistic unification.
Thus, linguistic uniformity arose not from the cultural life of the people but from administrative, educational, and military needs.
1-2-2. Critiquing the role of language in the contemporary era
In the age of globalization, the national language no longer plays a decisive role in shaping individual identity.
Today:
- global languages like English and Spanish
• digital and symbolic languages (emoji, networked communication patterns)
• and the growing multilingualism of migrants
have rendered linguistic borders ineffective.
For this reason, relying on language as the core of national identity is less a tool of cohesion and more an act of closing identity boundaries in an open world.
1-3. Shared religion: a unifying force or a mechanism of exclusion?
Religion has been an important identity element in many historical societies.
However, like language, religion became a tool of modern states during early nation-formation.
1-3-1. Religious homogenization: a strategy for political loyalty
In many countries, modern states, in order to manage religious diversity and reinforce their legitimacy, declared a specific religion as the axis of national identity.
But historical evidence shows that such homogenization was often accompanied by:
- exclusion of minorities
• creation of hierarchical categories of citizenship
• and even religious violence
1-3-2. The crisis of religion in a networked world
Today, with global communication expanding:
- individuals have access to hundreds of religious narratives and modes of spirituality
• religion has shifted from “collective identity” to “individual choice”
• global religious communities (from Buddhists to Protestants) operate beyond national borders
Thus, religion can no longer serve as the primary pillar of national identity against globalization, because it has itself become interwoven with global networks.
1-4. Race and ethnicity: the dangerous legacy of the nineteenth century
Race and ethnicity are among the most contentious elements in defining national identity.
In the nineteenth century, many states invoked “racial myths” to construct nations—
the idea that a nation arose from a shared bloodline or specific ancestry.
1-4-1. Race as a scientific-political construct
It is now clear that:
- race has no biological basis
• it is the product of political and misguided scientific classifications
• and was often used to legitimize colonialism and discrimination
1-4-2. The limits of ethnicity in an age of global migration
In an age of globalization, societies face continuous waves of civilizational, cultural, and migratory change.
Thus:
- ethnicity is no longer a closed unit
• cultural and linguistic boundaries continually shift
• linking the nation to “blood” or “ancestry” detaches society from demographic realities
For this reason, relying on ethnicity as a unifying element is not only ineffective but often sows the seeds of internal conflict.
1-5. Critical conclusion: the problem with traditional elements of national identity
Given what has been discussed, the three traditional components of national identity—language, religion, race/ethnicity—are all politically constructed and conditional, not natural.
Therefore, in today’s world, these elements can no longer:
- represent the whole society
• respond to increasing diversity
• provide a mechanism for national cohesion
• nor function effectively against globalization
In other words, the networked age has rendered ascriptive identity ineffective.
-
How Globalization Transforms National Identity
Globalization in recent decades has not merely been an economic change; it is “a profound transformation in the structure of human perception.”
This transformation has placed pressure on all traditional identity elements.
In other words, national identity and globalization are locked in a continuous tug-of-war:
globalization opens, while traditional national identity seeks to close.
This very tension is the origin of the identity crises of the modern age.
To understand these transformations, globalization must be analyzed across four layers:
the cultural layer, the economic layer, the political layer, and the technological layer.
We analyze each separately below.
2-1. Cultural Globalization: The Collapse of Meaning Boundaries and Lifestyles
Cultural globalization is the first and most tangible force that weakens or transforms national identity.
With the expansion of media, the internet, social networks, and the free flow of information:
- people’s cultural experiences overflow geographical boundaries;
• lifestyles enter into exchanges with global cultures;
• values shift from being “inherited and familial” to “individual choices.”
2-1-1. The Decline of the Grand National Narrative
In the classical nation-state era, each nation had a single narrative of itself:
“who we are” and “where we came from.”
But globalization has fragmented this narrative. Now:
- A young Iranian is simultaneously exposed to Korean, American, and European cultures;
• A young Indian takes lifestyle cues from Netflix and YouTube;
• A young Arab in Dubai redefines identity somewhere between tradition and global consumerism.
This situation means that people no longer live solely within a “national identity horizon,”
but instead inhabit multiple cultural worlds at the same time.
2-1-2. The Crisis of the National Language as the Core of Identity
With globalization:
- English has become the language of instruction for many sciences;
• Social media users inhabit a multilingual world;
• Borderless online communication has weakened smaller languages.
Thus, the national language is no longer “the definitive reference of identity,”
but merely one communicative tool among several others.
Therefore, the link between identity and language has grown weak and ineffective in the new era.
2-2. Economic Globalization: From Consumerism to Globalized Markets
Economic globalization has also caused people to live within similar, globally standardized patterns.
In other words, the “nation” has shrunk in comparison to the “global market.”
2-2-1. Lifestyle Standardization Through Goods
Global brands, cultural industries, fast-food chains, shared apps, and similar consumption patterns have created a “global consumer culture.”
As a result:
- youth are influenced more by global consumption styles than by national values;
• nationality gives way to “consumer class”;
• cultural boundaries lose their power against the logic of the market.
2-2-2. Economic Interdependence and the Weakening of National Policies
Globalized markets have made it impossible for governments to define fully independent economic policies.
Consequently:
- domestic control over markets decreases;
• local decisions are influenced by global forces;
• and citizens feel that their “economic destiny” lies in supranational structures.
This weakens the sense of “national autonomy,” a key component of national identity.
2-3. Political Globalization: The Transfer of Power from Nation-State to Supranational Institutions
In the modern era, the nation-state is no longer the sole actor in the political sphere. Today:
- the United Nations, World Bank, and IMF
• regional unions such as the European Union
• multinational corporations
• and even powerful social networks
have limited the power of states.
2-3-1. The Erosion of National Sovereignty
When supranational institutions hold part of decision-making power, citizens feel less that the “nation” is the primary determinant of their fate.
This pushes national identity, as the “space of political participation,” to the margins.
2-3-2. The Rise of Global Citizenship
With the increasing power of global institutions, a new concept has emerged: global citizenship.
This means individuals:
- develop universal concerns (human rights, environment, climate change);
• view themselves as belonging to a community larger than the nation;
• adopt values that transcend borders.
Thus, the “nation” is no longer the only arena of politics.
2-4. Technological Globalization: Networked Identity and the Collapse of Mental Borders
Technology is the beating heart of globalization.
Therefore, it must be examined as a distinct force.
2-4-1. Social Media: Identity as an Individual Project
In the world of networks:
- each individual has a “personal brand”;
• identity shifts from collective groups to “individual choice”;
• users construct fluid and multilayered identities online.
This transformation dethrones national identity because:
- identity can no longer be defined from above (by the state);
• and is instead reconstructed from below (by individuals).
2-4-2. Virtual Spaces: From Physical Territories to Networked Territories
In the past, national identity was tied to geographical territory.
But today:
- individuals spend much of their online time in “non-national spaces”;
• transnational virtual groups form across all ethnicities and nations;
• physical borders fade in daily experience.
For this reason, the feeling of “belonging to the nation” in many individuals has been replaced by “belonging to networks and digital communities.”
2-5. Summary of This Section: Why Traditional Elements of National Identity Fail Against Globalization
Considering the four forces of globalization we examined, it is now clear that:
- the national language is no longer the main cultural reference;
• religion no longer provides definitive identity boundaries;
• ethnicity is fragile against global diversity and migration;
• the national historical narrative is rivaled by global narratives;
• and the nation-state has ceded part of its power to global and technological institutions.
Thus, traditional elements of national identity no longer possess the capacity to produce cohesion.
Therefore, new forms of identity and new understandings of the nation must be developed—
precisely what the next sections of the article will elaborate on.
-
The Paradox of National Identity in the Age of Globalization — Why Does It Return Despite Erosion?
One of the most complex phenomena of the contemporary era is that national identity and globalization, contrary to common expectation, do not have a simple “weakening and disappearance” relationship.
In other words, globalization does not merely eliminate national identity; in many societies we witness the powerful and even radical return of national, ethnic, linguistic, and religious identities.
This return raises an important question:
If globalization has expanded borders and eroded national narratives,
why do people increasingly turn to narrower, more local, and even nostalgic identities?
To answer this, we must consider a fundamental contradiction:
Globalization opens new horizons, but threatens psychological security.
Below, I explain this paradox on several levels.
3-1. Existential Insecurity: When Globalization Creates a Sense of “Rootlessness”
Globalization puts individuals into constant contact with multiple values, lifestyles, and identities.
Although this plurality creates opportunities, it simultaneously produces a loss of center.
In other words:
- the individual no longer knows “which world they belong to”;
• traditional narratives that gave meaning to life no longer function as before;
• the relationship between place and identity becomes disrupted.
As a result, the individual experiences identity anxiety — a sense of instability that pushes them toward familiar, inherited, and predictable structures.
Thus, the return to national, linguistic, or religious identity is less a political choice than an attempt to restore psychological security.
3-2. Return to the Past: A Natural Reaction to the Speed of Change
One feature of globalization is acceleration.
Technological, economic, and cultural changes occur so rapidly that individuals and societies lack the time to absorb or understand them.
Under such conditions, naturally:
- the past becomes a refuge;
• “authentic identity” becomes an idealized dream;
• people return to “roots” to regain control over change.
Therefore, many nationalist movements of the 21st century — from Europe to Asia — are not genuine returns to tradition, but rather artificial nostalgia created in response to an unstable world.
3-3. The Crisis of Global Justice: Economic Inequality and the Revival of National Borders
Global economic globalization, although wealth-generating, has distributed that wealth highly unevenly.
In many societies:
- the middle class has weakened;
• traditional employment has vanished;
• opportunities have expanded for some and shrunk for others;
• the sense of “structural injustice” has grown.
This pushes people toward movements that declare:
“Globalization is the problem; the solution is a return to national identity.”
In other words, national identity becomes a tool of economic protest.
For this reason, populist movements use “national nostalgia” to critique global inequality.
3-4. The Crisis of Political Representation: The Distance Between People and Global Institutions
One effect of globalization is the transfer of part of state power to supranational institutions.
But these institutions:
- are distant from the people’s vote,
• have complex, nontransparent structures,
• and create a sense of political powerlessness.
In such a context, national identity becomes a tool for bringing political power back to the people.
In other words, slogans like “take back our country” express an attempt to restore national sovereignty against global structures.
Even if these slogans are unrealistic, they are psychologically powerful.
3-5. Media and Social Networks: The Driving Engine of Reactive Identity Politics
Technological globalization, although it opens borders, has also provided powerful tools for reinforcing closed identities.
Digital spaces, through their algorithms:
- place users in “echo chambers”;
• amplify identity-based and emotional content over rational content;
• magnify nationalist and ethnic narratives.
Thus, the globalization of digital spaces paradoxically contributes to the reproduction of nationalism.
3-6. Summary: Why National Identity Dies and Is Reborn at the Same Time
We can now clearly express this paradox:
- globalization erodes traditional national identity,
• but this very erosion produces anxiety, instability, and psychological rupture,
• and that anxiety pushes people back toward older identities.
Therefore, the return of national identity does not necessarily reflect its inherent strength;
it is a reaction to the fears produced by globalization, not a rational resistance to it.
This point is a necessary prelude to the next section of the article, which will explain:
Why, for national identity to survive and remain functional in today’s world,
it must free itself from ascriptive elements (language, religion, ethnicity)
and be redefined based on the constitutive dimension of the nation.
-
The Necessity of Redefining the Nation — From Ascriptive Identity to Constitutive Identity
To understand the future of national identity and globalization, we must ask a fundamental question from historical, sociological, and philosophical perspectives:
What is a nation?
A collection of languages, races, and religions?
Or a shared experience of “constructing a political community”?
The answer determines whether national identity will die or be reborn in the age of globalization.
It is now time to define the nation not based on “what it is,”
but based on “what it can become.”
4-1. The Difference Between Ascriptive and Constitutive Identity: The Starting Point
In political and social sciences, two forms of identity can be imagined for a nation:
4-1-1. Ascriptive Identity
This form of identity is based on nonvoluntary characteristics:
- inherited language
• family religion
• race, lineage, or ethnicity
• a unified, curated historical memory
The main problem with this type of identity is that it is closed, exclusive, and exclusionary.
one cannot voluntarily enter or leave it.
For this reason, it sees cultural diversity as a threat and adopts a defensive posture against globalization.
4-1-2. Constitutive Identity
In contrast, constitutive identity emerges when the nation is defined not by inherent similarities,
but by the shared project of constructing a society:
- common law
• equal rights
• civic participation
• civil solidarity
• shared democratic values
• commitment to a collective future
This identity is open, flexible, and inclusive.
Anyone who can participate in this project is part of the nation.
In other words, the nation shifts from “blood and soil” to “law and commitment.”
4-2. Why Ascriptive Identity Is Ineffective in the Age of Globalization
Based on the previous sections, we now know clearly that the three main components of ascriptive identity — language, religion, and race — are all under severe erosion.
However, deeper structural reasons also explain their inefficiency:
4-2-1. Inability to Manage Diversity
In a world where migration, the circulation of information, and cultural mixture have become normal,
no modern nation can produce lasting cohesion based on a single language or ethnicity.
Ascriptive identity inevitably labels part of the population as “the other.”
4-2-2. Crisis of Representation
In modern societies, social groups are highly diverse.
Ascriptive identities ignore this diversity and create a “uniform” narrative.
But people today no longer accept uniform narratives.
4-2-3. Inability to Produce the Future
Ascriptive identities look to the past far more than to the future.
Rather than offering solutions, they generate nostalgia.
4-2-4. Conflict with the Logic of Globalization
Language, religion, and race all create rigid borders,
while globalization softens borders.
This contradiction forces ascriptive identity into constant conflict with external reality.
4-3. Constitutive National Identity: The Only Viable Form of Nationhood in a Networked World
Here, the importance of constitutive identity becomes clear.
Constitutive identity does not claim that people are or must be similar;
it is built upon a simple premise:
A nation is where people decide to construct a shared political community.
In other words, a nation is a project, not an inheritance.
4-3-1. The Nation as a Political Contract
In this view:
- the nation is the result of the citizens’ will, not blood or lineage;
• the nation is a combination of laws, institutions, and shared values;
• Anyone who joins this contract becomes part of the nation.
4-3-2. The Nation as a Field of Participation
Constitutive identity defines the nation through participation — not similarity:
- participation in elections
• participation in dialogue processes
• participation in civil institutions
• participation in building the future
This participation produces cohesion, not inherited similarities.
4-3-3. The Nation as a Shared Future
Constitutive identity relies more on the future than on the past.
This future may include:
- welfare
• freedom
• justice
• development
• scientific and cultural progress
Thus, the nation becomes a “future-oriented project.”
4-4. Why Constitutive Identity Is Compatible with Globalization
In the age of globalization, only those identity claims can survive that can:
- attract,
• open themselves,
• manage diversity,
• and be formed through choice rather than coercion.
Constitutive identity has exactly these four features:
4-4-1. Flexibility
Constitutive identity can accommodate ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity,
because it is not based on “inherent similarity.”
4-4-2. Compatibility with Network Logic
In a world where individuality has been strengthened,
identity must allow for choice.
Constitutive identity is a framework of choice, not an inherited identity.
4-4-3. Coexistence with Global Citizenship
An individual can hold universal values (human rights, peace, environmental protection)
while participating in the political project of their nation.
These two identities do not conflict.
4-4-4. Capacity to Produce Sustainable Cohesion
Cohesion under constitutive identity is produced through contracts, laws, institutions, and participation.
not through “inherited similarities.”
Therefore, it is more stable and reproducible.
4-5. Summary: The Nation of the Future Is Neither Ascriptive nor Nostalgic — It Is Constructed
All the above leads us to this conclusion:
- globalization has weakened ascriptive identity;
• the return of traditional national identity is reactive and temporary;
• and the only path for the nation to survive today
is to redefine itself based on constitutive identity.
In other words:
The nation of the future is not an “inheritance,”
but a project.
The nation of the future is “chosen,”
not predetermined.
And ultimately, the nation of the future is “law-based,”
not “blood-based.”
This perspective forms the theoretical foundation for the next section,
which will explain what constitutive national identity looks like in practice,
what its elements are,
and how it can be produced and reproduced in the age of globalization.
-
The Constitutive Elements of National Identity and the Mechanisms That Produce It
After establishing that ascriptive identity lacks the capacity to generate cohesion and meaning for the political community in the age of national identity and globalization, we must now answer a more essential question:
If we imagine the nation not based on language, religion, or race, but as a constituted entity, then what exactly is this identity made of?
This question matters because any nation-building project, without foundational elements and supporting institutions, becomes merely a slogan. For this reason, the constitutive elements of national identity must be explained carefully, layer by layer, and with their internal interconnections made clear.
5-1. Law, Rights, and Equality: The First Pillar of Constitutive Identity
In ascriptive identity, membership in the nation is a matter of “being born”;
but in constitutive identity, membership means living under a shared legal order.
5-1-1. Law as the Foundational Contract
A nation defined by law has three features:
- Citizens are equal before the law;
neither language, nor religion, nor ancestry grants any privilege. - National identity becomes transferable and participatory;
anyone who accepts and commits to the shared rules becomes part of the nation. - Law shifts identity from past-orientation to future-orientation.
5-1-2. Citizenship Rights as the Basis of National Identity
In constitutive identity, belonging to the nation has meaning only when:
- the right to political participation exists,
• freedom of expression is guaranteed,
• the right to seek justice is ensured,
• and individuals’ freedom to choose their lifestyle is respected.
In other words, constitutive identity is born from citizenship rights, not from race or religion.
5-1-3. Equality as a Condition of Cohesion
Equality is not merely a moral concept; it is a remedy for the injustice of ascriptive identity.
Where equality is absent, national identity either collapses or turns into ethnic nationalism.
5-2. Political Participation: The Nation Exists Only When Citizens Act
Constitutive national identity is impossible without political participation.
If people do not take part in decision-making, the “nation” becomes a mere abstraction.
5-2-1. Electoral Participation
People who vote
also feel they belong—
because decision-making is the strongest form of identity formation.
5-2-2. Participation in Civil Institutions
Associations, unions, NGOs, local councils—
these are factories of identity production.
Thus, constitutive identity always emerges from an active civil society.
5-2-3. Participation Through Dialogue
In a world where the media landscape is borderless, dialogue is not a choice but a necessity.
Without a culture of critical dialogue, a constitutive national identity can never achieve lasting cohesion.
5-3. Institutions: The Machines That Produce and Reproduce Constitutive National Identity
A modern nation becomes stable when its institutions can rebuild the nation every day.
In other words, a nation without institutions is merely a sentiment.
Constitutive identity cannot survive without institutions.
5-3-1. Educational Institutions
Schools and universities play a crucial role in producing constitutive identity:
- teaching history critically rather than mythically,
• teaching citizenship rights,
• teaching critical thinking,
• and teaching civic—not ethnic—values.
In constitutive identity, the school’s task is to train citizens, not “tribes.”
5-3-2. Judicial Institutions
In this form of identity, justice is the main pillar of cohesion.
Thus, the judicial system must be:
- independent,
• trustworthy,
• and equally applied to all.
5-3-3. Political Institutions
Parliament, councils, local governments, and the executive branch—
all must strengthen participation, transparency, and accountability.
5-4. Shared, Future-Oriented Memory: A Narrative for Building, Not for Worshiping
Ascriptive identity usually has a nostalgic memory.
but constitutive identity requires critical memory.
5-4-1. Critical Memory, Not Mythical Memory
It must be ensured that:
- victories are not exaggerated,
• defeats are not censored,
• history is evaluated morally,
• and the roles of different groups are acknowledged.
5-4-2. The Future as the Focus of Memory
A nation with constitutive identity:
- reads history to build the future,
• not to build enemies.
Therefore, the narrative that emerges in this form of identity is dynamic, not sacred.
5-5. Social Solidarity: Cohesion That Comes From Will, Not Similarity
In constitutive identity, solidarity forms not from “symbolic kinship” but from civic commitment.
5-5-1. Solidarity Through Shared Rights
When all enjoy equal rights,
we feel that “we are in the same boat.”
5-5-2. Solidarity Through Shared Responsibility
The tax system, social service, and cooperation during crises—
all these are mechanisms that produce solidarity.
5-5-3. Solidarity Through Ethical Dialogue
A society that can speak with itself
can also speak with others.
5-6. Summary: The Elements of Constitutive Identity Form a Dynamic and Interconnected Network
All the elements—law, participation, institutions, critical memory, and solidarity—
create a coherent network in which:
- national identity is not inherited from the past,
but constructed;
• it is not based on ascriptive similarities,
but on civic choices;
• and it endures not by excluding others,
but by integrating diversity.
As a result, constitutive national identity is the only form of identity compatible with the logic of national identity and globalization, and the only one capable of keeping the nation stable in a complex and interconnected future.
-
The Barriers and Challenges of Transitioning from Ascriptive to Constitutive Identity
The transition from a national identity based on language, religion, and race to a civic constitutive identity is neither a simple theoretical project nor a bureaucratic adjustment.
It is a paradigm shift—a transformation in how the nation, the self, and the other are understood.
For this reason, a set of structural, cultural, political, and psychological obstacles stands in the way.
This section critically analyzes these obstacles.
6-1. First Barrier: The Historical Power of Ascriptive Identity and Its Emotional Roots
Ascriptive identity is not just a theory;
people’s emotions are rooted in it.
6-1-1. Language, Religion, and Ethnicity as Emotional Anchors
Nations often define themselves through:
- mother tongue,
• family rituals,
• and a sense of “imagined kinship.”
These elements provide psychological security.
Thus, any attempt to weaken these components initially appears threatening to many people.
6-1-2. Resistance to Rewriting Memory
Ascriptive identity is intertwined with mythical history.
When a constitutive project attempts to reinterpret history,
some groups feel their heritage is under attack.
In other words, transforming ascriptive identity means changing “the story people tell about themselves,”
and such a change inevitably meets resistance.
6-2. Second Barrier: Political Structures That Benefit From Ascriptive Identity
In many countries, ascriptive identity is not just part of the past;
it is a tool of power.
6-2-1. States That Derive Legitimacy From Ethnicity or Religion
In such systems:
- the official religion,
• the dominant ethnic group,
• or the privileged language
becomes a formal instrument of power as ruling groups use ascriptive differences to secure loyalty and eliminate rivals.
Constitutive identity is dangerous for such groups
because it threatens the monopoly over power.
6-2-2. Institutions Tied to the Past
Institutions built upon ethnic or religious narratives
cannot easily adapt to a civic narrative,
because their organizational interests depend on preserving those narratives.
6-3. Third Barrier: The Political Economy of Ascriptive Identity
Ascriptive identity is not just culture.
many economic structures depend on it.
6-3-1. Identity-Based Economies
In some countries, resource distribution is shaped by ethnicity, language, or religion.
Abandoning ascriptive identity would mean giving up economic privileges.
6-3-2. A Political Market Built on Fear
Political groups often use identity-based fears to win votes.
This “commodification of fear” blocks any attempt to redefine identity from ascriptive to constitutive.
6-4. Fourth Barrier: The Crisis of Trust in Society
Constitutive identity is built on trust in law and institutions.
But in many countries, public trust is weak.
6-4-1. Distrust of Official Institutions
If citizens lack trust in:
- judicial fairness,
• governmental transparency,
• or institutional integrity,
then constitutive identity collapses at the outset.
6-4-2. Distrust Between Social Groups
In societies with ethnic or religious tensions,
groups distrust one another.
Constitutive identity requires civic solidarity,
but social distrust paralyzes that solidarity.
6-5. Fifth Barrier: Weak Civil Society
Constitutive identity is impossible without an active civil society,
because civil society functions as a “school of citizenship.”
6-5-1. Fragile Civil Society Structures
In countries where:
- freedom of association is restricted,
• media are controlled,
• Independent organizations are weak;
constitutive identity cannot flourish.
6-5-2. Lack of a Culture of Critical Dialogue
Without dialogue and public debate,
citizens cannot feel they are part of a shared national project.
6-6. Sixth Barrier: The Cultural Pressures of Globalization
Globalization, despite offering opportunities for constitutive identity,
also generates identity-based reactions.
6-6-1. Fear of Cultural Collapse
Many people fear that the new identity will replace local culture.
This fear is real and must be taken seriously.
6-6-2. Global Media Corporations
Large global media companies sometimes homogenize cultural patterns,
which can trigger identity crises.
Such crises push people toward closed identities.
6-7. Seventh Barrier: Weak National Narrative Formation
Constitutive identity requires a new national narrative—one that is:
- civic,
• historical but not myth-making,
• inclusive,
• and future-oriented.
6-7-1. Old Narratives Are More Attractive and Simpler
Ethnic and religious narratives are simple:
“We are good, they are bad.”
But civic narratives are complex:
“We are all different, but we must build a society together.”
This complexity requires greater educational effort.
6-8. Summary: Why Is the Transition Difficult?
All these obstacles reveal that ascriptive identity is not a simple intellectual problem that can easily be set aside.
Behind it stands a network of:
- emotions,
• institutions,
• economic interests,
• political structures,
• and public culture.
Therefore, the transition to constitutive identity is a long-term and complex project.
Yet despite all obstacles, this transition remains possible—
because constitutive identity is the only form capable of generating stability in the age of national identity and globalization.
-
Proposed Model for Reconstructing National Identity in the Age of Globalization
(A Theoretical–Practical Roadmap for the Transition from Ascriptive to Foundational Identity)
Up to this point, it has become clear that in the age of globalization, a national identity based on language, race, and religion cannot create lasting cohesion.
But knowing what we do not want is not enough.
Nations, for survival and flourishing, also need to know what must be built.
For this reason, this section offers a five-dimensional model that can outline the path for transitioning from ascriptive identity to foundational identity.
This model clarifies both the theoretical “how” and the practical “what must be done.”
Five-Dimensional Model for Reconstructing Foundational National Identity
7–1. First Dimension: Legal Modernization — Turning the Nation into a Legal Community
A foundational identity emerges when law—not ethnicity or religion—becomes the primary basis for defining the nation.
7–1–1. Constitutional Reform Based on Realistic Equality
Redefining the nation based on:
- unconditional equality of citizenship
- elimination of privileges based on lineage, language, or beliefs
- guaranteeing fundamental rights for all
These reforms form the backbone of foundational identity.
7–1–2. Strengthening Judicial Independence
A civic nation becomes meaningful only when everyone believes:
“The law protects me, not my lineage.”
7–1–3. Guaranteeing Minority Rights
Minorities are not “guests of the nation,” but equal citizens of it.
Without this principle, foundational identity remains incomplete.
7–2. Second Dimension: Reconstructing the National Narrative — The Nation as a Project for the Future
A foundational national identity requires a narrative that:
- respects the past without mythologizing it
- accepts diversity
- and above all, is future-oriented
7–2–1. Critical Historiography, Not Hero-Worship
School curricula and public media must:
- narrate history from the standpoint of diverse groups
- acknowledge the role of minorities
- avoid hiding failures and mistakes
- use the past as a tool for building the future, not for reinforcing ethnic or religious superiority
7–2–2. Creating a New National Story
In this narrative:
- the citizen is the hero, not the tribe
- law is the symbol, not race
- Civic solidarity is the pride, not cultural homogenization
7–2–3. Redefining National Symbols
National symbols must be:
- inclusive
- civic
- and acceptable to all groups
7–3. Third Dimension: Social Engineering — Building Identity-Shaping Infrastructures
Social engineering means state interventions aimed at shaping social structures in favor of foundational identity—much more than mere cultural recommendations.
7–3–1. Education as a Citizenship Factory
Curricula must include:
- skills of critical dialogue
- citizenship education
- critical thinking
- tolerance training
- civic ethical formation
7–3–2. Media as Platforms of Solidarity
National media must:
- avoid discriminatory representation of ethnic groups
- create programs that introduce cultural diversity
- emphasize the shared national project rather than demonizing “the other”
7–3–3. Creating Shared Public Spaces
Parks, cultural centers, local institutions, libraries, and national festivals
There are spaces in which diverse people can coexist.
7–4. Fourth Dimension: Reorganizing the Political Structure — The Nation as Participation
Foundational identity remains alive only when people genuinely participate in shaping the future.
7–4–1. Developing Local Democratic Institutions
Councils, local elections, and participatory institutions must be real and powerful.
Localizing power creates a sense of national ownership.
7–4–2. Transparency and Accountability
Transparency builds trust—
and trust is the raw material of foundational identity.
7–4–3. An Inclusive Party System
Political parties must reflect ethnic, religious, gender, and class diversity.
Foundational identity is strengthened when people feel:
“Everyone has a place to express themselves.”
7–5. Fifth Dimension: Mechanisms of Civic Solidarity — The Nation as a Network of Commitments
Foundational national identity endures only when citizens feel responsible for one another.
7–5–1. Social Justice
Without social justice, no stable identity can emerge.
Severe inequalities push people back toward ascriptive identities.
7–5–2. Inclusive Welfare Systems
Health, education, and social security must be accessible to all,
because shared welfare strengthens the feeling of “we.”
7–5–3. Shared Social Service
Programs such as:
- public service
- participation in national projects
- crisis assistance
make civic identity tangible and concrete.
The proposed five-dimensional model shows that foundational identity is neither a slogan nor an abstract concept;
it is an interconnected set of legal reforms, narrative-building, structural modernization, and social institution-building.
This model asserts:
national identity in the age of globalization is constructed, not inherited.
it is future-oriented, not past-oriented.
and it is built on law and participation,
not on ethnicity or race.
Conclusion — The Nation of the Future Is Built from Law and Participation, Not Blood and Soil
In the age of globalization, when communication, migration, and cultural blending are faster than ever, the question of national identity and globalization is no longer merely academic.
It is, in fact, the question of how nations will survive.
This article showed that a national identity based on language, religion, and race—the ascriptive identity—struggles to coexist with today’s networked world, because:
- language no longer creates borders
- religion no longer guarantees unity
- race is no longer a political criterion
Thus, nations that continue to define themselves through these elements become fragile and reactive in the face of globalizing forces.
In contrast, foundational identity—national identity based on law, participation, stable institutions, equal rights, and civic solidarity—is the only model capable of reproducing national cohesion in a sustainable and future-oriented way.
- The Core Message of the Article: A Nation Is a Project, Not a Heritage
The nation of the future is not “born”;
it is built.
Such a nation is:
- neither homogenizing,
- nor exclusionary,
- nor past-oriented,
but a society shaped by free participation and legal equality.
National identity is stable and ethical only when it is rooted in the choices of citizens, not in their inherited attributes.
- The Transition Path: Difficult but Necessary
This article demonstrated that the transition from ascriptive to foundational identity is not easy.
There are deep challenges:
- the power of traditions
- political interests rooted in ethnicity and religion
- weak democratic institutions
- crisis of social trust
- fear of globalization
But difficulty is not a reason to abandon the path.
Ascriptive identity leads over time to fragmentation and identity conflict,
while foundational identity guides the nation toward sustainable solidarity and democratic legitimacy.
- The Future Horizon: Rebuilding the Nation in a World of Transparent Borders
Globalization has not erased borders—
it has made them transparent.
In such a world, the nations that survive are those capable of balancing “internal diversity” with “global connectivity.”
Foundational identity is designed precisely for such a world: a world in which nations must:
- accept diversity
- guarantee equality
- enhance citizen participation
- and use the past to build the future rather than imprison it
- Final Summary: Foundational National Identity Is the Common Language of Future Nations
Ultimately, if one idea is to be highlighted as the “spirit of the article,” it is this:
In the age of globalization, only a nation that redefines its identity based on law, participation, equality, and a shared future can remain an effective actor.
Foundational national identity is a historical necessity—
not an intellectual preference
and not a cultural optimism—
but a strategic response for living in a world where borders have become fluid.
In other words:
the national identity of the future is constructed—not an inherited one.
