The space of nations
The concept of humanity represents the ultimate human whole, the broader human civilization of which all people are members, by identifying themselves as part of it. Yet human civilization is diverse, composed of sub-collectivities and local cultures that are born and die within it and which, through their activity and interaction, shape it. These entities, including their totality, function as identities which on their turn act as “cultural attractors” in human life, influencing value systems, aspirations and decisions, and thus directing the course of events.
This property of humanity, its evolution through autonomous identity-bearing entities expressed as differentiated cultures, may have both advocates and critics. In my view however, it leans to the positive side, not only due to ethics and aesthetics but also by securing humanity’s well-being through the resilience that diversity provides. If, for example, one culture declines due to the dominance of flawed ideas or any other internal or external cause, another contemporary culture may be flourishing and prosperous, thereby preventing the world from descending into darkness. Moreover, however strongly one may believe that their own culture and way of life is the chosen one and destined to determine humanity’s fate, the truth is that no one knows whether a grand objective purpose exists, let alone what it might be, in order to judge objectively who is moving in the right direction and who is not (more about this argument here). In any case, regardless of our judgments, this diversity of identities is a fact, and therefore understanding it is at least useful.
At the root of this diversity of identities lies “homoism”, the human need to belong to a group of one’s own kind, a trait with an evident evolutionary basis. In our era, we call these identity-bearing entities nations. But what is a nation, this identity that functions as a cultural attractor? It is a group of people sharing certain common characteristics, of which I single out five primary ones based on their historical importance, to which all others may be reduced. Each carrying different weight depending on the era and the identity:
- Language
- Religion
- Historical Memory
- Political Organization
- Genetic Composition
We can represent each of the five characteristics as a spatial dimension, which means that the concept of a nation is ultimately depicted as a five-dimensional object with specific value ranges for each dimension. These objects do not overlap with each other, with some being closer and some further away. Every such object constitutes a distinct identity which, as a cultural attractor, influences the course of human history. Since it is cognitively easier to reason in three dimensions, I use simplified three-dimensional representations in the provided illustrations.
Some observations
The way of life (customs, traditions, myths, practices, music, architecture, cuisine and so on) or what we commonly refer to as shared culture, is a derivative primarily of historical memory and religion as well as political organization and language.
Within this framework, historical memory includes not only past events but also present events of great importance, such that they are already considered historical. For example, theater in classical Greece was already regarded by contemporaries as a defining element of their cultural identity so its existence was already of historical importance. The American flag on the Moon is another such case. I classify such significant cultural elements under historical memory regardless of their temporal dimension.
Political organization reflects the way a society is structured, how it makes decisions, distributes resources, manages security and challenges, and defines rights and obligations. The modern state is the most familiar form of political organization and plays its own role in identity formation. There are cases where the populations of two neighboring states share four of the five primary characteristics but differ in political organization, and this alone may generate identity differentiation, even independently of historical memory. Examples include the United States and Canada, North and South Korea, Romania and Moldova and others. This also implies that if the difference in political organization ceases to exist, identities may converge into one.
Any projection of a five-dimensional identity onto lower dimension spaces can function as a distinct cultural attractor. Multidimensional identities thus possess multiple expressions and shades.
The same characteristic may be of minor importance in one identity but far more significant in another. Genetic composition for example, plays little to no role in the case of the United States. Its identity has been shaped to encompass multiple genetic profiles, effectively rendering it independent of them, leading to a more generic identity that spans the entire 5th dimension (or alternatively it can be thought of as a generic 4d identity instead of a narrower 5d one). By contrast, in the case of China, genetic composition plays a much more substantial role.
Any combination of any number of the five basic characteristics, capable of generating emotional identification and differentiation from others, can function as a distinct identity and begin to influence the course of human history. In extreme cases, even a single characteristic might suffice to initiate a process of identity autonomy. However, such a nascent identity would be highly vulnerable and fragile in the absence of substantial historical memory. For example, the European Union does not yet constitute a strong identity-bearing entity. If it were to move toward deeper political integration, it would begin to acquire a more significant dimension of shared political organization, one of the five core characteristics. Yet with just one out of five, it would remain extremely fragile as an identity.
The closer two identities are, the more likely it is that one will absorb the other. A case in point is the Normans, who were ultimately absorbed into the kingdoms of France and England, despite having a highly significant political organization that endured for roughly two centuries and influenced medieval Europe, to a point that it started generating its own historical memory. However, 4 of the 5 characteristics were very similar to those of neighboring kingdoms. Once their political organization collapsed, maintaining a distinct identity became impossible. Language and religion have been, and remain, the dominant attributes of differentiation.
Locality is subsumed within political organization.
Self-perception, and perception by others, is a product of identity differentiation and homoism (the need to belong).
Solidarity arises from shared self-perception.
The use of a distinct name for an identity reinforces its differentiation from others.
The position of the volume occupied by an identity changes over time. Identities evolve.
These five primary characteristics have been decisive in identity formation from the deep past to the present, though their influence may vary over time and place.
There are many historical processes that could be examined through this lens, processes that unfold over centuries, for example the Hellenization of Anatolia and its subsequent Turkification, the temporary emergence of the Mozarab and Muladi identities in the Arabic Iberia, the Arabization of Egypt etc.
The purpose of this post is to briefly present a simple mechanistic framework through which we can understand historical processes and project future developments in a more structured way.
Meta-identities
Identities are not static entities. They evolve slowly over time. All ancient cultures that have survived to the present day (Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Indians, Iranians, etc.) have passed through different civilizational epochs, undergoing major transformations along the way.
The Greeks, specifically, have passed through three major epochs and two major transitions: Mycenaean to Classical to Orthodox (using the term Orthodox here in a broad cultural sense, not merely in its religious aspect). Each cultural phase forms a distinct identity without however, beginning from a blank slate. Rather, it incorporates the previous one and evolves from it, forming a continuous “identity branch”. This process never stops. Identities continue to evolve even within a single epoch, although the changes are milder.
Understanding the characteristics that define an identity, together with knowledge of its historical path, facilitates the recognition of an identity branch which, in the Greek case, encompasses the Mycenaean, the Classical and the Orthodox form. When viewed as a whole, the notion of an “identity of identities,” or a meta-identity becomes evident. An identity that spans the entire branch.
More about the Greek case
During the first major transition, from the Mycenaean to the Classical form, the Bronze Age Collapse and the subsequent Dark Ages brought profound transformations. The political organization changed dramatically. The palatial system collapsed and the great administrative centers were largely abandoned. Parts of the historical memory were lost, most notably the writing system. Religion also evolved. Some deities disappeared while others rose to prominence or assumed new roles. Yet the fundamental religious worldview remained largely unchanged. The Greek language survived, and with it many elements of historical memory, including myths, legends and heroic traditions. These transformations unfolded over several centuries, until, at the other end, a new cultural entity emerged. It was clearly distinct from its predecessor, yet equally clearly its continuation. This new identity continued to evolve, although at the slower pace characteristic of a stable civilizational epoch. While political organizations changed repeatedly, all other aspects of identity evolved much more mildly.
The next great transition was that from Greco-Roman antiquity to the medieval world, which produced the most profound transformation of the Greek identity: from its Classical to its Orthodox form. The most obvious change was, of course, the adoption of Christianity, accompanied by fundamental changes in the political organization, following the fall of Rome and the establishment of a new political entity, the Eastern Roman Empire. Over the course of several centuries, the Orthodox identity of “Romios” took shape. Once again, the Greek language endured, preserving alongside it much of the historical memory of the previous era. Just as the Mycenaean world co-shaped the Classical one, the Classical world co-shaped the Orthodox one, transmitting its influence despite the challenges that followed the rise of Christianity. One consequence of this enduring continuity was the European Renaissance, which was ignited by the Byzantine scholarship that preserved, copied, and ultimately transmitted the classical works to the West, following the Fall of Constantinople.
The intelligentsia has always been aware of the branch to which it belonged, and of its root, as is evident from its writings. For the uneducated medieval peasant however, the Orthodox identity, that of Romios, was naturally the dominant one, since it had constituted his everyday reality for centuries. The role of the modern Greek state was to demonstrate and underscore the continuity of the Greek cultural branch and to cultivate an awareness of the Greek meta-identity through knowledge and education. At this point, it is important to distinguish education from propaganda. Teaching historical truth is an obligation. Teaching falsehoods by contrast, is both toxic and dangerous, as is the case in some modern states.
A few words about the Turkish case
The notion of a meta-identity can also be observed in younger cultures. Turkish culture for example, exhibits a comparable pattern when viewed across a sufficiently long historical timescale. The sense of identity of a 7th-century AD nomadic Tengrist Göktürk of the Asian Steppe would have differed profoundly from that of a modern Muslim Turk in Asia Minor. Nevertheless, the Göktürks are rightly regarded as part of the broader Turkish cultural heritage, as reflected in the modern Turkish education system, cultivating a Turkish meta-identity that transcends the distinct historical identities that compose it.