The Meaning of "Nation" & "Nationality"

[Odoacer]

Labrador started a poll to assess members' nationalities, wherein was some discussion of the semantics of the English word, "nationality." Since Loki has wisely barred further discussion of said semantics in the aforementioned thread, I've started a new thread to settle the issue.

I promise I'm not trolling, BTW. I just want to get more discussion of the subject as it of interest to me both for linguistic & ethnological reasons.

The discussion so far:

Spoiler!

The poll and opening post are about 'citizenship', rather than 'nationality', by the definitions a nationalist uses... :nono:

By looking at the poll, what you're asking for is statehood or 'stateship'.

In English, "nationality" refers primarily to citizenship, secondarily to membership in a distinct ethnic group. It's an unfortunately ambiguous term, & it's ambiguity is compounded by the modern development of the nation-state.

nationality
1690s, "national quality," from national + -ity. As "fact of belonging to or being a citizen of a particular state," from 1828, gradually (and erroneously) shading into "race, ethnicity." Meaning "separate existence as a nation" is recorded from 1832.

But didn't 'citizen' originally refer to an inhabitant of a city?

Sure, originally & still concurrently. By analogy, the concept was extended from the city-state (Gr. polis) to the nation-state, as the main political (cf. polis!) entity shifted in the Modern era (from the 16th century onward).

Englishman here, who disagrees with that usage!

'Nationality', as 'citizenship', is a matter of American influence, where state and nation have come to mean absurdly different things to what they ought to etymologically. A nation is a people, not a place or an institution.

It's got nothing to do with America. It's a legal designation. You're a citizen of a country and can get a passport. A [insert country] national. That's different from being a member of an ethnic group.

A rather modern usage, deriving from the notion that a 'nation' need not have an ethnic aspect.

I disagree that this usage of "nationality" is of more recent vintage (it is in fact a bit older), or that it has come about as a result of American influence or theories about "proposition nations." The principle meaning of the English word "nationality" is membership in a political nation; secondarily it may be applied to membership in a stateless nation (i.e., ethnicity).

It is fair to say that there is an inherent ambiguity in the meaning of "nationality." The word "nation" earlier referred to distinct people-groups - ethnicities - later taking on a political shade with the modern rise of the nation-state, a political shift which began in the 16th century. The first nation-states were essentially kingdoms in which distinct ethnic goups were largely consolidated & assimilated into a common national identity under the reign of powerful monarchs - England is a prototypical example. The emergence of nationalism as a political ideology in the late 18th & early 19th centuries on the one hand emphasized, & encouraged the development of, commonalities between different groups for the purposes of political unity (Germany is the prime example here), & on the other hand also inspired assimilated groups to assert distinct national identities over against a(n imposed) broader national identity (e.g., the Catalans). I believe it is partly the influence of nationalism, & partly the lasting older use of "nation," which caused the earlier, political meaning of "nationality" to take on ethnic undertones.

[Savant]

You'll soon learn that everything around here which people dislike is somehow a product of the vast, sweeping, nefarious American conspiracy...

Labrador started a poll to assess members' nationalities, wherein was some discussion of the semantics of the English word, "nationality." Since Loki has wisely barred further discussion of said semantics in the aforementioned thread, I've started a new thread to settle the issue.

I promise I'm not trolling, BTW. I just want to get more discussion of the subject as it of interest to me both for linguistic & ethnological reasons.

The discussion so far:

















I disagree that this usage of "nationality" is of more recent vintage (it is in fact a bit older), or that it has come about as a result of American influence or theories about "proposition nations." The principle meaning of the English word "nationality" is membership in a political nation; secondarily it may be applied to membership in a stateless nation (i.e., ethnicity).

It is fair to say that there is an inherent ambiguity in the meaning of "nationality." The word "nation" earlier referred to distinct people-groups - ethnicities - later taking on a political shade with the modern rise of the nation-state, a political shift which began in the 16th century. The first nation-states were essentially kingdoms in which distinct ethnic goups were largely consolidated & assimilated into a common national identity under the reign of powerful monarchs - England is a prototypical example. The emergence of nationalism as a political ideology in the late 18th & early 19th centuries on the one hand emphasized, & encouraged the development of, commonalities between different groups for the purposes of political unity (Germany is the prime example here), & on the other hand also inspired assimilated groups to assert distinct national identities over against a(n imposed) broader national identity (e.g., the Catalans). I believe it is partly the influence of nationalism, & partly the lasting older use of "nation," which caused the earlier, political meaning of "nationality" to take on ethnic undertones.

[Comte Arnau]

Common sense says that the term nationality, regardless of its current use in practice, is or should be a term associated to nation. The problem arises when people use the word nation for a state/political country, something modern and based on legal rather than ethnic reasons.

Besides, each context is different. In Spain, the word nationality is used legally as a euphemism for nation, a word that Spanish nationalism finds scary. (Only here you'll see such stupid expressions as 'Nation of nations'.) Thus the Spanish Constitution says that Spain is formed by regions (Murcia, Extremadura...) and nationalities (Catalonia, Basque Country...).

[Odoacer]

You'll soon learn that everything around here which people dislike is somehow a product of the vast, sweeping, nefarious American conspiracy...

No different than many other places.

Common sense says that the term nationality, regardless of its current use in practice, is or should be a term associated to nation.

Well, "common sense" would have "citizen" associated to cities, but "citizen" is a much broader term than that in modern English. Usage is more authoritative for the meaning of a word than its etymology.

The problem arises when people use the word nation for a state/political country, something modern and based on legal rather than ethnic reasons.

This is true; in fact, this is what I have argued is the source of the ambiguity. In modern English, "nation" developed political/legal understones (with the rise of the nation-state), but the word still maintains the older ethnic sense.

Besides, each context is different. In Spain, the word nationality is used legally as a euphemism for nation, a word that Spanish nationalism finds scary. (Only here you'll see such stupid expressions as 'Nation of nations'.) Thus the Spanish Constitution says that Spain is formed by regions (Murcia, Extremadura...) and nationalities (Catalonia, Basque Country...).

Spain is not entirely unique in this respect, although perhaps other states do not have a constitutional definition like that. In Canada, for example, there are the "First Nations," which are Amerindian groups who have some autonomy over their own affairs.

[SwordoftheVistula]

It is ambiguous. I don't hear it used that often, but when I do it often refers to ethnicity (ancestry) as in "What nationality are you? I'm Chinese" (spoken by people born in the US)

However, I have also heard 'nationality' applied to citizenship designations such as 'American' and 'Canadian'.

I much prefer to use 'ethnicity', which refers to ancestry, or to 'citizen' and 'country' which refer to where one resides and has citizenship.

[Odoacer]

I much prefer to use 'ethnicity', which refers to ancestry, or to 'citizen' and 'country' which refer to where one resides and has citizenship.

Yes, "ethnicity" is a more precise designation when referring to one's ancestry, although even that usage is a little ambiguous. For example, my own ancesty is quite mixed, & I don't share the specific cultures of the modern bearers of the various ethnicities involved. I think it would be odd to call myself "ethnically German," although the largest part of my heritage is German. It would be stranger still to regard myself as Italian, although my surname's origins are in Sicily. So I've designated my "ethnicity" as "white American" in my profile here. (A subject worthy of further discussion, I'm sure.)

"Country" too is ambiguous. Wales is a country, but not a state; one can be Welsh and/or a resident of Wales, but not a Welsh citizen. It is also possible to have "nationality" (in the legal sense) without having citizenship - there are over 3 million British nationals in Hong Kong who do not possess British citizenship.

It's all rather complicated, isn't it?