Subversions of Contingency Part 2: The Westphalian State (Repost)

Busy catching up from yesterday, so one more repost. More original content tomorrow.

Last time, I talked a lot about the importance of contingent theories of history, and how lineage contingent interpretations conflict with fuller understandings of history. It's really just pointless theorizing without putting it into practice, so the purpose of this post is to give a working example of the idea. A bunch of examples, in fact. To wit, almost every single modern nationalistic historical narrative.

The signing of the Treaty of Munster, which kicked off the Peace of Westphalia. [Image source]

Every single solvent nation state today is more or less a Westphalian State. Bar none. It’s a viciously effective model of statehood when it comes to self-propagation. The reasons why aren’t as important as what was around beforehand- prior to the Westphalian model, populist support did not reside in the nation-state in the way we perceive it.

Let’s use thirteenth century England as an example. There was a wildly popular lord in England at the time named William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. He was universally praised for his absolute adherence to the feudal obligations between vassal and lord, and was considered the epitome of honorable conduct. His adherence to his feudal responsibilities was strong enough that it, bizarrely enough, led him into political conflict with English kings. He held lands in both England and France and brokered a peace between the two that many in England found unfavorable, and by today's standards might have been even viewed as treasonous. Marshall, however, saw no problem with having feudal responsibilities to the kings of both nations- feudal lordship was a more important ideal to him than sovereignty. Public opinion at the time sided with him on that. The king, while not happy with the peace, accepted Marshal's actions, because even he accepted that Marshal's feudal obligations outweighed his responsibility to England.

Examples like this abound throughout the time period, with historical figures defining their loyalties and actions not on the basis of what sovereign territory they lived in, but instead by what language they spoke, or religion they followed, or any number of other motivations. The very idea of owing your primary loyalty to a nation-state would have been absurd to them, in fact, since the nation-state as we understand it simply didn’t exist. There was no broad recognition of these nations as discrete continuous entities with sovereignty over their territories- that’s a Westphalian perspective. Rulers of nations would only refrain from directly interfering with the internal affairs of other nations for fear of reprisal- there was no principle claiming that said interference was a violation of any principle of sovereignty, and rulers would attempt it quite openly all the time, absolutely believing they had the right to interfere in other nations. When we travel farther out from Europe or backwards in time, the principles defining nations grow even less familiar. If we go forwards in time and closer to Europe, we will see a steady progress towards the Westphalian state, but it took centuries to congeal. (Just to be clear- Westphalian sovereignty and nationalism are two entirely different concepts, though they do feed off one another.)

So how does all of this make nationalistic narratives into problematic lineage historical interpretations? Simply put, because they act as though the Westphalian nation-state is how their nation has always been. Treating a nation as though it has a continuous discrete existence in its modern form grants it a strong aura of legitimacy. This is a key reason why the pre-Westphalian state gets such abysmally poor representation in official histories. It’s one of those inconvenient historical processes that messes with the lineage, and so gets artificially reduced in significance to compensate.

This is by no means the only pitfall that nationalistic interpretations of history fall into. There are countless examples of historical factors that are brushed under the rug, whether because they're inconvenient, embarrassing, or even damning. Anyone who has read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or any number of other excellent counterpoint histories will understand that immediately.

Ultimately, you don't need esoteric ramblings on historical theory to sort good history from bad, though they can definitely help. There are three basic rules that can help you do most of the work: First off, don't ever rely on just a single source if you can help it. Second, figure out the biases and reliability of your sources. Third, and most importantly, if something seems to explain a historical event too perfectly, you should probably be suspicious. NEVER accept easy, straightforward answers. History is a complicated, wonderful field- do it justice.

Bibliography: