Nationality is the condition, or fact, of belonging to a body of people sharing a common descent, culture, history and language. Nationality as used here does not mean citizenship – it means membership of a nation – a community.

Nationality is normally acquired at birth; individuals are normally born into a community. It is the perception of a common ancestry and shared communal experiences that binds a nation together. At the heart of nationality is a feeling of belonging and oneness that marks out a communal boundary. The ‘we’ sentiment is not, as many wish us to believe, evil and deserving of eradication. On the contrary, it is at the heart of any community anywhere in the world, and gives rise to positive communal thoughts and deeds. It is difficult to frame exact rules for determining who is a member of a given nation but a useful guide, which can be used for any nation, is as follows: I am Scottish if I believe that I am Scottish and if I am accepted as being Scottish by the members of that group of people who are commonly recognised as being Scottish. It is a two-way instinctive relationship between individual and community. I could, for example, assert that I am Japanese but if I have physical and cultural characteristics that are not Japanese, as determined by the Japanese, I will not be accepted as part of the Japanese community. No amount of law-making, sulking or haranguing will alter that.

The two-way process of selection for inclusion or exclusion helps provide an answer to the question often thrown at nationalists, “What does it mean [for example] to be English?” The aim of the questioner is to draw out a list of characteristics that identify the English. Those asked are usually stumped for an answer, which is not surprising because the process of inclusion and exclusion is not a conscious one and does not work in the way implied by the question. The English, like all other nations, first see characteristics that exclude people because that is a more efficient way of working when analysing vast amounts of information. Most of the Earth’s population can be quickly excluded from membership of any given nation on the basis of appearance and language. If necessary, other tests of varying degrees of sophistication can be used until we are satisfied that the person is either an insider or an outsider. If the person is accepted as an insider, the instinctive assessment process goes on and makes other judgements about the person, including such things as their social class. At this insider level of assessment, the filtering process can make finer distinctions because we have far more experience of dealing with insiders and can make better use of small amounts of information. For example, if a Russian gives me his home address it will tell me little, if anything, about him because my knowledge of Russia and things Russian is poor. An address in my hometown will tell me far more about the person who lives there.

Nationality is a total experience that starts in the family, which is the smallest community. Children are born into both a family and the wider communities of which that family is part. They are immersed in and soak up like a sponge the language, culture and history of the communities to which they belong. That experience helps mould children and gives them an identity and sense of belonging. They pick up habits of behaviour and thought that are part of what is meant by national character. That character-building process, if that is what it can properly be called, works best when there is cultural immersion and socialisation from a very early age. Once a national identity has been absorbed, it is embedded for life. It shapes values and perceptions in a way that makes it impossible for a member of one nation to completely shake off that identity and take on another. Learning another nation’s customs, history and language is not enough because the new information is laid on old foundations.

The link between kinship, identity and loyalty can be illustrated as follows. An adopted child reared from a baby by loving adopted parents is likely to feel love and affection for those parents. When the child learns of its adoption it will normally want to seek out its biological parents. If they are found, the child is likely to feel an attachment to them that is different from that felt for the adopted parents, who it will probably continue to love as before. This need to know our origins is instinctive and essential to our sense of identity and belonging. It is therefore understandable that when a child learns that its real parents belong to a nation different from the one it has been raised in, it is likely to be drawn to that other nation’s culture, and identify with it. This can cause difficulties that are made worse when differences of race are added to those of nationality. The experience of many children involved in cross-race adoptions is one of confusion in adulthood due to conflicting communal identities and loyalties. Having been immersed in one culture from birth and having had that identity imprinted on them they find it difficult, if not impossible, to feel totally part of another culture to which they are subsequently drawn. They cannot overcome the fact that the first all-important immersion in a communal identity is a one-off experience. In a similar way, children with parents of the same race but different nationality have to deal with conflicting attractions and loyalties. However, the problem is usually not so great for them because they are generally drawn to, and accepted by, at least one of the nations to which they are linked by kinship. A child raised in the national homeland, culture and language of one parent is likely to be drawn to that nation and be accepted by it. However, physical appearance can sometimes play a more important part than upbringing in determining which community a person is drawn to and which community accepts them. If a person’s physical or cultural characteristics differ greatly from the norm for a particular nation, that person is unlikely to seek acceptance in it or to be accepted by it. Liberals feel the need to put a positive slant on these things and suggest that children with parents of different nationality or race have the advantage of two identities and two cultures. But is it really possible to immerse oneself in two cultures, identify with two histories, feel an insider in two communities, and, more difficult still, be accepted as a full member of two communities? The answer is probably, no.

To feel an insider and be accepted as an insider it is usually necessary for a person to be immersed in the culture of that community from birth and to be free of traits that would cause that person to be seen as an outsider. A nation is an extended family and like a family it has a life greater than that of any single member. Nations, like families, are bound together by the bonds of empathy and loyalty that come from a shared identity. Those bonds are not only with the living but also with those who have gone before and those who are yet to come. That link between past, present and future encourages the living members of a national community to protect the memory of earlier generations and safeguard the position of future generations. That sentiment is not something that can be learned or feigned.

Bea Kaye