The painting I discuss can be seen here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkertafel
Volkertafel, Nations and Orientalism
One of the most interesting comic book characters is Snowbird. She is a Canadian superhero who can assume the form of any animal that can be found in Canada. But when she crosses the Canadian border she loses all her powers and falls ill (Woo, 76). This implies that there is some sort of natural law, which defines where a nation begins and ends. The case of Snowbird is a great example of how in our current (popular) culture and society the uniqueness of nations and the fact that there are borders between different nations is seen as something completely natural. These ideas about nations are now a completely normal part of our daily lives. When we open an atlas for example we find it pretty normal that every nation has a different color and that there are borders drawn between each nation.
The nations as we know them today, though, are not some natural phenomenon, but they are socially constructed and relatively new. The ideas that each nation is unique, that there are significant differences between the nations and that therefore each nation should have its own state really arose in the 18th century. As Joep Leerssen has stated in his book National Thought in Europe: "We have come to think of nation-states as an ideal systematic taxonomy of Europe where the French live in France and speak the French language, and the Germans live in Germany and speak the German language and each country has its own French or German cuisine,fashions, national anthem and lifestyle. But this simplystic ideal-type of the nation-state is ultimately the inheritance of the encyclopedic and Enlightenment-anthroplogical systematization of stereotypes, hearsay and cross-cultural caricatures"(Leerssen, 70) One such example of systematization of stereotypes is the 18th-century Austrian painting the Völkertafel (Or in English, The Tableau of Nationalities), one of the first cultural objects to endorse the idea that there are significant differences between the nations, that each nation is unique and that therefore every nation should have its own state. This though is not the only reason why this painting is interesting. It also endorses the idea that the western nations are somehow better,more civilized and more cultured than the eastern nations. This western view of the East or Orient is what, more than 200 years after the Völkertafel, Edward Said criticized in his book Orientalism. In this essay I am going to analyze how in the Völkertafel these ideas about nations, the 'West' and the 'East' are expressed and how they are still relevant today.
While it is not known when exactly this painting has been made it is assumed that it is painted sometime between 1720 and 1730. This was an interesting period in Europan history. In 1715 Louis XIV, to whom the famous words 'L'etat, c'est moi' are attributed, had died. It was the end of an era. The king would no longer be seen as the embodiment of the state. More and more it was argued that the state should be defined by the people who live in it and who share a certain cultural identity. And that the rulers of the state should rule in accordance with the values and needs of its people (Leerssen, 71-74). Of course there have been nationalistic ideas in Europe long before this period. But only now did European nationalism really take flight. The nationalist ideas to emerge in this period would change the European society in an unprecedented way. And they still have a major influence on how we organize our current society (Leerssen, 51).
In the Völkertafel we see 10 different people, who each represent a different nationality. From left to right these are Spain, France, Italy, Germany, England, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Russia and lastly, as the painting states, either Turkey or Greece. This last part is obviously problematic, and I will discuss it later. The first thing to notice is that all the nationalities are dressed in significantly different clothes. We can also see that the people from an eastern nationality are dressed less seriously and in a more exotic way than those from the west. By representing them with these sophisticated coats and hats, the painting signifies that the western people are dignified, serious and rational. At the same time the eastern nationalities are represented with pyjama-like clothes, skirts and a turban. This signifies them as a bit aloof and irrational. It is also interesting that all the eastern people have beards, or moustaches, while the western people are shaven. This could imply that the eastern people are closer to animals and nature than the western ones. The fact that the painter chose clothes to emphasize the differences between the nations is also interesting. Clothes are a major part in our daily lives. Everyone wears them and one of first things we notice when we meet somebody is his or hers clothing. By showing that the nationalities differ so much in such a normal and basic part of our lives, the painting implies that the differnces between the nations matter a lot and cannot be ignored. Following this we could say that the painting makes the differences between the nations a normal part of our daily lives.
The text is where the painting becomes even more interesting. In the upper left corner it is written that this painting gives 'a short description of the peoples you can find in Europe and their character traits'. Beneath that we see a matrix in which in the first column we see the categories by which the nationalities are to be compared. There all kinds of different categories, like 'ilnesses', 'love-life' and 'intelligence'. Then for each nationality it is written how it relates to each category. For example in the category 'their country' it is said for Italy that it is 'very nice and well looking'. What is said about each country is not always positive though. For example in the category intelligence the Russians 'have none.' By comparing the nations through categories that are normal and unavoidable in our daily lives, like death, intelligence and bad habits, we again see that the painting tries to normalize the differences between the nations. The fact that it is a matrix is also very important in this aspect. To qoute Joep Leerssen again: "The matrix imposes as a form the implicit rule that for each of the characteristics a value must be filled in for each of the nationalities. It would not do to leave any of the squares blank. The comparative system imposes a discipline. Not only does it make it easier to visualize things, it forces one to follow the system in all its steps and elements. Nor would it do to list similar values in different squares. Each of the squares has to say something different. The matrix is a system of differences and that is what it must be. A matrix listing similarities would be, by its own rules, stupid' (Leerssen, 64). When it comes to defining a nation, this is something we still do. A teacher once gave a great example of this. In the Netherlands almost everybody is monogamous. Yet you will not very often read that monogamy is a characteristic that defines the Dutch. Mostly because monogamy is just as common to other western nations. The Netherlands will actually be defined by its windmills, tulips or legal drugs. These things are probably not as important to the Dutch as monogamy, but they are more unique to the Netherlands. This is of course not an example that is unique to The Netherlands. A nation is very often defined by the characteristics in which it differs most from other countries, instead of by the characteristics that are the most common to that country. And the nation is not only defined in this way by other nations, who may not know any better, but also by itself. Benedict Anderson's influential book Imagined Communities could offer an explanation for why this is the case. In his book Anderson states that a nation is an imagined community. What he means by this is that 'it is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them or even hear them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion' (Anderson, 6). It should not be very surprising then that according to Anderson printed literature played a major role in the rise of nationalism (Anderson, 25). Since you cannot know most of the members of our community personally, the best way to feel a bond between you and them is by reading about them in books and poems (or by seeing them in paintings). We identify with the characters in these books and poems, because we see they have the same problems, habits or values as us. In other words we realize that we are really a part of the same community, or nation, as them. But for us to truly love our nation, this is often not considered enough. We also have to believe that our nation is better than the other nations, and that it is unlike any other nation. So in many nationalistic cultural objects the differences between our nation and the other ones are emphasized. And not just any differences, but often specifically those that make our nation unique and better. For example the influential German nationalistic poet Ernst Arndt, tried to create a German identity through his poems and filled them with anti-French and antisemitic sentiments (Leerssen, 108). Lastly, in this aspect, it is interesting that while the Völkertafel is an Austrian painting, the Austrians are not represented in it. Thus the painter is not interested at all in giving a representation of his own nation. He is just interested in showing how it differs from other nations. After seeing this painting we do not know what an Austrian is. But we certainly do know what is not an Austrian.
Just like the image of the clothes of the nationalities, the text also shows that the painting has a worldview in which the 'West' is better and more civilized than the 'East' or Orient. We saw the painting supports and propagates the idea that there are differences between the nations. Yet it claims that there are no differences between the Turks and Greeks. This may be because the painter thinks that the two nations are basically the same and do not really have their own identity. Following the philosophy of the painting this makes them inferior to the other nations. There is another possible reason for the painter's claim that there are no differences between the Turks and Greek. It could be that he did not want to waste time exploring the differences between them, since they are nations that are not worthy of much attention. The painting views them as pretty awful. According to it they are lazy, stupid, narcissistic liars who dress like women. It is notable that in the current financial crisis a lot of these adjectivs are often used to describe Greece. And they are only used as a matter of jokes, but also in serious articles and proposals about how to tackle the crisis (van der Ziel,7). Another time when this painting claims that an eastern nation has no identity of its own is when in the category 'national character' is that the Russian national characater is 'very Hungarian.' This obviously is a negative thing by itself. But to make matters worse the Hungarian national character is considered to be 'the cruelest of all.' And in most cases the traits assigned to western nationalities are much more positive than those assigned to eastern ones. In fact the painting is exactly the kind of cultural object that Edward Said criticized in his famous book Orientalism. In his book Said claims that the 'West' has created a very negative idea of the 'East' or the Orient that has no real connection to reality. In many western cultural objects the Orient has been represented, among other things as an exotic place with irrational, violent, uncivilized people who give in to their most basic instincts. As opposed to the representation of the 'west' as a civilized place with cultured, peaceful, rational people with great values like democracy. Because of such represntations, Said claims many people in the western world now really believe in these distinctions between the 'West' and the 'East' (Said, 5-8). The connection between this and the nationalistic books and poems diuscussed, earlier is, I believe, not hard to see. The orieantilst cultural objects basically serve the same purpose as the nationalistic ones. Both want to create a community by differentiating it from other communities. In the last case the communities are just on a much bigger scale. With this in mind, Orientalism can become even more dangerous than it now sometimes is. One of the many problems of the current European Union is that most of its inhabitants do not see themselves as European. They mostly see themselves as Dutch, Spanish or French. While we can move freely in the EU the borders between its members still matter to its inhabitants. The member-states do not want to lose sovereignty to the EU and a member-state will often protest if an EU-decision is in the best interest of the EU, but will weaken the member-state. This makes the functioning and the policy-making of the EU much harder (Van Houtum & Struver, 143). It would help the EU a lot if it could create an European identitty and make sure that the inhabitants of Europe identify themselves as Europeans first. Europan history has provided the EU with a blueprint for how to create a common identity. If they follow that blueprint it is not unconceivable that they use the Orient to create a Europan identity in the same way that Arndt used France to create a German identity. This could dangerously heighten the tensions that already exist between the Middle-East and Europe
Throughout this essay I have argued that nations are socially constructed. This is a claim that should not be very surprising or controversial. In fact many of those who were involved in the creating of a nation openly admitted this. As the 18th century Italian politician and novelist Massimo D'Azeglio for example said: "Now that we have made Italy, we need to make the Italians." D'Azeglio took his own advice seriously and proceded to write historical novels in which he glorified and connected the Italian history and the Italian people (Leerssen, 142). Yet, today the claim that a certain nation is socially constructed or invented and not something natural is often seen as an attack on that nation. Many people who claim to love their nation, would be furious if you told them that their nation is socially constructed. A couple of weeks ago for example one of the American republican presidental candidates Newt Gingrich claimed that the Palestinians are an invented people. He said this in order to support Israel. This is a problematic statement, besides the fact that is Orientalist. The Palestinian people are invented, but so are the Israelis, the Americans, the Dutch, etc. And while I am not a fan of nationalism I would argue that the fact that your nation is socially constructed should make your nation more imprtant to you. Because this implies that your nation is build upon certain ideas, norms and values. And that you are part of that nation because you adhere to these norms, ideas and values, and not because, through sheer coincidence, you are born in it or live in it. This unfortunately also makes nations more dangerous, because they can more easily reject individuals this way.
Literature
- Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 2006. Print.
- Leerssen, Joep. National Thought in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010. Print
- Said, Edward. Orientalism. Toronto: Pantheon Books, 1978. Print
- Struver, Anke & van Houtum, Henk. "Borders, Strangers, Doors and Bridges." Space and Polity. 25 Aug. 2010. 141-146. Print
- Woo, Benjamin. "Red and White Tights: Representations of National Identity in Canadian Comic Books." Diss. Simon Fraser University , 2006. Print.
- van der Ziel, Arjen. "Bij Grieken is belofte slechts intentie; interview Renee Hirschon, antropologe en Griekenlandkenner
