The perils of national narratives

Michael Herzfeld takes two non-earthshaking examples—one from Thailand (Bangkok) and one from Greece (Crete) to illuminate an issue that is of earthshaking importance: namely the historical narrative crafted and broadcast by the nation-state. Every nationstate at least attempts to legitimate itself to its subjects/ citizens and to outsiders by, as Herzfeld asserts, “produc[ing] official narratives emphasizing cultural, social, economic, and political harmony and unity.” “They deploy an array of carefully selected, emblematic cultural products, collectively dubbed heritage, as legitimating evidence of the nation’s deep past and as a mark of the state’s benign tutelage” (p. 1, emphasis in original). He is quick to point out that this narrative typically obscures unresolved debates and even violent political, ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences that cleave the actual body politic. In view of this, it might be more appropriate in most cases to treat the “national narrative” as an aspirational claim that, for the moment, is asserted by the reigning national power-holders. The prevailing narrative may or may not have a largely agreed-upon core, but it is certain to have elements that are still the subject of hot, sometimes violent, dispute. And, over time, the narrative will change in keeping with historical contingencies and the preferences of those currently in power. The change may be radical. Think, for example, of the French national narrative before and after the revolution of 1789, or the Russian national narrative before and after 1917! Some historical narratives