Regional identity is more important than national identity
OREO FORMATE
Answers
Regional identity is based on the system of values, which characterizes cultural uniqueness of territory. It is predetermined by ethnic structure of population, historical traditions of exploration of territory, and interaction with other cultures.
follow me
Answer:
Although the term ‘region’ is commonly used in the literature to provide an overarching depiction of subnational movements, substate regions are far from homogenous.1 An important distinction, and one which lies at the heart of this comparative analysis, relates to the nationalism/regionalism divide. Whereas some substate regions feature a strong appeal for self‐determination, others do not necessarily represent a competing nation (Keating, 2001). The former, termed ‘stateless nations’ (Kymlicka, 2000) or ‘nations without states’ (Guibernau, 1999), are associated with cases in which robust territorial mobilisation is observable, and the desire for self‐determination is common. Yet the existence of regions is not always predicated on a nationalist ‘bottom‐up’ desire for autonomy (Keating & Loughlin, 1997). Alongside stateless nations, are regions that ‘have established territorial systems of action and a sense of political identity, but without raising nationalist issues’ (Keating, 2001, p. 24).
The distinction between nationalist and regionalist movements is at the basis of the comparative approach pursued in this study. Whereas Quebec is characterised by a strong nationalist movement in tension vis à vis the federal government, the desire to detach from the Belgian state is not pursued in Wallonia. Quebec corresponds to a case of subnationalism, yet Wallonia is most commonly referred to as an example of ‘political regionalism’, that is, a movement seeking to advance regional interests.2 Although these two ‘types’ of subnational movements should not be conflated, they are difficult to ‘disentangle’, as “there is a considerable grey ‘area’ where both fuse” (Van Ginderachter, 2012, p. 223).
Notwithstanding a few notable exceptions (Adam, 2013; Cole, 2013; Maddens, Billiet, & Beerten, 2000; Reuchamps, 2014), comparative studies rarely examine these types of regions together. Moreover, with the exception of Adam's (2013) study, they do not problematise the different types of regionalism in their analysis. Following Adam, this research advocates for a more inclusive comparative analysis between nationalist and regionalist movements. It contributes to Adam's work by critically reflecting on the distinction between them—asking—how does this difference in type explain their identity discourse? This study departs from Adam's terminology of ‘nation‐building’ and ‘non‐nation building’ opting instead for the concepts of (sub)nationalist and regionalist to differentiate the two types of subnational movements. By so doing, the research roots itself in the wider regionalism literature and endeavours to offer insights on the categorisation of subnational movements. The empirical analysis also extends Adam's perspective by focusing on two distinct national contexts, that is, Canada and Belgium. This binational investigation advances comparative federal studies more broadly by considering the role of different historical and institutional developments in the evolution of substate movements and their identity politics.