Drawing on Michael Herzfeld concept of cultural intimacy, here I would like to focus on what I call the “schizophrenic” condition of the Dutch state. Herzfeld defines cultural intimacy as “the recognition of those aspects of cultural identity that are considered a source of external embarrassment but that nevertheless provide insiders with their assurance of common sociality.” This means, that the traditional narratives, myths and symbols on which the nation-state is built, need to be taken into consideration by the state but might at the same time on multinational level be perceived as “unmodern, backward,…”. This is the tension in which the nation state is constantly trapped. On the one side, because of the fact that nations are cultural constructs, in order to keep the nation together it needs to remember, reproduce and re-imagine its national identity over and over again. On the other hand, in order to remain trustworthy, it needs to keep on looking into the future and presenting itself as a modern-state. In order to justify their existence, modern states have to make a claim to represent a coherent people. This means that the state needs to construct itself through symbols of cultural familiarity, symbols that refer to a long history before the existence of the modern state. Only in this manner, the collective memory can be constructed. Those particular cultural practices, symbols, narratives are by definition not modern, because they are particular.
Because the nation-state is “ideologically committed to ontological self-perpetuation for all eternity” it needs to protect its identity. In order to be able to evoke an emotional adherence of the people to the nation-state, the state needs to draw on those key elements of identity that underlie the cultural intimacy. Connected to the obligation to keep the national identity intact on the level of self-perception and on the multinational level, an ongoing reinvention needs to take place. This reinvention partially evolves around what Herzfeld calls “structural nostalgia”. Structural nostalgia is “the means through which people – state officials and miscreants alike – see images of a lost perfection to try to explain away the sorry state of today’s power and especially the necessity of imposing laws or resisting them.” “Structural nostalgia allows citizens to protect their collective secrets –the basis of cultural intimacy – from the eyes of prying outsiders, they invoke images of a now-vanished condition of perfect social harmony and blame the outside world for the present state of moral disintegration.” This static image of a long-gone past and irrecoverable past plays an important part in present actions. “It legitimizes deeds of the moment by investing them with the moral authority of eternal truth and by representing the vagaries of circumstance as realization of a larger universe of system and balance.”
Although rarely acknowledged, the notion of cultural intimacy may help to explain several aspect of nation-state behavior on the multinational level. As I said before, in political action, the states always needs to take into account the necessary preservation of the contested national identity (cultural intimacy). When it doesn’t, the perceived misunderstanding of the state’s identity results in feeling of guilt and embarrassment and actions will be taken in order to restore the initial perception. This doesn’t only count for the outsiders view but also on the level of self-perception. Actions that are perceived as transgressing against the own moral standards or against the own cultural identity, will not be supported by the people and can count with protests and will also force the state to take action to restore the initial self-perception.
When we now turn our focus again on the emergence of right-wing politics in the Netherlands, what we see is that, against what we would expect, the presence of politics that act and argue against the key components of the state identity, do not result in the elimination of those discourses but rather in the welcome promotion of them. The Dutch state identity is based on the domestic commitment to “democracy, progressive values and multiculturalism”. It is an old habit that the Netherlands perceive themselves as a good example on the level of moral values for other countries. The power they try to have in the context of humanitarian action function as compensation for the lack of material influence. Thus, what builds up cultural intimacy in the Netherlands are concepts like liberalism, tolerance, multiculturalism, freedom,….The symbolic and mythical narratives of on which the nation is built all enhance those ideas. Furthermore, the structural nostalgia presents the nation’s past as an ongoing fight for freedom against foreign rule which tried to limit the liberties of the people.
Based on the key elements of Dutch state identity connected to the idea of cultural intimacy, it would logically follow that the emergence of right-wing politics in the Netherlands – because of its incongruence with abovementioned identity markers - would on the one hand be judged on multinational level and on the other hand be reacted against on the national level. As I mentioned before, the preservation of how the state wants to be perceived and wants to perceive itself is one of the major tasks. Therefore it is even more surprising to see that neither on multinational, nor on national level, the emergence of these politics has been convicted. On the contrary, they are even gaining more and more popularity. This asymmetry between the traditionally promoted values as the basis of the cultural intimacy in the Netherlands and the content of the emerging right-wing politics is what I call the “schizophrenia” of the nowadays Dutch state. Therefore it is important to ask why on the national or international level the emergence of these politics are not being perceived as something incompatible with Dutch state identity or behavior.
In my opinion this can partially be explained through the argumentation structures that right-wing politicians use to promote their politics. Even though right-wing politics in the Netherlands have a highly racist and differentialist character and are explicitly hostile against multiculturalism, it is not perceived as such. One of the main reasons for this is that the politics present themselves as a vehicle for the protection of exactly this essential(ist) national identity. The anti-Islam propaganda therefore functions in following way: Islam is perceived as an enemy to the very essence of the nation state identity, therefore in order to be able to preserve this identity, we need to eliminate Islam. This then, is not perceived as a racist statement, but as a necessary conduct. In doing so, actually the state acts against the basic elements of its own identity. Still, this resonates with people because those values that are proclaimed to be in danger are essential part of the cultural intimacy. To present Islam or migration in general as a threat to those essential values would imply this to be a threat to the stability and hegemony of the nation-state and the Dutch people.
As a conclusion, because of the fact that tolerance and freedom are seen as constitutive elements of national identity and are therefore constitutive for the cultural intimacy of the Dutch nation-state, the protection of those values is the most important task in order to preserve the stability and hegemony of the nation-state, even if this implies action which character is opposite from the promoted values. Secondly, because Dutch cultural identity is based on above-mentioned political values, the in-group sentiments draw on those values. In order to be part of the cultural identity and share in the cultural intimacy, the sincere integration of migrants / Others in Dutch society equalizes the adoption of those political values. As long as Islam is presented as incompatible with those political values of the cultural identity, the integration would be perceived as inherently impossible. This makes the Dutch nation-state radically schizophrenic, promoting and protecting multiculturalism, tolerance, equality and liberalism through a right-wing politics which is vehemently intolerant.
