As the Guardian reported on the 27th of May, 2019, the Iraqi government has sentenced a fourth French citizen to death by hanging for allegedly participating in ISIS military operations. I first heard about this from VICE News. I thought it would be interesting to go through this bit of news to show some intriguing ways in which a nation functions as a social system.
As I've written earlier here, my research interests include the nation and counter-terrorism efforts, particularly how the two play off one another in order to differentiate and develop the nation as a social system. By differentiate, I mean that the nation understands itself as serving a purpose, or having sovereignty over certain social problems or concerns.
One of the areas where the nation has a stronghold is with the proper punishment of its citizens for crimes committed. The modern turn took this aspect of the social away from the religious and placed it in the hands of the secular. Capital punishment is no longer discussed in the realm of religious doctrine, but the rights of man.
The French government, as representative of the nation, has established itself in the debate regarding capital punishment as being against it. The Iraqi government, as representative of the nation, has also established itself in the debate regarding capital punishment, as being for it. Each country's reasoning is not to be discussed here (anti-capital punishment typically argue for the inalienable rights of all people, while pro-capital punishment arguments typically rely on the idea of the victims as being above, or in need of more consideration, than the belligerent). The reasons behind a nation's justification are not what interest me. What interest me is that this is where the nation sees itself as functioning with not only purpose and reason, but also efficiency. Regardless of where you stand on the debate of capital-punishment, the nation will always have a presence, if not a stronghold, in how this debate is discussed. Both sides of the argument simultaneously legitimate the nation as a social system.
But here's the even more crazier thing: you know that there are plenty of folk in France who are using the idea of the nation to justify the killing of its citizens for participating in ISIS. Is their use of the nation any less legitimate than the idea of the nation that is being used by the French government? Nope. Because it isn't on the idea of the nation as a thing that is being debated. Both the French government and French nationalists assume the nation to be an already established thing. It is the point of non-debate in the debate on capital punishment. All arguments need a launching point of 'mutually agreed upon' assumptions. In the debate on capital punishment, as a sole example, the nation is that assumption. Otherwise nothing productive will come about the debate without the nation being assumed. You could see the Frenchmen currently wading through the Iraqi legal system as countrymen, as traitors, as part of a sub-human species or as religious zealots unworthy of the secular ideas arguing for their freedom. But no matter what, as it stands, the debate will always end up in a space where the idea of the nation, though perhaps changed, will be seen as an important organizer; a point for social cohesion. The nation is a social system.
Comments