In order to fully answer this question there has to be a clear definition for what a nation is, this can be said to be a group of people that have a common history which is shared between them therefore they are a community of people, (Quintana & Mckown, 2007) meaning that these people share an identity through that history. Furthermore, another definition which is crucial to this argument is what a state is, this is because the two terms are inherently intertwined with each other, it can be s aid to be a “sovereign political entity in which a government uses a set of institutions to exercise an administrative monopoly over a territory” (Tartakovsky 2011, p. 1). Therefore, according to these definitions, assuming that they are the accepted definitions, it means that there could be a state that does not have a national identity which could be called a stateless nation and the opposite would be a nation-state. Theses definitions of nation and state appear to be the most common throughout academic literature meaning that these sources are beneficial to the question of national identity in today’s world as it provides a basis as to what national identity is, however to answer this question there has to be examples of either side of the argument.
One clear place in which there is a nationless state is Canada, this is a more of a historical example due to the fact that there is a clear divide within the state between nations which dates back to the French and Anglo divide. Moreover, there was an isolation from the French Canadians to the rest of North America with them taking lower paid jobs and not being totally integrated with the rest of the state (Keating, 1996). Furthermore, the differences can be seen from when the Canadians refused British conscription during the First World War further showing how this source is correct in it’s assumption that there is a divide between the Canadians, effectively making it a nation within a nation. Although this may have been the case thee source fails to directly link to the question as the evidence given is all very historic, mainly due to the book being written in 1996 therefore it fails to show that in recent history there has been a much closer relationship between French and English speaking Canadians. Even though it may be more historic it proves very useful as it shows a great deal of links to modern national identity, as it shows isolation of a smaller ethnic group which can be seen in many western countries through globalisation.
One such example of a loss of national identity can be seen through the European Union, which originally began as greater integration of economies has become more so a political integration through the free movement of people. This has arguably caused a loss of national identity, as there is a movement of people from Eastern European countries to the west. However, this can be shown to not be true as the majority of people fell as though the EU is not a threat to either the national identity or the culture of member states (McLaren 2004) this shows how despite the fact that there is a movement of people within the EU national identity is still kept. Therefore, this would assume that national identity does remain in the modern world however the journal article was written in 2004 and since then there has been an increase in migration levels within the EU, therefore it may be that views have changed since then causing greater contempt with the EU. Moreover, the disdain felt for the EU could be shown through Brexit which demonstrates a clear movement away from integration, and rather shows a clear example of a country wishing to keep their national identity.