National identity is indeed made-up. Would the Times prefer, say, racial identity? Religious identity? Corporate identity? Political faction identity?
Many still make a big deal out of linking that to national identity today.
> Religious identity <
Back in the 17th century, many considered that it was a good idea to combine religious and national identity. There were just too many intra-national disputes, attempts to blow up Parliament, beheadings, etc. Religious freedom was seen as a good idea when it meant the right to leave a kingdom that had a religion that would not tolerate you to go to a kingdom that would.
> Corporate identity <
As corporations become more powerful than nations, it seems inevitable that international political organizations of corporations will emerge to govern the exercise of the powers that nations no longer dare to exercise. Think of these as the Corporate Security Council and Corporate General Assembly.
These systems of identity and power come and go. Given the rate of change and disruption we see, that the current system of national identity and purpose will prevail indefinitely is not certain.
At present, we justify our allegiance to states or alliances with our beliefs that to do so is moral and to do otherwise may be treasonous. But our citizenship is most often determined by the relationship between our place of birth and lines on a map, neither of which has any obvious link to moral concepts, so the current system has some features that can give us serious identity issues.
In the Western world, before the lines on the maps became so important, religions were important, and before that, for which prince one would fight determined nationality, and geographical boundaries were likely to change without notice.
Each of the many ways of dividing us up will serve some goals and restrict progress toward other goals. It is possible that we are living in an era in which a new system of nationhood will emerge. We cannot expect to get a good one by accident, so an article to stimulate a little thought about such things is welcome.
Small example. I was browsing news site recently, dailywire IIRC, and saw an ad for some merch they are selling, like coffee cup or something, with "Liberal tears" slogan on it.
I mean, can you imagine that in Germany, some political party will be selling "CSU voters tears" merch? I think people would be outraged, and not just CSU voters, but across the spectrum.
In a sense, the lack of national identity and total prevalence of political faction identity is what stops americans from having a sober talk between parties.
It's interesting to watch, but kinda sad.
The thing is, finding a (usually existential) reason to work together is part of what led to the nation-state.
Don't knock division. It has its place.
What division does is it stops contagious phenomena from running rampant through the world. Division (we call it "quarantine") stops infectious diseases. Division keeps your codebase sane. Division protects startup A's funds from those profligates at startup B.
In particular, division is, if not a solution, an emergency fallback for the prisoner's dilemma. If Bob and Alice have defected on each other for the last hundred turns, maybe it would be better for everyone if they stopped playing.
I don't have to find ways to divide ourselves. I'm saying that if you do away with nations, everyone will be forced to, because division is a good thing.
There is nuance, of course. Paying my taxes and helping my neighbor doesn't preclude sending aid to Africa.
But nuance is precisely what the title (article is behind a paywall, so I can't read it) dispenses with. There is no balancing of obligations between self, kin, kith, town, state, nation, and humanity as a whole. "Just drop that whole 'national' thing, post-haste."
The reality is: humans are social animals. Groups will form identities, or be dissolved and split into groups that do. And as long as the prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons are things, there will be multiple competing groups, rather than one big one.
This doesn't mean "therefore, genocide." Quite the opposite: good fences make good neighbors. I wonder if those who are so free with their ingroup designations exercise the same fast-and-loose mentality when writing put options. Just as hedges allow investors to take on more risk (because they can take only the risks they want to), fences allow neighbors to share vegetables over the side wall without worrying about finding Fido in the petunias or whatever.
It's sad to see the perfect made the enemy of the good, especially when the good is really good.