خلاصه ماشینی:
"It will be argued that while identitarian claims generally are of course not trumps, the relation between state institutions as complex power and symbol "containers" and national groups as "encompassing" social entities is such as to justify important rights of self-determination for national or ethnic identities.
These writers argue that encompassing groups, defined as non-face-to-face communities sharing a pervasive culture, that is, a many-leveled interlocking set of practices, values, and styles, which are constitutive of their members’ identities, have special interests in independent statehood.
Anthony Giddens elaborates by defining the nation-state as a set of institutional forms of governance maintaining an administrative monopoly over a territory with demarcated boundaries, its rule being sanctioned by law and direct control of the means of internal and external violence or more succinctly “a bounded power-container.
Dominant majorities typically enjoy the capacity of the state pervasively to symbolize their identities at diverse levels and in diverse spheres of social life, to consolidate the boundaries between member-citizens and foreigners, and to foster institutions expressive of the group culture.
To sum up the discussion thus far, there is good reason to limit a right of self-determination to national groups, conceived of as having the features of R & M’s “encompassing groups”, but with a historical identity as well.
1 But there are good autonomy-based reasons for granting it to national groups: their cultures are pervasive, consequently they are most vulnerable to the way state borders are drawn, given the massive concentration of power in states, and the dependence of those cultures on the social and political landscapes in which they are found."