Culture Wars and Nationalism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article makes an important intervention in contemporary academic and political debates by exploring both how to understand the current culture wars in Europe and North America, as well as what, politically, can be done to combat the divisions both inherent in and produced by these wars.

In doing so, the article ties culture wars, and their emotional nature, to questions of nationalism and the structure of the nation as a community and identity. In doing so, culture wars appear as a symptom and manifestation of "an atmosphere of crisis", through which, "Historically, nationalism tends to reinvent, reproduce and strengthen itself." This is a valid and important reflection. However, the author would do well to at least make reference to other work that has dealt with this very matter, such as Morrison's work on Québec nationalism (2019). 

There are three other matters that I suggest the author consider in order to improve what is already a good article.

First, the literature on emotions and identity is quite dated. It would be beneficial to examine more recent engagements with this issue, the most interesting of which have been associated with psychoanalytic approaches (see for example Stavrakakis and Chrysoloras 2006). 

Second, the vision of patriotism as the anti-dote for the culture wars seems to retain nationalism's focus on a nationally bound community. Why must the antidote remain on that scale? Could it not take the form of community at a supra or sub national level?

Third, the article is dealing with culture wars in Europe and North America. This is fine but it should be explicitly stated that the analysis concerns Europe and North America so as to avoid inadvertent false universalization. 

The English language is fine. 

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers:

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the comments made by the three reviewers, which I have tried to transfer to the text of the article following the indications I have received from the editor, and within the limitations of the length of the article.

I have introduced in the abstract and reinforced in the introduction the indication that the analysis carried out is limited to the scope of North America and Europe, particularly France, in order not to give a false image of universalization in the treatment of the culture wars, as suggested by reviewer 1.

I have incorporated the reference to the work of Ian A. Morrison (Moments of crisis: Religion and national identity in Québec, 2029) and a paragraph on recent psychoanalytical approaches that have highlighted the strength of the affective dimension of nationalism, as suggested also by reviewer 1, citing the article by Stavrakakis and Chrysoloras (2006).

In section V and in the conclusion, I have taken up the observation of reviewer 1 who noted the persistence of the nationalist logic when the national scale is privileged in relation to patriotism, which limits its effectiveness as an antidote.

I hope that I have correctly addressed the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor, and I reiterate my gratitude for the suggestions made for the improvement of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Confusing introduction, with too many terms and and ideas which do not cohere much together. For example, I do not see the point of speaking of Freud in relation to nationalism. Then it talks about democracy, populism, culture, etc. It seems to be just a lot of concepts put together but without much coherence between them. Additionally, the term 'Westernism' used by the author does not seem to really fit the argument. 

The second section continues this. It is difficult to tell exactly how ideas cohere together, as several concepts are introduced but with no real explanation of how to link them. 

 

Section 3 is quite different. It is much more coherent and it actually explains well different relevant aspects of the concept of 'identity'. The fourth section, likewise, gives a reasonable and coherent argument. The last section then talks about populism. These three sections make more sense and I think the author should try to publish them. But the logical connection between them, and the flow of the argument is unclear. For this reason, I do not think that this article is publishable in its current form. 

 

A final note: the connection made with religion in this article is very loose. This suggests that this article is unfit for the journal (despite the topic of the special issue, but the special issue does focus on religions, whereas this article only makes a superficial connection). 

The English itself does not seem to be a problem, but the argument is not very coherent. 

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers:

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the comments made by the three reviewers, which I have tried to transfer to the text of the article following the indications I have received from the editor, and within the limitations of the length of the article.

Following the indications of reviewer 2 and the editor, I have thoroughly revised the introduction. I have ordered the ideas, suppressing some and developing others, and looking for the maximum internal coherence and relation with the contents developed in the body of the article.

I have tried, on the other hand, to improve the connection of the text with the religious aspect, as pointed out by reviewers 2 and 3, while respecting the main argumentative thread of the article commissioned by the coordinators of the special issue, centered in my case on the relationship between the culture wars and nationalism. In this sense, I have added to the reflections already made in section 3 new considerations in the introduction and particularly in section 5, paying particular attention to the change experienced in the French radical right regarding the religious discourse and its attitude towards secularism vis-à-vis Islam, adding consequently new bibliographical references on the religious background of what has been dealt with.

I hope that I have correctly addressed the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor, and I reiterate my gratitude for the suggestions made for the improvement of the article.

Sincerely    

Reviewer 3 Report

The article addresses the concept of "culture war" and its relationship with nationalism, proposing an idea of patriotism as a positive alternative to national populism. The author provides an analysis of the current situation and advocates for moral dialogue as a means to overcome cultural divisions and build new consensus.

The article is well-written and well-structured. It provides an adequate overview of the article in the abstract and offers a sufficiently comprehensive introduction. The current division of sections greatly facilitates reading.

According to the author, religion can be considered one of the factors fueling these culture wars, as religious beliefs can be involved in cultural disputes and the construction of collective identities. However, the article does not extensively delve into the specific role of religions within culture wars, nor does it thoroughly analyze the complex dynamics involving religions in these contexts.

Furthermore, the article seems to primarily view nationalism as a negative force within culture wars. While it is important to address the negative implications of extreme nationalism, it could also be helpful to consider the nuances of nationalism and its positive aspects, such as the sense of collective identity and belonging to a community.

The study primarily focuses on the French context and the issues associated with nationalism and populism. However, it could be beneficial to consider other perspectives and national contexts to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of culture wars and their impacts.

Minor comments:

1. Is the referencing style adopted in accordance with the journal's standards?

2. Lines 518-522 are empty

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers:

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the comments made by the three reviewers, which I have tried to transfer to the text of the article following the indications I have received from the editor, and within the limitations of the length of the article

I have tried, on the other hand, to improve the connection of the text with the religious aspect, as pointed out by reviewers 2 and 3, while respecting the main argumentative thread of the article commissioned by the coordinators of the special issue, centered in my case on the relationship between the culture wars and nationalism. In this sense, I have added to the reflections already made in section 3 new considerations in the introduction and particularly in section 5, paying particular attention to the change experienced in the French radical right regarding the religious discourse and its attitude towards secularism vis-à-vis Islam, adding consequently new bibliographical references on the religious background of what has been dealt with.

I have revised the text in response to the comment of reviewer 3, who invited to consider the nuances of nationalism and its positive aspects by affirming the sense of collective identity and belonging to a community. I think that these nuances can be found in the text, but I have incorporated the suggestion by insisting in a note on the need to overcome the existing dualisms and dichotomies regarding nationalism, although I am aware that the contrast handled in the text between nationalism and patriotism may suggest the opposite, although it is also true that this contrast allows to value the sense of the collective and the feeling of belonging, as I have tried to show, noting, however, the changes currently experienced in the way of experiencing and understanding the collective and belonging.

I hope that I have correctly addressed the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor, and I reiterate my gratitude for the suggestions made for the improvement of the article.

 

Sincerely                                                                                                                      

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The problems I identified in the previous review have not been resolved. The modifications in pages 10 and 11 are good, but the ideas expressed there hardly reflect the quality of the paper. This is an article on political theory with not much about religion. I understand that the author(s) are taking religion very broadly, but this is not indicated there and it will be difficult for the readers to understand why the paper is about religion. This, however, is just one of the problems with the paper, which I think the prose is quite confusing and difficult to follow. 

I did not see any grammar or spelling problems, but it has a very confusing prose.