The perception of the “we”/“other” dichotomy in the process of forming Georgian nationalism (according to the 1899 issues of “Iveria”)

Abstract

        The research of Georgian nationalism is a current scientific problem and, one might say, even popular in Georgian historiography.

        According to the ethnosymbolist approach, the elite makes a great contribution to the formation of nations. So, on the one hand, the activity of intellectuals and the discourse they initiate, and on the other hand, the actual culture and masses have significance in the creation of modern nations. Nations are a modern phenomenon, but they are rooted in the legacy of pre-modern units (M. Chkhartishvili 2020).

        Ethnosymbolism views nationalism as a component of culture, links nationalist movements to a cultural renaissance, and considers prominent nationalist leaders to be the founding fathers of nations.

        The formation of Georgian nationalism took place in the second half of the 19th century, when Georgia was part of Russia. In general, the 19th century is characterized by the formation of modern nations. In Georgia, this process took place under tsarist conditions.

        The formation of a nation is preceded by the idea of ​​a nation, which is created by the cultural elite of the potential nation. The idea of ​​a native nation is a semi-scientific discourse through which a given nation is contextualized in time and space, its uniqueness, sacredness, and defining markers of national identity are presented. In the non-elite part of the unity, that is, among the people, the idea of ​​a native nation is spread by special social agents who use periodical media and educational networks for this purpose. Cultivating the idea of ​​a native nation among the broad masses of the population is precisely the formation of national identity (Chkhartishvili, Mania 2011).

        Conceptualizing the collective “we” is very important for identity. National identity belongs to the type of collective-cultural identity. The nation-state creates an in-group, an in-group, to which individuals identify. The other side, the existence of an in-group naturally makes us think about out-groups, because in order for “us” to exist, there must also be an “other” with opposite characteristics, from whom “us” distinguishes itself and, thus, forms its own identity (Bauman 1998)

         In the context of national identity, "others" are mainly other nations and also transnational entities. Accordingly, in the process of identity formation, the distinguishing features between them and the in-group are emphasized. However, it is noteworthy that when defining the national in-group, the appeal is not made to objective distinguishing factors, but mainly to cultural elements - values, lifestyle, traditions, religion, language, etc. (Smith, 2009).

         The concept of “we” is fluid over time, and its members change in response to political, cultural, and social changes. The sense of unity is best experienced in relation to the “other.”

My research on the “we”/“other” dichotomy in Georgian nationalism is based on a variety of data from Iveria, specifically issues from 1899. At that time, Iveria was published as a daily newspaper. The report includes material from 282 issues.

         "Iveria" was published in 1877-1906. For almost three decades, Ilia's "Iveria" was the main means of spreading national ideas, and Iveria shaped its readership into the modern era. (Chkhartishvili, 2012, pp. 188-211).

           Such “significant others” are recorded in Georgian periodicals as Russians, Armenians, and Ossetians. In the research source, the collective cultural identity of the “we” group is clearly expressed. The identity of “we” is unique, the only one, its sacredness is expressed through togetherness, historical memory, common ancestry, and land.