The nation, Pajari says, “needs sacrifices.” Willingness to fight is essentially “moral in nature.” In nationalism, the fatherland is the “greatest love object of all.” Men do not enter battle because of “male aggression;” they enter battle to prove their love. Dying in battle is the greatest act of love. If male citizens are not willing to fight for the country, Pajari says, the nation is “in danger of oblivion.” A nation of weak, effeminate men “does not have a right to exist.” 

Dr. Ilona Pajari is Senior Researcher in History and Ethnology at the University of Jyväskylän (Finland). For program of the "Idealized Deaths Symposium," organized by Dr. Pajari, click here.

The soldier’s death has throughout human history been understood as a very special kind of death. Death in war has been the surest way to heaven or similar otherworldly place; most often dead warriors have gained the admiration and gratitude of others.

The rational age of modern nations may seem very different from ancient tribal societies, but some things remain the same. At least until the Second World War, many nations cherished the idea of a heroic soldier whose death would be a blessing, not only to the soldier himself who would surely go to heaven, but to the entire nation which needs such pure sacrifices.

Sacrificial ideas connect people with larger entities and entire nations. There may not be much to be gained in return, but the entire system  of love and sacrifice, giving everything only for the greater good of everyone in the group, has enthralled human minds for centuries.

Christianity, with its central doctrine on love and sacrifice, is essential for understanding nationalistic sacrificial ideals. Nationalism claims to belong to a new, rational age in which religions have lost their impetus, but nationalism itself has included mystification and otherworldly motivations – in many cases still does.

It can be argued that nations do not always live in the same time frame; some nations may approve of certain ideals that other nations already have found outdated. Death is a phenomenon closely tied to religious belief and custom, and secularization has caused many changes in death rituals. Nationalism and wars have played their part in this process.

The Birth of the Citizen Soldier

The age of the citizen soldier has often been claimed to have begun in the French Revolution. When we think of the honor of common soldiers, this seems especially true. Heroes of the revolution were praised and their sacrifices understood to be part of a greater whole. As nation-states were created in Europe and around the world, the role of the common soldier changed everywhere, especially at  the ideological level. The common soldier was no longer thought of as a paid mercenary, and the idea of forced conscription was replaced by the image of voluntary, highly patriotic men.

Instead of fighting for an often distant ruler, soldiers in conscript armies were said to fight for the nation. The honor was theirs, because they were supposed to be willing even to give up their lives for the nation. But essentially the honor was the nation’s, because it was for the greatest value of everyone. Soldiers fought to safeguard the nation’s destiny; their bravery was proof of national virility, personal manhood and national honour.

The most evident feature of the citizen soldier is that every man is supposed to defend his country. The definition of man is obviously quite limited here, because armies do not have much use for children and the young, the elderly, crippled   or mentally challenged. If dying for one’s country is supposed to be the ultimate sacrifice and only the best citizens can manage this, being an able-bodied male is the first qualification.

In Europe, the upbringing of children and the young has been heavily loaded with nationalism since the 19th century. The developing educational institutions recognized their responsibility in this process, but originally love for the homeland was supposed to be taught at home, especially by mothers. This was considered to be their essential role in the nation, apart from giving birth to children. Educational institutions continued the task of the family, so by the age of conscription young men would be more than willing to do their duty.

Yet the seeds of patriotic spirit were sown at home. It is no surprise, then, that when the actual war began, and even before that, families and especially mothers were also praised. They were, it was said, also giving a great sacrifice, to which their entire lives and even giving birth to their sons had aimed at. Their deepest wish was supposed to be to send their sons to war and solemnly, if not happily accept their deaths.

The reasoning is the following: the death of a soldier is proof that the family (mother) brought him up to be a valorous and patriotic man. Hence the family (mother) must be patriotic and cherish the ideal of sacrifice. There cannot be one without the other. There are no fallen soldiers whose mothers did not raise them to be just that; there are no mothers of fallen soldiers whose sons were unwilling to die for their country. And no mother would mourn their son without feelings of gratitude and sense of purpose; mothers were also supposed to be exemplary in their grief for the entire nation.

Nationalism and Religion

Whereas religion is often thought to belong to an earlier phase of human thinking, nationalism is more associated with modern rationalism. In this context nationalism is usually seen only as a political movement in which people would realise their mundane goals and ideals. 

Yet when it comes to matters of death and sacrifice it is obvious that religion and similar ideals are not left to ancient times. Benedict Anderson, while not placing very much emphasis on the theme, nevertheless considered not only why men are willing to kill for their nation, but why they are willing to die for it. The nation gives people (men) something so precious that they are able to have a sense of belonging and acquiring something essential from it.

More cynical analysts may find that nations and nationalism have skillfully played on human emotional and social needs to attach people to the nation. They may feel they must follow the example of the nation’s ancient heroes, forefathers, founding fathers or other figures; national rituals and commemorations are centered around common history and myths.

Anthony D. Smith placed nationalism in a continuum with earlier thinking and traditions rather than emphasizing the break with the past. His “ethno-nationalism” is applicable to those nations which have strong written or oral traditions and an actual connection with their past. In nations like Finland the modernist approach is clearly valid: Finland really is a “constructed” nation, whose creators had to find (and create) the national past and teach it to the people, who for most part were unaware of it.