"Soft" Nationalism?

So after reading many, many articles about nationalism, patriotism, jingoism, and otherism, I've been thinking for quite a while about an interesting concept that I call "soft nationalism". It is both completely separate and closely intertwined with "hard" nationalism.
Simply put, soft nationalism is great pride in ones culture or ethnicity within the confines of a chosen nation. An advocate of soft nationalism does not want to separate from her nation; to the contrary, she takes great pride in her nation and wants it to be great.

Now, what sets a soft nationalist apart from a hard nationalist? A soft nationalist wants to promote her culture within her chosen nation; she wishes to have a fusion of her culture and the culture of her nation. A soft nationalist wants to promote the study of her culture, and how it figures into the history and culture of her nation. Take, for example, Hispanic-Americans; only a fringe few (like the Aztlan crowd) want to split off from the United States; the typical Hispanic-American simply wants to see her culture fused (not assimilated) with "regular" American culture. They do not want their culture to be forgotten; they want to highlight and promote Hispanic culture within the nation of the United States. Looking at modern Europe, there are similar trends of soft nationalism; Anglo-Indians, for example. They want to be a part of the United Kingdom, they want to British citizens, and they want to share in the British culture. Yet, they treasure their Indian ancestry and culture. They like to continue and elevate a few of their old traditions. Anglo-Indians want their contributions and their English and Indian fusion way of life to be preserved and promoted.

"Hard" nationalists are different. Hard nationalism is, by definition, more hardline and rough. It advocates separation of a culture from a nation that does not share the same culture. It advocates creation of a new or old nation. Hardline nationalism sees no virtue in sharing a nation with another culture; it seeks to enforce one, separate culture upon whatever authority or population it can lay claim to.

Both hard and soft nationalism have their merits; soft nationalism is less aggressive, more multicultural within their chosen nation, and more willing to reach a compromise. Hard nationalism, by contrast, is more aggressive, more devout, and less willing to tolerant attacks on itself. Both can allow a culture (or fusion of cultures) to last for centuries; depending on the situation, hard nationalism can force by sword and shout the survival of their culture and nation. In other situations, the hard nationalism can antagonize neighboring cultures so much that the hardliner portions of it are crushed into dust, forgotten by all and only propagated by meaningless traditions that those enacting them have forgotten the reason for.


Soft nationalism can likewise create a smooth, frictionless culture anchored within a nation and tied to its future. On the other hand, soft nationalism can lead to old traditions dying; the largest culture in a nation can swallow up the culture trying to coexist with it; who proudly lays claim to a fusion of German and American culture anymore, for example?

What is interesting to me (regarding hard and soft nationalism), is that soft nationalism seems like it is on the rise. Nations are no longer expanding in size or actively exporting their culture. Instead, soft nationalism is leading to a rise in fusion cultures; for example; a French-Algerian boy once restricted to being French culturally is able to learn about his ancestors in French school, to celebrate the fusion of Algerian and French culture that is in his blood. Once, he would either have to give up his Algerian culture and assimilate or become a hardline nationalist that demanded only Algerian culture. Now, he will be able to fuse both cultures together. Of course, part of the price of soft nationalism is that the descendants of same French-Algerian boy might lose their identity as Algerians, and not even remember that they once held both cultures tight to their identity. They might not celebrate the Algerian part of their French-Algerian culture! Or a German-Pole (from Silesia in Poland) might become only just a Pole, completely omitting their German heritage.

Again, sorry for the rambling, its just an interesting concept, and though I'm sure its been discussed before, I never had thought of a term for it until recently.