In an increasingly pluralistic world, the tension between national identity and cultural diversity is more pronounced than ever. One of the dominant responses to this tension comes in the form of conservative nationalism, a worldview that insists on a singular, overarching national identity as the bedrock of social order and collective legitimacy.
The Nation as a Stone Mold
Conservative nationalism, when confronted with diverse identities—ethnic, religious, sexual, or cultural—relies on a rigid notion of nationality. In this framework, the nation is seen not as a dynamic or evolving construct, but as a stone-like mold: something inherited from the past, immutable, and sacred. This mold must be preserved and passed down to future generations without alteration.
Within this worldview, the existing nation-state is the sole source of political and cultural legitimacy. The role of the citizen is to conform to this inherited identity, and when necessary, to sacrifice individual freedoms and personal identities in favor of national unity. Other forms of identity—be they based on gender, ethnicity, religion, or belief—are expected to retreat or remain silent, especially in times of political or social “necessity.”
A Familial Model of Authority
To better grasp the logic of conservative nationalism, one might compare it to the structure of a traditional family—a hierarchical system in which the father's authority is unquestioned, and obedience is the primary virtue of the children. In such a model, loyalty and duty are not only expected but are essential for the family's survival.
Similarly, in the conservative nationalist imagination, loyalty to the state is non-negotiable. This unwavering commitment to authority forms the emotional and symbolic foundation of what is referred to as the “motherland” or “national pride.” The nation, like the traditional family, becomes a sacred entity that demands reverence, not reflection.
Suppressing Dissent in the Name of Unity
A key implication of this perspective is the belief that the national identity must not be criticized. Since it is considered the sole source of legitimacy and unity, any questioning of its narratives, myths, or historical foundations is viewed as dangerous. If such critique arises, conservative nationalism demands that the state intervene—not to protect freedom of thought, but to safeguard the myth of national unity.
It is precisely at this intersection—where authority is pitted against freedom—that conservative nationalism reveals its illiberal tendencies. Freedom of expression, dissenting voices, and alternative narratives are often portrayed as threats to social cohesion, and their suppression becomes, in this logic, a necessary act of preservation.
Migrants as the “Other”
Not only critics, but migrants too are frequent targets of conservative nationalist ideology. Those who have not historically been part of the nation’s identity are viewed with suspicion, as outsiders who pose a risk to the integrity of the national mold.
Conservative nationalism does not feel responsible for integrating migrants into the national narrative. Instead, it expects them to abandon their original identities entirely and conform to the dominant culture. However, because such full assimilation is rarely possible, migrants are often excluded or marginalized—and this exclusion sometimes takes the form of overt racism.
Conclusion: Identity as a Living Construct
What conservative nationalism fails to recognize is that nations are not stone molds. Identities are not inherited relics to be guarded like artifacts but are living, evolving social constructs shaped by history, dialogue, and diversity. Attempts to fix identity in place through authoritarian means do not strengthen a nation—they fracture it.
By suppressing difference in the name of unity, conservative nationalism undermines the very social cohesion it claims to protect. In contrast, a democratic and inclusive understanding of nationality embraces diversity as a source of strength, not as a threat.
Excerpted and adapted from the article “Nations Are Not Stone Molds,” published in the third issue of Yol Magazine at the University of Urmia. Following its publication, the magazine’s editor-in-chief was summoned by the university’s Publications Oversight Committee.