Spanish government claims consultation will send Catalonia back to Middle Ages

The latest joke that Jorge Moragas or José Manuel García-Margallo have penned for Mariano Rajoy is about Catalonia suddenly being thrown back to the dark Middle Ages. It's got nothing to envy from those science-fiction time travel machines where, if you pressed the wrong button, you could end up in ancient Egypt or even being chased by a dinosaur ... The Moragas & Margallo duo have managed to turn their comparisons of the Catalan process into a joke.

So, will 9N inevitably send us back to the Middle Ages? Is talking about national identities that hope to have their own state a medieval thing? In political terms, today the specifically modern way of having a place in the world and playing any role in the international context is to have your own state. This will make sense for as long as the modern political project born in 1648 out of the Treaty of Westphalia (that had as its background the scientific and philosophical project of Modernity) does not fade away.

In a world where this identity remains very strong, it is perfectly reasonable to wish to keep it, generally by means of a nation-state. In fact, in the case of many countries arising from post-colonial processes, it is the State that has created their national identity and not the other way round. In 2014, that's still very much the case. Postmodernity certainly emphasised individuality, a certain swelling of the "I"; but in terms of international politics, the rules of the game are still exactly the same as they were after World War II.

However, pre-national identities are certainly a thing of the Ancient World or the Middle Ages: the medieval "I" or "we" always means "me (or we) inasmuch as I am a clergyman, a noble or a member of the shoemakers' guild", and so on. The modern "I" must necessarily have an unquestionable national component and this can be seen clearly at the dawn of Modernity, when it is still in the process of gestation.

For instance, Montaigne swings between a post-ancient "I" (to use the curious expression coined by Hugo Friedrich) when he uses the subject "new ones" to refer to the Romans, and a modern "I" when he writes about France in a sense akin to today's. However, someone from Bordeaux or Paris is unlikely to feel only as an heir of the Roman Empire or to regard their identity as being based on a feudal connection with a lord or a guild of craftsmen. If anyone asks them what they are or where they are from (or a similar question), they will reply "from France". There is no need for them to be nationalistic to answer that: they simply need to feel connected to their own time, which is not the Middle Ages.

When a society perceives itself as a political subject of a national nature, it rarely gives it up. Medieval guilds and religious faith were also forms of collective identity, but we happen to be modern people; that is, we are individualities set in the context of a country rather than feudal bonds. National recognition is still the one condition that allows us to be visible and the only way to safeguard it is with a Sate. A well-known objection is often raised on this point: the current trend of nation-states to merge into larger entities and so on. This argument, that almost seems obvious, makes no sense: the one necessary condition that allows integration into supranational entities is precisely to be a state in the first place. Paradoxical as it may seem, the European Union, the UN and other international institutions are proof that --for now-- there is no real or viable alternative for national identities as we know them today. The EU and the UN equate State and national identity, which in turn generates and consolidates secessionist movements: to be in Europe a collectivity must morph into a State. Otherwise, it won't exist as such.

In the Middle Ages there were no nationalist movements as we know them today: they are a genuinely modern phenomenon (not romantic, unlike the tired cliché would have you believe). When a community of people perceives itself as a political subject with its own national identity, it often chooses to adopt the shape of a State. This is not a medievalising fad, but an attitude that seems reasonable: otherwise the collective does not feature anywhere, it does not exist. All of this has little to do with the Middle Ages. Perhaps next time they should draw a comparison with Middle Paleolithic. They would feel more relieved and we would laugh more heartily.