For good and country: nationalism and the diffusion of humanitarianism in the late nineteenth century

Abstract

Despite the growing interest in transnational fields and their influence on national‐level dynamics, existing literature has not yet addressed the processes involved in creating such fields in the first place. This article provides insight into the complexities involved in national–transnational interactions amidst national and transnational field formation. It examines the nascent transnational humanitarian field of the late nineteenth century through the work of the emerging Red Cross Movement in the 1860s–1890s, drawing primarily on the archive of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The findings show that National Red Cross (NRC) societies employed a discourse drawn from a transnational cultural arena in order to gain central positioning in their national fields and to convince other parties of their necessity. Conversely, NRCs used nationalism as a form of symbolic capital in establishing themselves in their national fields, seemingly at odds with their cosmopolitan aspirations. Thus, by contrast to the ideal‐typical representation of global humanitarianism as non‐national, these findings suggest that nationalism and impartial humanitarianism are historically intertwined. More broadly, the article argues that national‐level field dynamics as well as nationalism play important roles in the creation of transnational fields, even when field actors present themselves as acting for universal causes.

Scalar properties of the transnational field of human rights: Field effects and human rights in Bahrain

“…These analyses have demonstrated how actors on the periphery must become legitimate in the eyes of those at the core to gain support and funding (Dezalay & Garth, 2010Sapiro, 2018). Whilst others have argued that the growth of transnational fields has resulted in 'processes of translation and adaption into local contexts, which are performed by national-level actors and are embedded in national-level social dynamics' (Dromi, 2016).…”