[klank]

> nations are a completely artificial social construct

But if nations aren't simply social constructs, what are they? Is it the word "artificial" that is so surprising?

Maybe I have more fringe beliefs than I thought I did.

[defen]

> if nations aren't simply social constructs, what are they?

A Schelling point for coordinated actions by large groups of people, organized around ethnic, cultural, and/or linguistic grounds?

[klank]

Had to look up "Schelling point", so apologies if I'm not fully grasping what you mean by it.

However, "organized around ethnic, cultural, and/or linguistic grounds" seems like another way of saying "social construct".

If you were to compare and contrast what you suggest with a social construct how would they be different?

[defen]

Too often I see people argue "X is a social construct" as a way of arguing that X "doesn't exist", or that people who believe in it have a kind of false consciousness.

I'm trying to show why people believe in it. Yes, it's a social construct; but that doesn't mean it's worthless - "money" is also a social construct: it only has value because other people think it has value.

The nation appears to be the largest stable unit of organization humans are capable of, at present at least. The history of the world has shown that Empires don't last too long these days.

[sbmassey]

I don't think anyone disputes that nations are social constructs, it is the "and as such all immigration policies of any sort are illegitimate and harmful." part that is controversial.

[CJefferson]

I think you have to continue to the second part of that sentence.

[mnglkhn2]

Is there something in our societies that is not a social construct?!

Everything is a social construct if we live in a society. The alternative would be to leave in an animalic state.

These arguments that "such-and-such is a social construct" are akin to "water is wet." Just a statement of fact with no obvious implications.

[ashark]

It's not very useful to stress that they're "artificial" unless you're trying to introduce the term for rhetorical effect, say, edging it into the discussion on narrow or technical but not especially useful or broad applicability, relying on implications of the word or other, far less relevant meanings or shades of meaning to have an effect on listeners/readers. This happens a lot, especially in political discussion. It's sloppy as hell and should put you on high alert if you catch someone doing it, especially if they should know better.

[carry_bit]

Nations are the extended family writ large. They are no more social constructs than the family is a social construct.

You might be confusing 'nation' with 'nation-state'; not all states are nation-states.

[infinite8s]

There is a major difference - you likely don't share blood relations with every member of a nation. So they aren't quite like a giant extended family.

[NPV_Computers]

Yes, the problem is with the "artificial" part. Lots of things are social constructs but that does not that mean that you can dismiss them as automatically illegitimate.

[chowchowchow]

Who said illegitimate? I take artificial in this context to mean not inherent, so like if you ran history over again the nations people have organized into over the centuries would be different.

[sbmassey]

The second part of the statement was "and as such all immigration policies of any sort are illegitimate and harmful.", which seems to be being ignored by those who want to claim that the fellow was unreasonably complaining about nations being considered as social constructs.

[ZoeZoeBee]

Tribalism is a lot more inherent than many people on this site give credence to

[the-dude]

It is not so much interesting in what nations actually 'are'.

What would the alternative be?