> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.nationalism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.nationalism.io/group-boundaries.md).

# Group boundaries

A simple idea that can help with thinking about nations and nationalism is the concept of group boundaries. One of the easiest ways to articulate the importance of group boundaries more broadly is to look at some different types of groups and how boundaries might be used.

## **Couples**

Imagine a couple living together in a 2 bedroom home. Another person they are friends with is interested in living with them and can offer to pay a good rental amount to do so. The person is social and easy to talk to and would gladly cook, clean and take on their fair share of duties to maintain the house. On paper this arrangement is financially beneficial to the couple and also they will get to spend more time with their friend.

The couple reject this proposition as they would prefer to live by themselves as a couple. They would prefer to have more privacy and alone time together. They like the way they can talk to each other more openly about things in a private space without concern of other people’s opinions. They don’t mind having to split the chores between two of them and the lost income for rent is not important to them.

This is an example a group boundary for that couple. They might really like their friend, want to spend more time with them and even know that they would be a good house mate. All of this could be true, however they also can set their own boundaries and decide to live in a way that they prefer as a couple.

The point is not that the friend is bad or unworthy. The point is that the couple’s relationship depends partly on privacy, intimacy and a shared domestic space. Adding a third person would change the character of the household even if that person is a close friend that is both kind and useful.

## **Private groups**

Imagine a group of friends who have known each other since they were children. They live in a similar area and every fortnight this group comes together and has a games night to catch up, eat and drink and play a few games. They made a new friend in recent years who could be a good addition to the games night, they all like this individual and enjoy spending time with them.

The friend group doesn’t extend an invite to this person to join their fortnightly meet up. They all might enjoying spending time with this person but they also have a longer and deeper connection with each other due to their extended history together. The group regularly jokes about past events and have a number of in-jokes after spending a lot of time together. They are prioritising the preservation of that experience within their own group even though they know they’d also enjoy spending time with this other person as well.

This group boundary is another example where another person could make a great addition to the dynamics of the games night that this group are having on a fortnightly basis. Even if they think this would be the case they still might have a preference to set their own boundaries and only spend time with each other as a distinct friend group with a particular history. This does not mean the new friend is disliked or inferior. It means that the existing group has a particular shared history, rhythm and intimacy with each other that they might want to preserve. Inviting someone new may improve the group in some ways, but it may also change the character of the experience. This is one example of having in-group preference.

## **Organisations**

Imagine an organic farm founded around a strict commitment to organic production. A group of skilled farmers offers to join and greatly increase output by using synthetic fertilisers and industrial farming methods. The proposal would likely raise profits and increase supply, but the farm rejects it because it would compromise the purpose for which the organisation exists.

This shows that boundaries can protect an organisation’s identity and mission. Higher revenue may be valuable, but it does not automatically override founding principles. The founders created that organic farm for a reason. They wanted to create produce that was farmed in a way that led to more optimal nutrition. Producing organic food was an important part of what they cared about. The company also might care about the other people, they might want to help them with their efforts to find work. But this doesn’t mean they are willing to compromise on their own values as an organisation to help them.

Culture within an organisation, such as certain founding principles or values, can represent a really important group boundary. This culture can represent a glue that brings people together around a common cause. Everyone buys into the culture and what the organisation represents. These founding principles and values can be an important part of the success of a particular organisation. The organisation will likely want to preserve the continuity of these values as a way to more reliably hold the organisation together based on a common cause. This is a matter of principle and setting their own boundaries on what they prioritise and preserve within the company. Higher revenues and profits are desirable but that alone isn’t a justification to support other groups that might compromise their own values. The other group of people are of course free to start their own company and prioritises their own values and preferences in that company.

## Nation-states

Imagine a prosperous nation-state of 10 million people. The nation has an ageing population and they know they might benefit in the short term by filling some of their available labour position with migrants due to their demographic change. At least 1 million migrants from other countries are interested coming to the country to fill those positions. These migrants are also lacking jobs and live in poverty in their own countries.

The nation makes a decision to reject the migration of other people into their country. They understand that it might lead to some loss or shortages of some products and services in the short term but they do not want to compromise on the way of life they have created after many generations. A small number of migrants for the most essential labour shortages have a better chance of assimilating into their culture and way of life but too many migrants in a short time period increase the risk that this doesn’t work out as planned.

This is another group boundary decision where there might be clear benefits to accepting migration in the short term that could provide compelling arguments to let people in. Some people will put more weight onto the issues of poverty and supporting other nations. Although both these factors could be true it is also a case of a nation being able to determine its own boundaries. They still might prefer to protect their way of life and culture as a higher priority and prefer to avoid risks around problematic cultural differences or accepting a dilution of their identity. A nation is responsible for its own people. Although another nation may decide to help others it is not their obligation to do so at the expense of their own groups way of life.

## Hidden individual impact in larger groups

One particular problem that can be more prevalent with larger groups is the differences in scale. A small group of migrants being allowed to come and work in another country might not have a big impact on diluting identity or culture. Those individuals could still have a negative impact on the culture and way of life that the nation wants to preserve but if most people are not experiencing these influences it can easily go unnoticed.

This is particularly problematic due to the fact that controlling demographics in any meaningful way is inherently very difficult. If migrants have a path to citizenship it creates a path for future changes in identity and culture that are much harder to reverse. Differences that were not noticeable in the beginning could become much more problematic in the future as more people start to notice the dilution of their own culture.

It is this reason why discussions about these differences and potential problems are so important for any nation. If the differences between groups are not fully understood it can lead to these problems in a civic nationalist society. Once a nation understands any differences that exist and how they might impact their own nation the next step is to set group boundaries. This might mean adopting a political system where migrants do not have a path to citizenship. In other cases it might mean prohibiting certain cultural practices to protect a certain way of life. The adoption of group boundaries helps to provide clarity about what a nation cares about and what it wants to preserve.

## Preference based boundaries

In many cases, groups do not need to justify the boundaries they set within their own group. Whether that’s a couple, a friend group, an organisation or a nation-state as just some examples. Group boundaries can often be based on the groups own preferences. A preference to preserve their groups identity and their continuity. A preference to protect their way of life or culture. A preference to prioritise the people already inside the group rather to prioritise those outside of it.

If the majority of a nation didn’t want to live with certain groups this is a valid preference they might have. They should be able to express that preference and if a majority of the nation agree they might decide to not accept migration from certain groups. If a nation of people are not able to do this due to the state this would equate to oppression as an unjust exercise of power over the nation. This is an example of prioritising the out-group at the expense of the in-group.

Nationalism is a political ideology that can be used to identify and articulate who belongs in the nation and how that group wants to preserve, protect and govern themselves. Each nation needs to be able to express their preferences. Preferences that can then be turned into group boundaries that influence migration policy.