As an era of decolonisation and creation of nation-states, the XXth century witnessed the emergence of many new countries. The importance of a national anthem appeared to implement both at a national and international scale, the feeling of belonging to a nation, a group of people characterised by shared representations and therefore, an ethnic self-conscience.
A feeling of representation coming from the people
The need for national symbols originates from both leaders and its people. National anthems have a “bounding function” for the citizens, expressing values and ideals. Athletes and supporters proudly sing their country’s anthem during sports events as a source of a patriotic feeling, showing attachment to their country. The UK has been the first country to establish one, chosen by the people itself. Allowing unity, it is important for leaders to implement such symbols as a way to legitimate their power.
Linguistic analysis shows the recurrence of some terms in anthems deferring depending on the geographic area: the allusion to “liberty” in Latin countries or, on the contrary, the almost inexistent mention of “religion” in Slavic countries. This reflects different cultures and reveals the detailed choice of words to represent the people’s prides, ideals, fighting power, or landscapes.
However, in multinational countries, an issue remains: how to represent, through one and only anthem, people from different cultures, languages, or religions? Spain chose an anthem that does not have official lyrics, in order to respect all regional languages. So did Bosnia-Herzegovina. Lyrically favouring one of the three major dominant cultural groups of the country seems unthinkable. On the other hand, Cyprus has adopted the Greek anthem, refusing the Turkish one, and Australia’s anthem does not make any mention of its Aboriginal community.
Why would the constitution of an anthem not follow the composition of societies?
European societies or even governments are taking initiatives to update traditional national symbols.
Adopted in the 1990s, the first sentence of the Ukrainian anthem was debated for several years due to its agonising connotations. Since, the idea that the state itself is “not yet dead” has been withdrawn.
In 2015, following an initiative from the Swiss Society of Public Utility, Switzerland’s population was invited to vote for a modern and cheerful version of the national anthem. It was judged preferable for citizens’ cohesion that the melody was not too sophisticated, but rather easy to sing. The six songs put to vote are all odes to peace and freedom: no trace of belligerence or domination (interesting, isn’t it?). Similar critics have also been brought regarding the United States’ anthem.
Recently, the singer Catherine Ringer has cleverly changed a few words of the French anthem “La Marseillaise” to suit the context in which it was performed, on Friday the 8th of March 2024, when abortion was enshrined in the French constitution.
Is changing an anthem part of cancel culture?
It is not about rewriting history, but about making a gesture, however small, that has a strong symbolic impact. It is talking about a joyful approach which, recognising the contingency of adopting an anthem, agrees to make it evolve. This approach, which is critical of national symbols and their construction and, simultaneously, respectful of today's society in all its diversity, can never be unpatriotic. Could we not wish to be truly represented by the anthem of our nation?
By Inès Jungmann and Agathe Drouot- -Chary
To go further on our May file dedicated to music, you can read our Society and International Relations sections’ articles on our blog.
Follow MINERVIEWS
