Lets take a step back from sameness this time. One of the problems I always found in my more difficult moments as a political philosopher was the need to define the content of my core social groups. For example, what the heck is a New Zealander anyhow?
There's tonnes of people out there doing what they can to definitively answer that question, and no-one's come up with the quintessential essence yet, so hows about we just let it be? Even better, why don't we just let everyone get on with being New Zealanders, and not try and tell them what they are and aren't?
But, in a political sense I found that there is a very real need for a definition to be put in place, but one that's flexible enough to accommodate all the myriad types and modes of personality that make up the nation.
Again, the sociological definition escapes me, but you need to have a political one so you can identify who is, and who isn't a member of the political community. Often the most convenient way is to simply say something like, you're a national of wherever you pay tax, or if you have citizenship, then you're a national.
That type of definition simplifies the matter too much though. Being a citizen for five minutes just isn't long enough for someone to be a member of 'the nation', and there seems to be evidence to back this up.
Lets look at the example of a British migrant. Now, I know that we're all part of the British Diaspora, or at least the one's who think they have a god-given right to govern tend to be, but the very recent British migrant is somehow 'different' to the average New Zealander.
Race can't be the problem, because the average Briton is largely indistinguishable from the average New Zealander, if not slightly more pasty. Likewise religion, we all share a common Christian girder in the platform of our culture, whether we each practice it or not.
And while a person from another culture may well see Britons and New Zealanders, or New Zealanders and Australians for that matter, as largely indistinguishable, any one individual from each of these groups will see the others as different. And it's that perception that is important.
There's a tendency among public commentators to refer to 'the nation' in shorthand for 'the New Zealand population', but the two are actually fairly distinct. The New Zealand population includes plenty of people who aren't nationals, and the citizen is pretty much anyone who has citizenship, of whatever degree. The latter group is pretty easy to cleave though, and usually along the lines of 'real' and 'recent' New Zealanders, like our British migrant.
Why that distinction is important is an argument for another day, but 'real' New Zealanders are the nation, and 'everyone altogether' is the citizenry. The trick in this example is figuring out how to identify the where you stand. Are you a real or a recent New Zealander?
There's actually a pretty easy way to find out if you are or aren't. Just walk up to someone and ask if they're a New Zealander. If they say they are, then tell them you're one too.
Obviously, they're going to look at you like you're nuts.
But try completely accepting that someone with a London accent is a 'real' New Zealander? You can't. Sure, you can accept that they're a citizen, and that they have all the rights and privileges of a New Zealand citizen, they may well have a passport and driver licence to prove it, but they're not a 'real' New Zealander in the same way you are.
So right there, within the overall group of 'New Zealanders' you have sameness through a purely political instrument, citizenship, with a simultaneous difference posed by a largely subjective and non-quantifiable opinion held in common by nearly all individuals.
What this lead me to think was, maybe being a member of a nation is being able to state that I am what I think I am, and have other people agree. Being a national is not simply about getting a rubber stamp from the state, but being able to mutually accept that we are all members of the same group.