Commenter (and now blogger) Chris H made two v. substantive points in our discussion of patriotism – one conceptual one on his blog, and one historic one in a comment here. While I don’t agree, they’re both good, tough challenges to the position I’m trying to take and as such I felt they were worth addressing in a post – probably a longer one than I have time for here, but at least this will serve as a kicking off place.
Here’s the core point (I think) in his blog post:
First, Kirchick, Hemingway, and AL don’t really seem to understand Yglesias’ argument; it’s not that patriotism is “bad”; it’s that the patriot can’t really talk to the non-patriot in a way that’s going to persuade the non-patriot to his point of view (to use an example, the American flag-waver won’t convince the Chinese flag-waver to drop his flag and start waving the stars and stripes). This has to do with the nature of patriotism, not with the nature of patriotism’s object. If patriotism is a sentiment of solidarity, enthusiasm, and affection, then the analogy to sports fandom is apt. But it’s misreading Yglesias to think that he’s accordingly equating a country with a sports’ team. He’s not.
Look, if all nationalities are fundamentally the same, then de gustibus is the only basis on which we talk about them, and I can certainly make the claim that, having never seen the sun set over the Adriatic, I cannot appreciate Croatia the way that I appreciate California.
And certainly when we talk about places – about Croatia, California, or Calabria – we’re talking about an admixture of things – culture, language, lifestyle, geography, etc. And each of those is a part of the centrality of place which can be extended to the particularity of nation.
And when we do so, we’re talking about nationalism – my nation vs. your nation. And it is certainly possible and appropriate for people to feel patriotism to their nation – let’s go back to Schaar’s useful definition:
At its core, patriotism means love of one’s homeplace, and of the familiar things and scenes associated with the homeplace. In this sense, patriotism is one of the basic human sentiments. If not a natural tendency in the species, it is at least a proclivity produced by realities basic to human life, for territoriality, along with family, has always been a primary associative bond. We become devoted to the people, places and ways that nurture us, and what is familiar and nurturing seems also natural and right. This is the root of patriotism. Furthermore, we are a all subject to the immense power of habit, and patriotism has habit in its service. Even if we leave the homeplace for a larger world, finding delight in its variety and novelty, we delight as much in returning to familiar things. The theme-of-homecoming is the central motif of patriotic discourse, as old and as deep as the return of Odysseus from Troy, and the feeling is always the same:
When we saw the top of the mountain from Albuquerque we wondered if it was our mountain, and we felt like talking to the ground, we loved it so and some of the old men and women cried with joy when they reached their homes. (2.)
The other side of the case is the melancholy figure of the lone wanderer, or of the Stoic whose “my home is everywhere” meant he had a home nowhere.
To be a patriot is to have a patrimony; or, perhaps more accurately, the patriot is one who is grateful for a legacy and recognizes that the legacy makes him a debtor. There is a whole way of being in the world, captured best by the word reverence, which defines life by its debts;: one is what one owes, what one acknowledges as a rightful debt: or obligation. The patriot moves within that mentality. The gift of land, people, language, gods memories, and customs, which is the patrimony of the patriot, defines what he or she is. Patrimony is mixed with person; the two are barely separable. The very tone and rhythm of a life, the shapes of perception, the texture of its homes and fears come from membership in a territorially rooted group.
The conscious patriot is one who feels deeply indebted for these gifts, grateful to the people and places through which they come, and determined to defend the legacy against enemies and pass it unspoiled to those who will come after.
(emphasis added)
Now, it’s equally possible for a pole to be obligated to her patrimony as it for an American or for a Canadian or for a Nigerian.
And if that was all that we were talking about then yes, Yglesias would be right and yes, it would be impossible to explain American patriotism to a Nigerian except as the American case of what the Nigerian feels about his own people and homeland.
But…
…the patrimony we have as Americans is not just a place, a culture, and economy or the artifacts of our history. It is not the gravestones of our fathers and mothers.
We have inherited a system – a system of beliefs and a system of government that was revolutionary at the time – although firmly embedded in the philosophy of the moment, and firmly tied to previous historical examples (Athens, Rome, Switzerland, the Netherlands). Now it is arguable that every nation similarly inherits ‘a system’. But I think there is an argument to make that most of these systems are more alike than different, and that the American ‘system’ is unique, is different enough to have been in a category by itself when it was derived.
People may differ on that, and I think it’s a useful razor for dividing those who believe – as I do – in American exceptionalism from those who do not.
Because if you don’t you can certainly see it in the context of wider enlightenment theories and make the claim that it was a part of an undifferentiated Enlightenment push for human rights throughout Europe.
And yet, if you believe that, how is it that the creaky system set up by the founders has lasted so much longer than any national political arrangement in Europe? How is it that the nature of American politics is so different?
I’ll suggest that that nature is so different because our national identity is not embodied in a person – in the Queen of England – nor in a culture, as defined by L’Académie française – but in a set of ideas and documents? Why does an incoming president or a new Army recruit swear their allegiance to the Constitution, not the Queen, the French people. Watch the video of Sarkozy’s inauguration (warning, boring and in French). There’s no timecode in it, but fairly early on in the speech given to Sarkozy: “…for the duration of your term, you incarnate France, symbolize the Republic, and represent the whole of the French people…” Sarkozy’s loyalty is thus to a nation, the ideal of a Republic, and to the French people. Nowhere is there any such loyalty to the French constitution (the 5th one) or the concepts of the French polity – except the airy ones of “libertie, egalitie, fraternitie”.
It is both the content of our Constitution and out attachment to it and the Declaration of Independence as embodying America that matter so much. Because if you took a handful of Americans and moved them to the moon, those documents would still have power – as I believe they have power beyond our national borders.
And there’s where we get ourselves in trouble. Because as much as those documents have power to people who are not American, we are still a nation, with all the issues that brings. And so we get ourselves caught between the universality of the values in our core beliefs and the specificity of membership in the polity that lives by them.
A lot of things get trapped in the fold, and I hope to write more about them in a bit.
Chris also posted a
Post navigation
7 thoughts on “Responding To Chris H On Patriotism”
Leave a Reply
I would hope a Celtics player, or coach or executive, ie, someone who’s part of the team, has a type of loyalty to the team that is different than a Celtics fan’s – even a lifelong bleed-green Celtics fan’s – rooting interest. As American citizens, we’re supposed to be part of the team, more than just fans of it.
Of course, unlike our military – those essential patriots – most of us don’t get to wear the cool team uniform.
In the hope that it will assist AL in writing the next instalment, here’s the state of the debate as I see it. AL charged Yglesias with (a) failing to understand patriotism and (b) not being a patriot.
AL’s argument for (a) goes like this:
(1) One who thinks patriotism = sports fandom does not understand patriotism.
(2) Yglesias equates patriotism to sports fandom.
Therefore, Yglesias does not understand patriotism.
The logic is impeccable, but Chris H says (correctly I think) that premise (2) is obtained by misreading Yglesias.
AL’s argument for (b) is harder to parse, but it goes something like this:
(1) A patriot is one who is grateful for a legacy and recognizes that the legacy makes him a debtor.
(2) The American Revolution was an exceptional event.
(3) The American Revolution is a valuable part of every American’s legacy.
(4) Yglesias thinks his legacy could have been “even awesomer” if the revolution had been averted by negotiations.
Therefore, Yglesias is not a patriot.
The problem with this argument is that even if we accept the premises, the conclusion does not follow. It could be patched up in various ways, but I can’t see any way to do it which doesn’t include introducing some very dubious premise, for example: One who thinks his inheritance could have been richer than it is, cannot be truly grateful. I don’t buy that and I don’t suppose AL does either. So what are the missing assumptions?
Kevin – really not dealing with Yglesias in this installment – point 1) is about differentiating between sports fandom and patriotism; point 2) is about differentiating between nationalisms and their associated patriotisms and what I see as American patriotism which is a different thing because differently oriented – toward the documents and ideas, rather than the place or people.
A.L.
The claim that there’s nothing in patriotism that can convince an anti-patriot is probably true: patriotism, as Chesterton rightly said, is a supernatural loyalty. It is chiefly about love, which is not rational: a man can’t be reasoned into loving his home or his family. He loves them, or he bitterly hates them; a very rare man may simply not care about them enough to be bothered feeling any particular way about them. Yet this is not an exercise chiefly of reason, though if you asked him for reasons for his love or his hate, he would doubtless be able to provide some.
If you ask a man, “Why do you love your mother?” he may answer, “Because she is kind, and good, gentle, and sweet,” but there are many women who are kind and good and gentle and sweet, and for none of them — not one — could he have the same sort of feelings that he has for his mother. If you asked another man, “Why do you hate your mother?” he would also have a lengthy answer, but the reasons put forth wouldn’t touch on the real matter. Another person who did similar things to him would not generate the same wrath.
If you attempt to get at the real answer, it will not be reason, but emotion. Listen to John Wayne’s “America: Why I love her.” You’ll see that he lists not one _reason_ for loving her: what he says, rather, is a listing of things he loves about her. The reason he loves her is that she is his to love.
Explanations of patriotism that attempt to rely on events or doctrines fail the test he mentions. For example, “Old Glory”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utkBu-mqi-c — Warner’ Bro.’s famous cartoon on patriotism — is clearly an argument to the converted. It shows a whole sweeping vision of things of which an American might be proud, including phrases and principles. They are sketched, but to a patriot, they need only be sketched. His heart swells.
The anti-patriot sits by the side and scoffs: “What about slavery? What about…”
The fellow is basically right, then, on the nature of patriotism. It is a form of love, not a form of reason. It matters, and is deeply valued, for two very good functions: the function of being the surest insurance of progress and improvement, as Chesterton describes in “The Flag of the World”; and the function of allowing people who share that patriotism to trust one another with power over each others’ lives. That second function is why it is so important in our Republic, where we often ceed control to people whose basic ideas are totally opposed to our own: and it is why we rightly ask it of any politician seeking such office.
In this way, it is better than reason. Because it is a primal sense, a basic part of a man’s character, we know that anyone who shares it will not easily walk away from it. As was said in another context, he cannot be reasoned out of it, because he was never reasoned into it. It says that he is one of us, as we are also one of his.
Why one is or is not a patriot, and the expanded tribalist emotional underpinnings, are certainly important. But there are reality-tests for lots of projects and goals that various nations espouse, and the going gets messy when they are justified solely on the grounds of patriotism.
The “my country, right or wrong” memes, with various versions that do or don’t include determination to keep it headed aright, are statements about life commitments: “this is the vehicle which I accept and choose to achieve the largest purposes I can imagine”.
And then the conflict of purposes and goals begins, between nations all believing “Gott mit uns”, as the WWI Huns said. And so it goes. The universe may or may not be arranged so that the “righter” set of principles and purposes has a long term advantage, but each set of patriots is betting on that and that it happens to be the lucky set.
But history is replete with longish periods of brutal oppression by national forces who happened to have the largest battalions and a strong set of emotional goads and goals to motivate said battalions. One of the markers of such arrangements is the insistence by the those of the dominating force that the dominated are “untermenschen”, or un-people, or natural slaves or subjects, or even just “wogs” (polywogs, immature frogs).
One of the things which is not being said out loud is that this is actually about America, AND that many born into other cultures strongly wish they were American, with or without a firm grasp of what they’re asking for. The underbelly of this is that some just want America as a resource or tool to use for their existing ends and purposes, necessarily requiring significant “changes”. In any case, the citizen-by-choice, notably such as naturalized immigrants from Eastern Europe, are among the fiercest proponents of American values, and are astonished at the casual unawareness of many native-born. Naturally the immigrant is eager to justify his life-shaping commitment, but still his dual perspective gives him some cachet and perspective which makes his patriotism rather more informed than that of most others.
Those who distrust patriotism in general consider it a matter of pure chance that one is born here or there, and it is therefore undignified and demeaning to automatically “buy into” the prevailing worldview and customs. Perhaps they also consider themselves to have bootstrapped themselves above all that, somehow, rather than being instances of particular threads in the prevailing tapestry.
So it is all about “hearts and minds”, not just in Iraq or any other arena of conflict. The whole world is in such a struggle, and may always be. Those who think struggle and conflict is inherently dangerous and bad will disapprove of patriots and patriotism, even to the point of always assuming that those who look to be advantaged and dominant are necessarily more destructive and dangerous. They push for post-national arrangements (generally with themselves in charge). One of the serious objections patriots have to that is how to retain the things they love in such a context. Multi-culturalism appears not to serve, and it in practice brings the conflicts and incompatibilities up close and personal, and often quickly gets down and dirty. Many in Europe are rethinking the concept.
So there are real issues, which reality will adjudicate in substantial measure, and all the cheering, booing, or yammering in the world will not prevent that.
Great analysis.
An interesting question is how, if at all, the traditional idea of patriotism is to survive in the age of the Internet and other globalized, on-demand media, which enables its users to essentially create their own unique cultural experience. How can one be patriotic when there is no longer a shared coherent culture to be patriotic toward?