Patriotism
“Two weeks ago, the Telegraph published a list of “10 core values of the British identity” whose adoption, it argued, would help to prevent another terrorist attack. These were not values we might choose to embrace, but “non-negotiable components of our identity”. Among them were “the sovereignty of the crown in parliament” (“the Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land”), “private property”, “the family”, “history” (“British children inherit … a stupendous series of national achievements”) and “the English-speaking world” (“the atrocities of September 11 2001 were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the Anglosphere”).
If there is one thing that could make me hate this country, it is the Telegraph and its “non-negotiable components”. I don’t hate Britain, and I am not ashamed of my nationality, but I have no idea why I should love this country more than any other. There are some things I like about it and some things I don’t, and the same goes for everywhere else I’ve visited. To become a patriot is to lie to yourself, to tell yourself that whatever good you might perceive abroad, your own country is, on balance, better than the others. It is impossible to reconcile this with either the evidence of your own eyes or a belief in the equality of humankind.
When confronted with a conflict between the interests of your country and those of another, patriotism, by definition, demands that you choose those of your own. Internationalism, by contrast, means choosing the option that delivers most good or least harm to people, regardless of where they live. It tells us that someone living in Kinshasa is of no less worth than someone living in Kensington, and that a policy which favours the interests of 100 British people at the expense of 101 Congolese is one we should not pursue. Patriotism, if it means anything, tells us we should favour the interests of the 100 British people. How do you reconcile this choice with liberalism? How, for that matter, do you distinguish it from racism?
The world will be a happier and safer place when we stop putting our own countries first.”
The New Chauvinism - George Monbiot, 9 August 2005
If there is one thing that could make me hate this country, it is the Telegraph and its “non-negotiable components”. I don’t hate Britain, and I am not ashamed of my nationality, but I have no idea why I should love this country more than any other. There are some things I like about it and some things I don’t, and the same goes for everywhere else I’ve visited. To become a patriot is to lie to yourself, to tell yourself that whatever good you might perceive abroad, your own country is, on balance, better than the others. It is impossible to reconcile this with either the evidence of your own eyes or a belief in the equality of humankind.
When confronted with a conflict between the interests of your country and those of another, patriotism, by definition, demands that you choose those of your own. Internationalism, by contrast, means choosing the option that delivers most good or least harm to people, regardless of where they live. It tells us that someone living in Kinshasa is of no less worth than someone living in Kensington, and that a policy which favours the interests of 100 British people at the expense of 101 Congolese is one we should not pursue. Patriotism, if it means anything, tells us we should favour the interests of the 100 British people. How do you reconcile this choice with liberalism? How, for that matter, do you distinguish it from racism?
The world will be a happier and safer place when we stop putting our own countries first.”
The New Chauvinism - George Monbiot, 9 August 2005
posted by David Wearing at 12:54 PM
5 Comments:
DEPORT THE TRAITOR!! I mean, his surname sounds a little French, innit...
In all seriousness, though, I've never quite understood what patriotism is. Isn't it just familiarity?
First of all let me say I have dual nationality and if the famous Cricket Test criteria of nationality is applied I enjoy the (rare) West Indies Victory over the England far too much to claim to be British. However if the Ashes have shown me anything it is that I must have a little bit of Britishness in me somewhere.
I do agree with George’s first paragraph or so. I think it rather silly that a bit more flag waving would have stopped 7/7 (so helpful for the Americans that it is the same both ways round unlike 9/11; the best way to annoy an American is of course to ask what happened on the 9th of November). The US has not had any home-grown Islamic terrorism because of its relatively small Islamic immigrant population.
I do also agree that patriotism or at least emotions that have been dressed up as Patriotism have and do much wrong in the world. However money has been used to pay for wars and pay to help save starving children. Miss-use, even if it is very common, does not undermine the intrinsic moral value of an institution or emotion. It should be remembered that the NHS (one of the things about the UK of which I most proud) was justified in part by the post-war nationalism and the duty to care for one’s country men that such a sentiment can cause.
Patriotism as pride in one’s country may seem a little strange to the globalised MTV generation that we all are part of. Why should my sense of identity be rooted in what is at best an accident of birth? Why should I take pride in my country when the nation’s values that I esteem are not unique and when its failings are so obvious? In short,
“I don’t hate Britain, and I am not ashamed of my nationality, but I have no idea why I should love this country more than any other.”
What this point of view misses is firstly that all that we are and value is more often than not an accident of birth. I think it right and proper that I take pride and have a special love for my family, though this association may be the most obvious accident of birth there is. It is right, not just because of the biological imperative, but because to have a pride in where one came from (be it family or nation) and what formed who one is, is a vital component in a healthy sense of personnel identity. #
Secondly there are still very real differences in the both the underlying values and the more surface norms of different countries even in this age of globalisation. And just as we take pride in our families, in spite of their many failings, in spite of the fact that their successes are neither unique nor even noteworthy, it is not only right but healthy that we take pride in the values and the idiosyncrasies that make our countries unique. Now whatever bits of the Britishness we take as the source of that pride they need not be bound up with the traditional clichés of foreign stereotypes (Warm beer and bad teeth), right wing tabloids or for that matter the Telegraph’s 10 things I love about you list.
To take pride in these idiosyncrasies and deeper historical or modern achievements is not to say one does not delight in the unique qualities of other cultures. I enjoy travelling to foreign countries because one can experience their unique view on the world. But my enjoyment of the Britishness is quite different because in some sense I claim ownership of it by being part and a product of that society. It is that sense of ownership and fellowship with one’s society and country that ground us in our selves and our surroundings.
And just as with our families our pride and love for them, far from obscuring their many failings, bring in to sharp relief and motivate us on to correct when they stumble. True patriotism means wanting to help your country reform and correct your countries indiscretions. This is why I agreed with the Democrat’s adverts during the recent American elections that argued that it was an American’s patriotic duty to dissent and question his government, especially in a time of national crisis. Patriotism should mean neither conservative nostalgia nor blind respect for authority.
Now some people (the BNP for example) will focus on parts of our national identity that we all consider either irrelevant, not part of that identity or worse actually abhorrent. But these people are not in the wrong because they take pride in their country but because of the reasons they choose to take pride in their country.
But does this not amount to racism asks George. Does this not mean that,
“When confronted with a conflict between the interests of your country and those of another, patriotism, by definition, demands that you choose those of your own. Internationalism, by contrast, means choosing the option that delivers most good or least harm to people, regardless of where they live.”
Doesn’t Patriotism mean always putting your country first? Well yes and no, it implies a special duty of care to one’s neighbours but not an absence of care for others. If a stranger or friend is in danger of their lives I have a duty of care to intervene if I can. However the threshold of personnel risk and cost at which we would be willing to release ourselves from that our duty of care is clearly different. With the stranger no one would ask us to risk life and limb to save them, though it would be laudable if we did, but with a friend and even more so with a family member we would be expected and morally required to be willing to risk far more. This is not just because we obviously have more of an interest in saving those we care about but that we have additional moral burdens with respect to these people. This is not to say we have no duty of care for the stranger. We do of course, but we have additional and unique duties with respect to those closer to us, be that through family, friendship or nationhood.
If we move to the national level we will see this special duty of care again. While it should be felt that I am morally required to insure that Africans do not die from starvation, I probably am not required to insure the have sufficient resources to buy a car. But in this country the needy are rightly provided with much more than the basics we provide the Child in Niger. Why is this? Well, from a Liberal perspective it is because as part of the same society we are part of the same cooperative enterprise and as such we owe each other much more than the provision of basic human rights. As I am not a conservative I should not try explain what grounding these duties have from their point of view, but if I might suggest as an outsider that at least in part they come from a sense of conservative nationalistic (even jingoistic) nostalgia and as such I feel the liberal progressive patriotism is a little more intellectually coherent than its better known cousin.
Now it is certainly true that as globalisation progresses the boundaries of our society, and hence those to whom we owe this special duty of care, will expand and it is likely that eventually the nation state will cease to have meaning. It is also true that this process is already well underway but we are still far from the stage when our nation does not come closest to a definition of the society we live in.
I would argue that far from patriotism being a vice, it has the potential for great virtue. It strikes me that patriotism is a natural conclusion for a liberal understanding of the nature of society and far from standing in the way of the progressive movement it should be a well spring. Our special duties to our countrymen should provide a motivation and defence for the left wing quest for social justice. It is perhaps no mistake that one of the greatest triumphs of that movement is called the NATIONAL Health Service.
NYE
Nye - I'm conscious that I've not replied to this, and I like to engage with comments posted here, so my apologies. As you'll see from the post above this one, it struck me that the Gaza withdrawal of the last week needed to be used to look into the wider issue of Israeli colonialism, and that this ought to be examined in some depth. So I'm afraid I've not been able to respond substantively to you. Still working on pts 2 and 3 of the Israel / Palestine article, so here's a quick reply for now....
You say, "...in this country the needy are rightly provided with much more than the basics we provide the Child in Niger. Why is this? Well, from a Liberal perspective....".
Perhaps its understandable that the needy in this country are better provided for than those in Niger, but "rightly"? You contend that our compatriots ought to be more valuable to us than others. I'm afraid I still hold it to be a self evident truth that all human beings are of equal worth, and maintain what seems to me to be a healthy disdain for the notion that they are not.
You call your argument "liberal" because...."it is because as part of the same society we are part of the same cooperative enterprise and as such we owe each other much more". There's some merit to drawing the line of demarcation at the national boundary, but its a pretty crude way of looking at our obligations to other people. Human beings are also linked in very real terms, across national boundaries, by family ties, by economic ties, by religious ties, by the fact of our humanity.....the list goes on.
But this isn't really how we objectively define our moral responsibilities to others. What we're responsible for is the predictable consequences of our acts and omissions. So for example, when our elected government contributes toward policies that impoverish people like those in Niger (see my article below dated) then we're responsible for those that suffer the cost of those policies whatever it says on their passport. Perhaps this is the real difference between our positions. You're looking at how our society can best share out its generosity, whereas I'd be content, to begin with, for it to live up to some basic ethical standards.
Finally, to use another practical example, you'll see from my article on Israeli colonialism (part 1 posted today) the real effects of a society that treats certain outsiders as lesser members of the human race. Generally, its not an outlook that's got an attractive record in history, and certainly not one that can be described as coming from a "liberal perspective".
Dearest Diarist
First let me say that no response is expected or required to my meanderings but I appreciate your concern and commend your current focus on Israel.
As I see it you made four points here.
1. That it is self evident that all humans are of equal worth. Leaving aside a philosophical point on its self evidence I think this misses the point. It is quite consistent to say that all humans are equal while also maintaining that we owe special duties to particular people i.e. Spouses, Family members, friends or country men. It is also consistent to say all cultures and societies are equal but that I take particular pride in the successes of mine. Just as you can say that all people are equal but I take particular pride in the achievements of my family.
What ever my connection to you I owe you a certain level of rights. This level has not been reached in the modern world but that does not mean that on top of this basic level of care implied by our humanity we owe special duties to wives, children or our country men.
2. It is true that our links cross national borders. My family live in Barbados but I do not see what this has to do with the particular duties I have to them as members of my family or my duties to British nationals.
3. That nationalism (different to patriotism) or patriotism have been abused repeatedly in the past does not make them evil or wrong. That many wars have been fought for King and country no more undermines the value of patriotism than the fact that the crusades were fought by the God fearing make Jesus message any less true. We must not judge a creed by how it is abused but by what it really means.
4. This is a liberal position; it is based on Rawls the defining thinker of modern liberalism. It is the idea that we belong to a society and as such have special duties to each other. That belonging should be a source of pride and duty in equal measure.
NYE
thanks Nye. sorry for the delays. Think I'll have to move on from this thread after this comment so feel free to finish off if you like.
I think you're correct to say that we owe particular duties to particular people. Just that nationalism is a crude and misguided way of defining what those duties are and where they lie. George Monbiot, the article I originally quoted, was right to say that "The world will be a happier and safer place when we stop putting our own countries first". He might have added "....and identify where our true obligations lie". I covered the issue of how to define those obligations in my first reply so I won't repeat myself.
I'm glad you raised the idea of the use/misuse of religion ("We must not judge a creed by how it is abused but by what it really means"). Doubtless there is much in the Bible or any other religious text that is commendable. There is also much that is downright abhorrent. A glance at the Old Testament will confirm this. Perhaps for someone who has deep personal religious beliefs or patriotic instincts it suffices to ignore the bits they don't like, take the bits they do, and dub the latter the "true nature" of their belief system. But objectively, the way to discern what any "true nature" might entail is to identify the core mechanics, the defining attributes, of that belief system. Religion demands dogmatic adherence to a set of superstitious beliefs and ancient texts. There's much unpleasant behaviour that can, and has flown from that, not as an aberration, but as a direct consequence of the nature of religion.
This is similarly true of patriotism/nationalism which demands, as Monbiot says, that "when confronted with a conflict between the interests of your country and those of another.....you choose those of your own". As I said, its a crude, misguided and deeply illiberal value system. In reviewing the colonial record of Israel recently I've been looking closely at the ugly consequences that can flow directly from this. In another forum today I said this:
"Zionism is a set of ideas built around the ideal of Jewish self-determination, born of centuries of brutal persecution in Europe that later culminated in the Nazi holocaust. The tragedy is that this goal of self-determination has been pursued at the expense of the Arab population of what was designated to be the Jewish state of Israel. This indigenous population has been seen and treated by Zionists strictly in terms of their capacity to pose an obstacle to Zionism, and not as another set of human beings in their own right and of equal worth. Thus the Zionist pursuit of self determination led directly to the vicious anti-Arab racism endemic in Israeli politics and in that state's treatment of the Palestinians throughout its short history. That racism in turn has facilitated the colonisation and subjugation that's been central to the behaviour of our Israeli ally" http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/08/322089.html
One might then concede at least that patriotism, by its very nature, is wide open to misuse. But its hardly misuse when these consequences flow from the fundamentals of its nature. Plainly the essential dynamics of patriotism do not in any way serve the liberal view of humanity's obligations to each other. In fact they will, by their nature, tend to work in exactly the opposite direction. It seems to me that John Rawls understood this perfectly, and the following quote from him could well have come with the Zionist/racist/colonialist dynamic in mind (or indeed, recent US/UK foreign policy and its liberal apologists).
"Given the often predatory aims of state power, and the tendency of men [and women] to defer to their government's decision to wage war, a general willingness to resist the state's claims is all the more necessary."
Post a Comment
<< Home