Why Be Patriotic? Options

[Tapati]

I wanted to share, with permission, an interesting query about patriotism:

Why be patriotic?
WARNING: Rambling.

Seriously. Why?

I very seldom see people questioning the supposed duty to be patriotic. Sure, I often see the liberal-leaning types clarifying that being patriotic includes criticizing one's country with the intention of bettering it, but I don't see them asking the more fundamental question -- why?

It is something that gets to me, simply because any imperative that sets a moral obligation had better be justified. If someone were to say to you, "Hey, you must love and be loyal to Dogbert!", surely you'd ask why. So it's a mystery to me that when people say "You must love your country!" they waffle around defining that love rather than questioning it entirely.

I suppose people automatically assume that we owe something to the state -- yes, I'm using 'country' and 'state' interchangeably, sorry -- because, well, it's cared for us. Fed us, clothed us, educated us, miscellaneous-positive-things-us.

That's the standard reason I've heard, and anyone can see that it's problematic. So does that mean that people who aren't fed enough, clothed enough, whatevered enough, do not have a duty to be patriotic? Never heard of poor people being let off the hook. And exactly what standards are sufficient to mandate patriotism? Is it enough for me to have, say, three plates of rice a day and nothing more, or am I entitled to a varied diet? How do you decide the minimum, and what is the rationale behind it?

We haven't even reached the part where we consider how our country might have wronged us. The Karens in Myanmar. The Chechnyans in Russia. The Kurds in Turkey. Yet in each case the state demands that these minorities be loyal to it. Why do state sins never nullify the need to be patriotic?

And, well...is it really the state that feeds us, clothes us, etceteras us? This might sound disingenuous, but I was under the impression that people do those things for us. Parents. Teachers. Esprit salesmen (not that I'm rich enough to shop there...). The state is only an abstract concept, so how can it demand any sort of devotion, especially above the kind we give to actual people like our parents?

In fact, filial piety would have a much better claim to being a moral imperative, I think, than patriotism. At least there's a tangible genetic link. Whereas the modern nation-state was created, often forcibly. Wasn't it Anderson who called it an 'imagined' community? Why yes, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it, to be more loyal to something in your head which supposedly cares for you, rather than something in front of you which obviously does.

And even if the nation-state is based on tangible commonalities of language, culture, race, and so on -- which is clearly not the case if you look at most SEA countries -- then shouldn't your loyalty lie first with those commonalities rather than go through the middle-man of the state?

I suppose people argue that despite the fact that the state is a derivative abstract concept -- in the sense that it derives its authority from other sources more linked to physical reality -- the concept itself acts as an enabler, a facilitator of sorts. So the state educates us in the sense that it provides the infrastructure for teachers to do so, and to 'create' (read: certify) teachers. And as long as we take advantage of this infrastructure, we owe loyalty to the state -- a sort of social contract like Plato's argument about The Laws in Crito.

But come on, does the contract really apply when you have no choice but to sign it? Most citizens can't afford to send their children to private schools, nor can they afford to move to a different country and change citizenship, nor can they generate their own electricity or pump water or whatever. Taking advantage of state infrastructure when you don't really have any other choice should not be grounds for making patriotism compulsory. Sure, perhaps people should feel grateful, but to extend that to a full-blown moral duty seems...oppressive.

It's almost as silly as people saying you should be patriotic because you're born in a particular country -- yeah, like people really have a choice which artificially-created nation-state they're to be hatched in.



I think I'm done rambling for tonight.


--"Treekisser"

Opinions?

[Tapati]

My response:

Congratulations for questioning one of the most deeply held common beliefs. Almost no one questions such a thing publicly for being thought to be a traitor.

Instilling patriotism in its citizens is a safety mechanism of the nation state. It's how the organism perpetuates itself. Not being allowed to question patriotism, while not a law exactly, is an essential part of the control mechanism. How can an artificially created entity like a nation-state endure without such deep loyalty from its citizens? This is even more true in the nation-states that don't treat their citizens well, and dissent is truly forbidden in such states. The more free such a nation-state is in terms of allowing criticism of its government by the citizens, the more benign it is towards those citizens.

Once you understand that patriotism is entirely your choice, just like any other cultural belief or standard, you can see through the pretense that our identity as citizens is entirely constructed and decide what you think or feel. Do you want to be patriotic? Does your country act in such a way as to deserve your participation in patriotic duties and events? Does your government do a reasonably good job?

Yet another thing to consider is whether or not by virtue of being born a citizen you have any obligation to work to improve a government that is not doing an optimal job. Or perhaps whether to benefit other people you should try to do so. In a totalitarian state, this would necessarily involve revolution. Or in the days of slavery, operating the underground railroad.

[Chanahari]

He has good points.

Instead of an abstract concept, I consider the state to be, for the most part, a parasitic organization that feeds off ordinary working guys and gals, taking the results of their work by force and threatening with force; the first states were probably made by aggressive psychopaths with extraordinary needs of power. Some more enlightened countries (I mean, the persons that together comprise the country's "political elite" follow more enlightened moral codes) offer certain, often even highly valuable, services they provide from the robbed goods, and they legitimize their power and privileged situation with such acts.

Besides brute force and fear of power, their most used, and probably the most effective tool is to emotionally manipulate the populace into loyalty and... kinda worship the political elite as the representation of their being, by identifying themselves with that state. School history courses are the most widely employed methods. It is much easier to make people pay their taxes on their own incentives, or even to die in bloody wars for the sake of that elite by their own incentive, than force them all to do these. This method of emotional manipulation was first patented by religious organizations, and only with the decline of organized Christianity in the West could the states get a real share of the loyalty cake. (I know that there are still many Christians in the West. By decline I mean that Christianity lost its force as a motivation for behavioral changes in large parts of the Christian population, and even those who are still follow their religion are less likely to modify their own conduct if it collides with the norm the given religion propagates; compare this with behavioral patterns of an average Muslim, or an Iskconer.)

Despite being such parasites, states can actually be very useful for most part of the population they feed on. Besides providing important services, they also organize and motivate the population so it can act more efficiently and usefully. It can also repel other microparasites (like criminals) and can defend its prey against other state-parasites that would treat it even worse. So if I rose to the position of a dictator, I will continue to spread patriotism amongst the masses (and try to keep the intelligent ones like Treekisser that can see through the ideological blabla on my side with some hefty salaries.)

[angrezi]

its primal urge of humans to band together for safety and sex. religious fanaticism is based on the same principle as patriotism I think

[Tapati]

its primal urge of humans to band together for safety and sex. religious fanaticism is based on the same principle as patriotism I think

Yes, I think so. Groups fulfill this deep need we have for security and belonging.

[Brainiac]

I can understand the psychology behind groupthink, but not how it extends to attachment to a piece of land. It's almost as bad as religion in my view. In fact, it probably surpasses religion.

[Adrija]

I differentiate between love of homeland, which I think is a natural and positive and spiritual connection, and the affiliation to the state and laws and imperialism (diplomatic or cultural). I miss my homeland (Ireland) and long for it but as far as all the small-minded policies, racisms and provincialisms perpetuated by the government, you can stuff them in a sack. It's to do with the mountains, the forests, being under the night sky.
You can also fall in love with a landscape other than that in which you were born.

It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that the US has a more paranoid relationship with critisism or indifference with your country (in a legislative domain) than over here - people like Robert Altman and Steve Earle finding themselves under attack for a lack of patriotism because of their criticisms of U.S. policy.

There has been talk here recently of making teens take citizenship exams and pledging allegiance to the Queen (which I find abhorrent). I can't see people agreeing to it.

[Kalisurfer]

I find nationalism and the need to identify whole-heartedly with a certain country to be problematic. It seems to foster this group identity that has a rather smug better than thou attitude to others. Patriotism has its place as a temporary state when being confronted by a bully country that has ill intention of exploiting or taking another piece of land over, for it calls people to come together and fight an oppressor such as Hitler and Nazi Germany. But this state of Patriotism should not be a permanent identity, for it then becomes a vehicle of pride and prejudice, an identity that becomes political and self serving to one cause or purpose over another.

The United States was founded as a colony that revolted against its colonial home England. When England started to impose harsh taxes and penalties to colonialist, people started a revolutionary uprising. Farmers, tradesmen and business people united by forming militias or armies of the people against the trained army and navy of England. These people who fought against England were called patriots. The famous documents created by the founding fathers were pretty interesting and revolutionary writings, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Of course it was an ideal that they themselves could not practice, since only landowners who were men could vote, Africans were slaves and American Indians were savages that stood in the way of expansion and private land ownership. But the ideas of liberty and the pursuit of freedom were good ideas, breaking the yoke of Royalty and giving certain people ability to take part in government policy.

Today in the USA, revolutionaries are considered a threat to the status quo, are marginalized as kooks or harassed by the government. The word Patriot is now a label highjacked by conservatives and certain portions of the military class to describe those who uphold and honor the principles of the Republican Party or Christian militaristic value. Most of these people, if they were alive in 1776, would have sided with England and been called Tories, and would have fought or opposed the original Patriots. Strange how time can turn things around.

The USA saw a surge of nationalism right after 9/11, when the twin towers fell and thousands died. Instead of using this sense of national identity to gather together and mourn the losses and putting our collective mind toward understanding why it happened and what we could do about it, George Bush and Dick Cheney with the Republican ruling party controlled by NeoCons, deliberately used it to push their agenda by going to war against Iraq and not going after the perpetrators based in Afghanistan. The word Patriotism became synonymous with being a NeoCon Republican, and all dissent to their objectives was squashed, including the opposition party (Democrats) and the Press. This is when anyone who spoke out against these policies were considered traitors and wimps, publicly humiliated by politicians, media pundits and the corporate press in general.

Time has eroded this false patriotism, but it is still alive and being used by the far right in the Republican Party. It seems that 2/3 of Americans are tired of it and it is possible that some change will come in the next election

[Dhyana]

Makes me think of the Patriot Act.

[Kalisurfer]

Makes me think of the Patriot Act.

Dont' forget the Patriot Missile too!

[babu]

tapati, don't you think you're being a bit of a hypocrite criticizing patriotism and then accepting the prudmercan award and its 1 million dollar prize?

[angrezi]

I never got any money

[Homer]

Ray McGovern is an amazing person. Remember when he was beaten and arrested simply for turning his back on Hillary Clinton? His latest article is such a breath of fresh air.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/08-1

"They Died in Vain; Deal With It
by Ray McGovern

Many of those preaching at American church services Sunday extolled as “heroes” the 30 American and 8 Afghan troops killed Saturday west of Kabul, when a helicopter on a night mission crashed, apparently after taking fire from Taliban forces. This week, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) can be expected to beat a steady drumbeat of “they shall not have died in vain.”

But they did. I know it is a hard truth, but they did die in vain..."

[Dhyana]

Good article.