- Email: [email protected]
The politics of patriotism
Hisrory of European Ideas. Vol. IS. No. l-3, pp. 55-59, 1992 Printed m Great Britam
THE POLITICS FRANKDE
019l-6599/92 $S.OOt 0.00 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd
OF PATRIOTISM ROOSE*
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to argue that there is such a thing as the politics of patriotism (distinct from the politics of nationalism), that it plays an important role in contemporary political life, and that, therefore, its neglect as a research topic is a deplorable situation. First, I will distinguish between the concepts of patriotism and nationalism, then I will elaborate on the meaning of the politics of patriotism, and, in conclusion, I will indicate why it is desirable that the politics of patriotism be studied separately from the politics of nationalism.
DISTINGUISHING
PATRIOTISM
AND NATIONALISM
It is almost trivially true that there are as many definitions of nationalism as there are writers about nationalism, and that there are as many interpretations of the aims of nationalism as there are nationalist movements and leaders. Yet, in the midst of this overwhelming diversity floats a generally recognised core meaning of nationalism, namely that as a movement or doctrine nationalism appeals to an idea of the nation as a cultural community rather than as a political community. Indeed, one might even argue that what distinguishes nationalism from other ideologies is that it seeks to legitimise its political claims by reference to an apolitical reality. That reality is most often defined as the ethnic or cultural community, but can perhaps more accurately if also more vaguely be described as any kind of community that does not yet exist as a political community, but which certain groups-particularly, nationalist groups-try to transform into a political community. If the appeal to a non-political community constitutes the core meaning of the nationalist phenomenon, then, I would argue, patriotism is exactly the opposite of nationalism. Patriotic appeals and heroic displays of patriotism, such as dying for one’s country, primarily refer to loyalty to the nation understood as an existing political community. To patriots the nation is the political-territorial community that is constituted by the existing state-boundaries and not some kind of primordial apolitical community. It may be the case, of course, that the political community coincides with an ethnic community and that, as a result, patriotic appeals incorporate nationalistic rhetoric. More often than not, however, ethnic communities cut across state boundaries and appealing to them threatens the stability of the political community of which patriotism is the social cement. In general, then, patriotism and nationalism turn out to be antagonistic *European University Institute, CPN 2330, 50100 Firenze, Italy. 55
historical forces: nationalism seeks to alter, through separation or unification, the existing state boundaries to make them coincide with ethnic or cultural boundaries, while patriotism aims at reinforcing the existing state boundaries to protect the nation against external threats (other states) and internal threats (revolutionary movements, including nationalism).
THE POLITICS
OF PATRIOTISM
I want to distinguish between three dimensions of the politics of patriotism: the dimension of domestic and foreign policy formation, the dimension of strategies for increasing or decreasing popular patriotism, and the dimension of competition between political groups over the attainment of state power. As I will show, on each dimension patriotism significantly affects a country’s life. The dimension of policy formation is already suggested by the definition of patriotism. Patriotism aims to protect and enhance the independence or sovereignty of the political community of which the state is the organisational expression. This aim has both a foreign policy aspect and a domestic policy aspect. On the foreign policy level, patriotism promotes decisions that decrease a country’s dependency on other countries for its survival. It attempts to make the country more self-sufficient, especially on the military and the economic level, but also on the cultural level. In practice, this attempt may either result in an imperialist, hegemonic strategy-by which one’s country independence is increased by decreasing the independence of other countries-or in a protectionist strategy, i.e. a strategy of splendid isolation. These two strategies differ from non-patriotic strategies, such as the formation of political federations, military alliances, or economically integrated communities, by denying the possibility that weakening national sovereignty can ever be in the interest of a nation, By definition, patriotism refuses to compromise the ideal of national sovereignty and gives expression to that refusal by striving to attain national self-sufficiency. Patriotic policies on the domestic level are in part determined by the foreign policy goal of patriotism. The preservation of national sovereignty requires not only that other nations be kept at bay, but also that groups within one’s country that might align themselves with other nations because of shared loyalties along ethnic, religious, or ideological lines, remain powertess. To put it more poignantly, patriotism has to be as much concerned with the enemy within as with the enemy without, especially if the two are somehow allied. Patriotic domestic policies, then, will express intolerance towards loyalties that cut across state boundaries. More generally, the role of patriotism on a domestic policy level is concerned with preventing the usurpation of state power by persons or groups that are opposed to the nation, that is, it fights the transformation of state power into a mechanism that oppresses the nation rather than intoone that furthers the nation’s interests. This means that patriotism is not necessarily or even predominantly a conservative force, and that it can be a powerful motor for effectuating radical internaf changes in a country-as was the case with the French revolution of 1789 and the I989 Eastern European revolutions.
The Politics of Patriotism
57
It can be argued that at least since the eighteenth century, patriotism has been a dominant-if not the dominant force-in political life all around the world. The foreign and domestic policies of most countries have at one stage or another been strongly patriotic. Yet, those policies have seldomly been analysed in those terms. Part of the reason is, of course, that other terms, such as nationalism were used to describe them. More importantly, however, analysts seem to have taken the patriotic nature of policies largely for granted and have concentrated on more specific elements of those policies, such as isolationism and imperialism. While I do not want to deny the value of such analyses, I would like to argue that they could be enriched by embedding them in a broader analysis of patriotism. The main question to be answered by such an analysis is under which circumstances a country is likely to pursue patriotic policies and under which conditions it is likely to abstain from such policies. I do not intend to try to answer this question here, but want to point out that a better understanding of the other two dimensions of the politics of patriotism will be crucial to answering it. One of those dimensions is constituted by strategies for increasing popular patriotism. Patriotism on a policy-level is sustained by patriotism as a popular feeling or the willingness of people to serve their country and make sacrifices in order to preserve its independence. Without widespread patriotic loyalty-a loyalty that is stronger even than loyalty to family, village or political party, a loyalty that is psychologically so pervasive that one is prepared to sacrifice one’s life to keep it intact-patriotic policies could never have been so pervasive as they have been during the last two hundred years. However, it goes without saying that the patriotism of people is not a natural phenomenon. While it may be so that humans have a need to belong to groups, there are many groups that can fulfill that need other than one’s country. Therefore, patriotism needs to be fostered among people in order to be present. The political process through which this happens I refer to as the second dimension of the politics of patriotism. I would like to distinguish between four available means to encourage or create patriotism. The means are distinct from each other in that their effectiveness rests on different psychological mechanisms. First, there is coercion, which includes the use of violence but also nonviolence-social ostracism, for instance-to force people to conform to the behaviour patriotism demands from them. Through the administration of sanctions or the threat of punishment people are subjected to a socially organised and state-controlled negative reinforcement scheme through which they learn to become good citizens and patriots. The importance of coercion as a guarantee for patriotic loyalty can be gleaned from the fact that in nearly all countries disloyalty and, more particularly, treason and desertion from the military, are punished at least as severely as murder. Secondly, patriotism is fostered through a system of rewards and positive sanctions. Citizens who serve the country in special ways are remunerated symbolically with medals and honorary titles or, more substantially, with state positions and material benefits, such as those bestowed on veterans. Even citizens who do not deliver particular patriotic feats, but who are simply good at what they are doing-whether it be science, sports or literature-can be hailed as
Frank de Roost
national figures and thus be enticed to join the patriotic pantheon. Next to the use of negative and positive reinforcements, use can be made of the justice motive of people. Patriotism can be encouraged by presenting it as something that citizens owe to the state (as organisational embodiment of the political community) in return for what the state has given to them. Appeal is made here to the political community as a fair system in which the duties citizens perform for the state are the logical corollary of the rights that the state guarantees for them. Or, put differently, patriotism is presented as a contractual obligation of citizens towards their country. Finally and most importantly, patriotism can be built up by fostering people’s identification with their country. Recent social psychological theories have shown that identification with groups-that is, defining oneself as a member of a certain group-responds to a need of people to cognitively systematise and simplify their social environment. Identification with a country can be encouraged by accentuating the special value and uniqueness of the country, both explicitly (e.g. through the teaching of history) and implicitly (e.g. through the prominent display of national symbols, such as flags, and the organisation of national rituals, such as singing the national anthem). Ultimately, social identification is more central to patriotism than the other three motives for being patriotic. Only when people thoroughly identify with their nation and see their personal fate to be inexorably tied up with the fate of the country at large can they be expected to go as far as to sacrifice their lives for their country. To be sure, when a country offers neither positive nor negative reinforcements to be patriotic and when it is perceived to treat its citizens unfairly, few people will feel inclined to identify with it. In that sense, manipulation of the identification motive will be to some extent predicated on control over the other three motives. The choice of means for creating and strengthening patriotism stands in a complex relationship with the policy making dimension of patriotism. The complexity derives from the fact that the ideal of national sovereignty which provides the ideological basis of patriotic policies presupposes the existence of a harmonious political community, that is, a community that rests on social identification and fairness, rather than on negative and positive reinforcements for its continued existence. As a result, even though such reinforcements are essential for the survival of the nation, they have to be presented as if they are of merely secondary importance. Employing means for instilling patriotism is thus a double-layered ideological task: it involves strengthening patriotism against competing ideologies as well as creating a specific picture of the ways in which this very process takes place. This brings the third dimension of the politics of patriotism into the picture: its use as a means to gain state power in competition with other political groups. Patriotism can be used in this way on several levels. First of all, on the policy level: by advocating patriotic policies or actually carrying them out one can attempt to gain the popular support that, presumably, such policies enjoy. More intricately, one can distinguish between true patriotic policies and false patriotic policies and promote this distinction to discredit the policies of one’s opponent. Discrediting one’s opponent can also take place on a more abstract ideological level, namely by unmasking the patriotic credentials of one’s opponent as having
to do with negative or positive reinforcements to act patriotically, rather than with intrinsic commitment to patriotism. Finally, the politics of patriotism on this dimension may involve a conflict over whether the nation should primarily be seen as an organic community based on social identification, rather than as a contractarian community based on the rights and duties of its citizens.
CONCLUSION Electoral campaigns illustrate that in many countries the politics of patriotism in its third dimension meaning plays an active role. It is a matter of further investigation whether that role is merely the product of the politics of patriotism on the other two dimensions or whether it might itself actively contribute to the popular importance and policy impact of patriotism. At any rate, the current presentation-abstract as it may be-should suffice to indicate that there is such a thing as the politics of patriotism and that it in many ways exercises a powerful influence on many aspects of public life. I will be the last one to deny that many of these aspects have not already been studied. However, as I said before, to the extent they have been studied, the perspectives adopted were different. Taking the politics of patriotism seriously opens up a new avenue for understanding domestic and foreign policy and, therefore, is in need of closer scrutiny than the one it has received so far. In conclusion, I would like to observe that the study of the politics of patriotism cannot be reduced to the study of the politics of nationalism. The latter has been traditionally concerned mainly with separatism and unification nationalism, that is, political alterations which invoive state boundary changes. Such changes do not concern the politics of patriotism-or rather the politics of patriotism is concerned with not being confronted with such changes. Therefore, it would be desirable, notwithstanding the common features of patriotism and nationalism, to study them as separate subjects. Frank
Firenze
De Roose
THE POLITICS FRANKDE
019l-6599/92 $S.OOt 0.00 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd
OF PATRIOTISM ROOSE*
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to argue that there is such a thing as the politics of patriotism (distinct from the politics of nationalism), that it plays an important role in contemporary political life, and that, therefore, its neglect as a research topic is a deplorable situation. First, I will distinguish between the concepts of patriotism and nationalism, then I will elaborate on the meaning of the politics of patriotism, and, in conclusion, I will indicate why it is desirable that the politics of patriotism be studied separately from the politics of nationalism.
DISTINGUISHING
PATRIOTISM
AND NATIONALISM
It is almost trivially true that there are as many definitions of nationalism as there are writers about nationalism, and that there are as many interpretations of the aims of nationalism as there are nationalist movements and leaders. Yet, in the midst of this overwhelming diversity floats a generally recognised core meaning of nationalism, namely that as a movement or doctrine nationalism appeals to an idea of the nation as a cultural community rather than as a political community. Indeed, one might even argue that what distinguishes nationalism from other ideologies is that it seeks to legitimise its political claims by reference to an apolitical reality. That reality is most often defined as the ethnic or cultural community, but can perhaps more accurately if also more vaguely be described as any kind of community that does not yet exist as a political community, but which certain groups-particularly, nationalist groups-try to transform into a political community. If the appeal to a non-political community constitutes the core meaning of the nationalist phenomenon, then, I would argue, patriotism is exactly the opposite of nationalism. Patriotic appeals and heroic displays of patriotism, such as dying for one’s country, primarily refer to loyalty to the nation understood as an existing political community. To patriots the nation is the political-territorial community that is constituted by the existing state-boundaries and not some kind of primordial apolitical community. It may be the case, of course, that the political community coincides with an ethnic community and that, as a result, patriotic appeals incorporate nationalistic rhetoric. More often than not, however, ethnic communities cut across state boundaries and appealing to them threatens the stability of the political community of which patriotism is the social cement. In general, then, patriotism and nationalism turn out to be antagonistic *European University Institute, CPN 2330, 50100 Firenze, Italy. 55
historical forces: nationalism seeks to alter, through separation or unification, the existing state boundaries to make them coincide with ethnic or cultural boundaries, while patriotism aims at reinforcing the existing state boundaries to protect the nation against external threats (other states) and internal threats (revolutionary movements, including nationalism).
THE POLITICS
OF PATRIOTISM
I want to distinguish between three dimensions of the politics of patriotism: the dimension of domestic and foreign policy formation, the dimension of strategies for increasing or decreasing popular patriotism, and the dimension of competition between political groups over the attainment of state power. As I will show, on each dimension patriotism significantly affects a country’s life. The dimension of policy formation is already suggested by the definition of patriotism. Patriotism aims to protect and enhance the independence or sovereignty of the political community of which the state is the organisational expression. This aim has both a foreign policy aspect and a domestic policy aspect. On the foreign policy level, patriotism promotes decisions that decrease a country’s dependency on other countries for its survival. It attempts to make the country more self-sufficient, especially on the military and the economic level, but also on the cultural level. In practice, this attempt may either result in an imperialist, hegemonic strategy-by which one’s country independence is increased by decreasing the independence of other countries-or in a protectionist strategy, i.e. a strategy of splendid isolation. These two strategies differ from non-patriotic strategies, such as the formation of political federations, military alliances, or economically integrated communities, by denying the possibility that weakening national sovereignty can ever be in the interest of a nation, By definition, patriotism refuses to compromise the ideal of national sovereignty and gives expression to that refusal by striving to attain national self-sufficiency. Patriotic policies on the domestic level are in part determined by the foreign policy goal of patriotism. The preservation of national sovereignty requires not only that other nations be kept at bay, but also that groups within one’s country that might align themselves with other nations because of shared loyalties along ethnic, religious, or ideological lines, remain powertess. To put it more poignantly, patriotism has to be as much concerned with the enemy within as with the enemy without, especially if the two are somehow allied. Patriotic domestic policies, then, will express intolerance towards loyalties that cut across state boundaries. More generally, the role of patriotism on a domestic policy level is concerned with preventing the usurpation of state power by persons or groups that are opposed to the nation, that is, it fights the transformation of state power into a mechanism that oppresses the nation rather than intoone that furthers the nation’s interests. This means that patriotism is not necessarily or even predominantly a conservative force, and that it can be a powerful motor for effectuating radical internaf changes in a country-as was the case with the French revolution of 1789 and the I989 Eastern European revolutions.
The Politics of Patriotism
57
It can be argued that at least since the eighteenth century, patriotism has been a dominant-if not the dominant force-in political life all around the world. The foreign and domestic policies of most countries have at one stage or another been strongly patriotic. Yet, those policies have seldomly been analysed in those terms. Part of the reason is, of course, that other terms, such as nationalism were used to describe them. More importantly, however, analysts seem to have taken the patriotic nature of policies largely for granted and have concentrated on more specific elements of those policies, such as isolationism and imperialism. While I do not want to deny the value of such analyses, I would like to argue that they could be enriched by embedding them in a broader analysis of patriotism. The main question to be answered by such an analysis is under which circumstances a country is likely to pursue patriotic policies and under which conditions it is likely to abstain from such policies. I do not intend to try to answer this question here, but want to point out that a better understanding of the other two dimensions of the politics of patriotism will be crucial to answering it. One of those dimensions is constituted by strategies for increasing popular patriotism. Patriotism on a policy-level is sustained by patriotism as a popular feeling or the willingness of people to serve their country and make sacrifices in order to preserve its independence. Without widespread patriotic loyalty-a loyalty that is stronger even than loyalty to family, village or political party, a loyalty that is psychologically so pervasive that one is prepared to sacrifice one’s life to keep it intact-patriotic policies could never have been so pervasive as they have been during the last two hundred years. However, it goes without saying that the patriotism of people is not a natural phenomenon. While it may be so that humans have a need to belong to groups, there are many groups that can fulfill that need other than one’s country. Therefore, patriotism needs to be fostered among people in order to be present. The political process through which this happens I refer to as the second dimension of the politics of patriotism. I would like to distinguish between four available means to encourage or create patriotism. The means are distinct from each other in that their effectiveness rests on different psychological mechanisms. First, there is coercion, which includes the use of violence but also nonviolence-social ostracism, for instance-to force people to conform to the behaviour patriotism demands from them. Through the administration of sanctions or the threat of punishment people are subjected to a socially organised and state-controlled negative reinforcement scheme through which they learn to become good citizens and patriots. The importance of coercion as a guarantee for patriotic loyalty can be gleaned from the fact that in nearly all countries disloyalty and, more particularly, treason and desertion from the military, are punished at least as severely as murder. Secondly, patriotism is fostered through a system of rewards and positive sanctions. Citizens who serve the country in special ways are remunerated symbolically with medals and honorary titles or, more substantially, with state positions and material benefits, such as those bestowed on veterans. Even citizens who do not deliver particular patriotic feats, but who are simply good at what they are doing-whether it be science, sports or literature-can be hailed as
Frank de Roost
national figures and thus be enticed to join the patriotic pantheon. Next to the use of negative and positive reinforcements, use can be made of the justice motive of people. Patriotism can be encouraged by presenting it as something that citizens owe to the state (as organisational embodiment of the political community) in return for what the state has given to them. Appeal is made here to the political community as a fair system in which the duties citizens perform for the state are the logical corollary of the rights that the state guarantees for them. Or, put differently, patriotism is presented as a contractual obligation of citizens towards their country. Finally and most importantly, patriotism can be built up by fostering people’s identification with their country. Recent social psychological theories have shown that identification with groups-that is, defining oneself as a member of a certain group-responds to a need of people to cognitively systematise and simplify their social environment. Identification with a country can be encouraged by accentuating the special value and uniqueness of the country, both explicitly (e.g. through the teaching of history) and implicitly (e.g. through the prominent display of national symbols, such as flags, and the organisation of national rituals, such as singing the national anthem). Ultimately, social identification is more central to patriotism than the other three motives for being patriotic. Only when people thoroughly identify with their nation and see their personal fate to be inexorably tied up with the fate of the country at large can they be expected to go as far as to sacrifice their lives for their country. To be sure, when a country offers neither positive nor negative reinforcements to be patriotic and when it is perceived to treat its citizens unfairly, few people will feel inclined to identify with it. In that sense, manipulation of the identification motive will be to some extent predicated on control over the other three motives. The choice of means for creating and strengthening patriotism stands in a complex relationship with the policy making dimension of patriotism. The complexity derives from the fact that the ideal of national sovereignty which provides the ideological basis of patriotic policies presupposes the existence of a harmonious political community, that is, a community that rests on social identification and fairness, rather than on negative and positive reinforcements for its continued existence. As a result, even though such reinforcements are essential for the survival of the nation, they have to be presented as if they are of merely secondary importance. Employing means for instilling patriotism is thus a double-layered ideological task: it involves strengthening patriotism against competing ideologies as well as creating a specific picture of the ways in which this very process takes place. This brings the third dimension of the politics of patriotism into the picture: its use as a means to gain state power in competition with other political groups. Patriotism can be used in this way on several levels. First of all, on the policy level: by advocating patriotic policies or actually carrying them out one can attempt to gain the popular support that, presumably, such policies enjoy. More intricately, one can distinguish between true patriotic policies and false patriotic policies and promote this distinction to discredit the policies of one’s opponent. Discrediting one’s opponent can also take place on a more abstract ideological level, namely by unmasking the patriotic credentials of one’s opponent as having
to do with negative or positive reinforcements to act patriotically, rather than with intrinsic commitment to patriotism. Finally, the politics of patriotism on this dimension may involve a conflict over whether the nation should primarily be seen as an organic community based on social identification, rather than as a contractarian community based on the rights and duties of its citizens.
CONCLUSION Electoral campaigns illustrate that in many countries the politics of patriotism in its third dimension meaning plays an active role. It is a matter of further investigation whether that role is merely the product of the politics of patriotism on the other two dimensions or whether it might itself actively contribute to the popular importance and policy impact of patriotism. At any rate, the current presentation-abstract as it may be-should suffice to indicate that there is such a thing as the politics of patriotism and that it in many ways exercises a powerful influence on many aspects of public life. I will be the last one to deny that many of these aspects have not already been studied. However, as I said before, to the extent they have been studied, the perspectives adopted were different. Taking the politics of patriotism seriously opens up a new avenue for understanding domestic and foreign policy and, therefore, is in need of closer scrutiny than the one it has received so far. In conclusion, I would like to observe that the study of the politics of patriotism cannot be reduced to the study of the politics of nationalism. The latter has been traditionally concerned mainly with separatism and unification nationalism, that is, political alterations which invoive state boundary changes. Such changes do not concern the politics of patriotism-or rather the politics of patriotism is concerned with not being confronted with such changes. Therefore, it would be desirable, notwithstanding the common features of patriotism and nationalism, to study them as separate subjects. Frank
Firenze
De Roose