What is patriotism?

As I have indicated in my ramble of April 9, I have decided to write an article about patriotism for 3 Quarks Daily. My tentative title: “My New-Found Patriotism: Vietnam, the Draft, Mennonites, and Apollo.” I expect the article to appear during the week of April 21.

If I’m going to write about patriotism, then perhaps I should define it. That’s tricky. Why? Because patriotism isn’t a concrete phenomenon. You can’t see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, or smell it. It is abstract, like gravity, the unconscious, evolution, spirit, or sodium chloride. Just how abstract concepts are defined is not at all clear.

David Hays, my teacher, mentor, and colleague, proposed that abstract concepts are defined over patterns of concrete events. Our standard example is “charity.” What is charity? Charity is when someone does something nice for some else without thought of reward. Any pattern of events that fits that pattern qualifies as an act of charity.

When a Boy Scout helps a little old lady to cross the street, that’s an act of charity. When Girl Scouts go to the Old Folks Home, serve a meal to the residents, and then play cards and board games with them in the evening, that’s an act of charity as well, several acts in fact. Giving alms to the poor, charity. When a rich nation donates food, clothing, and medical supplies to a poor nation, that too can be an act of charity. Acts of charity come in all shapes and sizes, and can be performed by both real actors, like those Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, but also artificial actors (“juristic persons” in legal parlance) like nation states.

With that in mind, I consulted Claude 3.7 Sonata, asking it to define patriotism. Here’s what it said:

Patriotism is a feeling of love, devotion, and attachment to one's country or homeland. It encompasses a sense of pride in a nation's achievements, culture, and values, as well as a commitment to supporting its interests and well-being.

True patriotism often includes:

• A deep appreciation for one's country's positive attributes while acknowledging its imperfections
• A desire to contribute to national improvement through civic engagement
• Respect for national symbols, traditions, and institutions
• A connection to shared national history and identity

Patriotism differs from nationalism in that patriotism is generally considered more moderate and inclusive, focusing on love of country without necessarily claiming superiority over others, while nationalism often emphasizes national identity and interests above all else, sometimes leading to an attitude of superiority.

Different people express patriotism in different ways - from serving in the military to participating in democratic processes, engaging in constructive criticism of government policies, or working to uphold national ideals like freedom, equality, or justice.

Notice that that final paragraph lists some general classes of actions through which one exhibits, through which one enacts, patriotism. Thus, my article will, at least in part, be about some of the actions I have taken that exhibit patriotism.

After Claude had offered that definition, I continued our discussion. I have appended that to this post. As always, my statements are in bold face type while Claude’s are plain face.

* * * * *

Can one commit civil disobedience and still be a patriot?

Yes, civil disobedience and patriotism can absolutely coexist and often have throughout history. In fact, many who engage in civil disobedience view their actions as deeply patriotic for several reasons:

Civil disobedience can reflect a commitment to a nation's highest ideals rather than blind allegiance to its current policies or laws. Those who practice it often do so precisely because they love their country and want it to live up to its professed values. Historical examples illustrate this relationship:

• Henry David Thoreau, who wrote the influential essay "Civil Disobedience," refused to pay taxes to protest the Mexican-American War and slavery, based on his understanding of American ideals of freedom and justice.
• Martin Luther King Jr. explicitly framed his civil rights activism as patriotic, arguing that by challenging unjust laws, he was calling America to fulfill its promise of equality for all citizens.
• The suffragettes who broke laws to advocate for women's voting rights did so because they believed in the democratic principles their nation espoused.

Patriotism that includes critical engagement with one's country's flaws can be more substantive than patriotism that demands unquestioning loyalty. As James Baldwin noted, "I love America more than any other country in the world, and exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."

In this view, working to reform one's country through peaceful but unlawful protest when other avenues have failed demonstrates a deeper commitment to national improvement than passive acceptance of the status quo.

Can you comment on the role Plato’s Crito has played in discussions of civil disobedience?

Plato's dialogue "Crito" has played a significant role in discussions of civil disobedience, particularly regarding the citizen's obligation to obey the law even when disagreeing with it.

In the dialogue, Socrates is imprisoned and awaiting execution after being convicted of corrupting the youth and impiety. His friend Crito visits and urges him to escape. Despite facing an unjust execution, Socrates refuses, presenting several arguments for why he must obey the laws:

1. The social contract argument - Socrates suggests that by choosing to remain in Athens as an adult, he has implicitly agreed to abide by its laws. This has influenced modern discussions about when citizens may justifiably break laws they've tacitly consented to follow.
2. The principle of non-harm - Socrates argues that escaping would harm the city by undermining its legal system. This raises questions about when civil disobedience is justified if it potentially weakens legitimate authority.
3. The consistency of principles - Socrates refuses to abandon his moral principles simply because they've become personally inconvenient, establishing an early model of principled resistance.

Thinkers addressing civil disobedience often engage with "Crito," either by:

1. Challenging Socrates' obedience as too absolute (as Henry David Thoreau did)
2. Building upon his reasoning to develop more nuanced theories of political obligation
3. Using it as a starting point to distinguish between different types of law-breaking

The dialogue forces consideration of crucial questions in civil disobedience theory: What makes political authority legitimate? When does a citizen's duty to justice override their duty to law? Can disobedience itself be an expression of respect for a political system's underlying principles?

These questions continue to animate debates about civil disobedience from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail" to contemporary discussions of protest movements.

I believe some famous person once said something like, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” Do you have any idea who that might have been?

The quote "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" is attributed to Samuel Johnson, the 18th-century English writer and lexicographer.

James Boswell, Johnson's biographer, recorded this famous remark in "The Life of Samuel Johnson" (1791). Johnson reportedly made this statement on April 7, 1775, during a conversation with Boswell.

It's worth noting that Johnson wasn't condemning patriotism itself. Rather, he was criticizing those who use patriotic sentiment disingenuously to advance their own interests or to deflect criticism. Johnson himself was quite patriotic toward England.

The quote has endured as a warning about how appeals to patriotism can sometimes be used to shut down legitimate debate or to mask questionable motives - a theme that continues to resonate in political discourse today.

Thus a political leader who insists on personal loyalty above all else might well be destructive of patriotism even as this leader insists that one be loyal to them out of patriotism.

You've made an excellent point. When a political leader demands personal loyalty as the primary expression of patriotism, they often undermine true patriotism in several important ways:

1. They conflate loyalty to themselves with loyalty to the country, creating a false equivalence. True patriotism involves devotion to one's country, its ideals, and its people—not necessarily to any individual leader.
2. They may discourage legitimate criticism and accountability, which are essential elements of a healthy democracy. As Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
3. They typically frame disagreement as disloyalty or even treason, creating a chilling effect on civic discourse and democratic participation.

This type of leadership tends to hollow out patriotism, replacing love of country and commitment to its ideals with personal allegiance tests. History has repeatedly shown that regimes demanding unquestioning loyalty to a leader rather than to constitutional principles or national values often drift toward authoritarianism.

True patriots often recognize that their highest duty may sometimes require opposing leaders who undermine national ideals, even when those leaders wrap themselves in patriotic symbols and rhetoric.

What kind of practices contribute to legitimate patriotism?

Legitimate patriotism is nurtured through practices that balance love for country with critical engagement and civic responsibility. Here are some practices that contribute to healthy patriotism:

1. Civic education and historical understanding - Learning about one's country's history (including both achievements and failures) provides context for informed patriotism. This includes understanding founding documents, constitutional principles, and the evolution of national values.
2. Active citizenship - Participating in democratic processes like voting, community service, and civic dialogue demonstrates commitment to collective well-being.
3. Critical engagement - A willingness to thoughtfully critique government policies when they fail to uphold national ideals shows a deeper commitment than blind acceptance.
4. Inclusive celebration of diverse contributions - Recognizing how different communities and individuals have shaped national identity and contributed to national progress.
5. Responsible consumption of information - Seeking out reliable, diverse sources of information about national issues rather than depending on partisan or sensationalist narratives.
6. Respect for democratic institutions - Supporting the legitimate functioning of courts, electoral systems, free press, and other pillars of democracy, even when their outcomes don't align with one's preferences.
7. Constructive dialogue across differences - Engaging respectfully with fellow citizens despite political disagreements, recognizing shared citizenship despite differing viewpoints.
8. International engagement - Understanding one's nation in global context and supporting cooperation with other nations when appropriate.

These practices foster a patriotism that is reflective rather than reflexive, principled rather than performative, and oriented toward the ongoing work of helping one's country live up to its highest ideals.