Skip to main content

Reconsidering Patriotism: Towards a More Humanist Perspective

It is not uncommon that one changes one's views in light of what one encounters in life, and how one's world is suddenly shaken, but not completely stirred, in the face of an iminent groundbreaking notion... Well, maybe not that groundbreaking, but one's foundations in thought are altered nonetheless in ways that manifest themselves in action and words. Most importantly, one's attitudes shift in their entirety, and all issues related to that particular topic change.

But what, pray tell, could that particular subject be in this meager post? The title's the giveaway here, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Allow me, then, to explain what you may perceive as my change of heart. In my early years into my awakening towards socio-political situations on the global scale, I was a nationalist of sorts. I had my mind set on the nation that is the Palestinian people, a "righteous" nation "oppressed" by Israel. One day, I had thought to myself, the Palestinians will win and go as far as to depose the Israeli government, reality notwithstanding (but I'm willing to bet that a lot of people, perhaps most, went through a phase of this sort at one time [and some, apparently, are still going through it]).

It was only a matter of time that I began to see the flaws in the collectivist, tribalist mindset that is Nationalism, a belief that destroys individuality and reinforces the actions - as blatantly horrendous as they may be - of the members within a selectively defined racial categories. So, I decided to be a patriot: love the nation, but be not blind in love. It sounded more plausible to me. An Arab proverb goes, "Your friend is the one who makes you cry, not the one who makes you laugh"; that is, a true friend (of the nation) will care so much about the nation as to constructively criticize its people's shortcomings.

Like any belief based purely on emotion and imagined rationality, it was bound to collapse. And this only happened recently during a couple of discussions I had with a friend of mine. The discussion started with him quoting Erich Fromm, a social psychologist and humanist philosopher (1), who once said,
Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. Patriotism is its cult.(2)
Fromm metaphorically and effectively defines Nationalism as a form of lust, in this case towards a nation, its people, and its government. Patriotism here is labelled its "cult",
a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees, but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.(3).
But in many cases, a "cult" splinters off the larger group, and has beliefs that conform more or less to the mainstream, albeit it is viewed differently. In this case, Patriotism can be considered a "positive" cult, one that has appeal to the mainstream albeit still regarded as different. The crux of the idea, however, is that Patriotism can be considered a milder, "euphemized" form of Nationalism. In the end, both involve the love of one's nation and its people.

Before I get to the groundbreaking question that destroyed my hope for there ever being a "good" "Patriotism", the definitions of the words "Nationalism" and "Patriotism". In this case, I refer to the previously-used definitions in some of my posts, in that
Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria), by individuals and groups.
This was taken from a previous post on Patriotism. For those interested,
Nationalism is an ideology that holds that (ethnically or culturally defined) nations are the "fundamental units" for human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state."
This one was taken from my condemnation of nationalism.

To fully reconsider the notion of Patriotism, previously mentioned arguments for Patriotism must be reconsidered. In the aforementioned hailing of Patriotism, I had much to say about it as well as the identity of the "Patriot". However, my attitude towards Patriotism was built out of my contempt for Nationalism, seeing it as a milder and more "humanistic" alternative, if there was one. Among my commendations for "Patriotism" were "its" supposed respect for the sovereignty of other nations, non-chalance towards its affairs, support of the equality of all nation-states, and critical scrutiny of the actions of the governing body of the nation-state without ever failing to hold its members accountable for their actions and the consequences of their actions in both local and foreign policy-making situations. The crux of the matter boils down to Patriotism being the love of one's own state in particular but in a more fatherly or motherly way (i.e. with reprimand).

All my aforementioned friend, who goes by the name Torin, had to do to destroy the entire basis of my argument for Patriotism was to ask one simple question:
Why?
That is, why love a particular nation? What has "it" done to earn a place in one's heart other than provide a birthplace, a possible home, and an identity marker, assuming one is living in it, that is? Why limit your critical reprimanding love to your own nation-state? Sure, you may be ignorant of worldly affairs, but why address only the shadowy affairs of your sole nation-state's governments? A more pressing rephrasing of this question: why believe in both equality of one's nation-state and in an idea that effectively holds "your" nation closer to your heart than any other (inevitably discriminating against other nations)? Patriotism can potentially be the firestarter of Nationalism in one's heart, and may catalyze one's transformation towards this much reviled ideology. In effect, it can be just as bad as Nationalism in this sense.

One might think that this can be extended to belief systems, religions, and/or other objects of desire, not just nation-states. While I think there is a plausible basis for such an extension, consider that religions and belief systems are based on ideas grounded by dogma and certain philosophical or dialectical allegories, things that can be debated in more reasonable ways than whose nation is "the best". When it comes to objects of desire, such as entertainment media (movies, TV shows, video games, etc.) and people, that comes down to personal preference. While some friction may be generated in such processes, almost none can lead to the open discrimination and possible bloodshed that Racist Patriotism/Nationalism are attributed to.

So, what can provide itself as an alternative to the madness of our love for nation-states? What can provide itself as an alternative to such excuses for and causes of war, strife, bloodshed, and genocide? The answer seems to be another idea that I have discussed before: Humanism. Technically, I consider myself a spiritual humanist in that I attempt at reconciling my humanist beliefs with my faith: we are equals before the Eyes of God and will be judged accordingly to our own actions in front of God... at least that's what I believe in. Up to now, I was also a patriot, specifically of the nation that is the Palestinian people. But I realize that to have humanist and patriotic beliefs ultimately limits such attitudes of mine towards the borders defined here: the Palestinians. In doing so, I have collectivized "my" people, and placed an anti-humanist obstacle towards my perceived "humanism" [as discussed in a post about humanism].

In renouncing all Nationalist and Patriotic tendencies, I realize that a true humanism must transcend national boundaries no matter what the case may be. I myself had several attempts at transcending these man-made boundaries in issues such as cultural pluralism (4) and (inevitable) bias in media outlets (5). All in all, one must realize, I think, that we all are implicated in this world, and that we are each other, and no issue is a particular.

Before I leave you, none of what was mentioned above implies that I will not look at "everything" less critically: there still is a war in Iraq. There still is an occupation of the West Bank. There still exists a Fatah and a Hamas. There still are corrupt governments. But in criticizing them, I will do so from a humanist viewpoint, not out of my nonexistent love for them.

Several questions remain, and I want you to tell me what you think. Is there such thing as a "good Patriotism"? Do Patriotism and Humanism contradict each other? And why (not)?

Salaam, from Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un