Patriotism and Monogamy
In the comments below, David Stearns asks:
Is there any room left in the concept of ‘patriotism’ for the deep appreciation of the freedoms and independence of thought that the states are at least supposed to embody, and that they do embody in their finer moments?
I don’t think so. Freedom and independence are general features of a place or people and are valuable wherever they occur. I may love America for it’s freedom, but then I should love Canada for its freedom, too. And I do! To love a place because of its general features implies that love may wane or disappear as the manifestation of those valued qualities change. But Patriotism, the love of country, is particularistic. It is a “monogamous” sentiment. If you claim to be an American, Canadian, Danish, and Japanese patriot all at the same time, because you love qualities all these societies excellently exemplify, people will look at you funny. Patriotism requires that you “pick one,” which implies that it is not about the general features of a place, but about special attachment. (Dual citizens may get away with picking two, but that’s just because there are two attachments, and even this is suspect.)
If you meet a women with all the attributes you claim to love about your wife, only better, and you run off with her because of their excellence, then you never really loved your wife. You loved her attributes. You can rightly claim never to have been unfaithful. Indeed, to stay would have made you untrue — to your values. But to fully love a woman, or a country, is to love some one particular thing. Now, it is surely better to love a woman than to love her qualities. But when it comes to countries, it is better by far to give your heart to freedom, and to love countries themselves incidentally and faithlessly.
March 19th, 2008 22:58
Er, but *why* is loyalty to a specific entity, rather than its qualities, more appropriate for a woman than a country?
March 20th, 2008 01:27
Your statement “it is better by far to give your heart to freedom, and to love countries themselves incidentally and faithlessly” is just that - an unsupported assertion. As Robert implies, despite your assertion nation-states do, indeed, differ in ways that make them particular; particular geographies, laws, cultures, etc. It would be just as easy to reverse your statement to “when it comes to women, it is better by far to give your heart to beauty, and to love women themselves incidentally and faithlessly”
Until you provide some supporting framework, you appear to be presenting a false dichotomy.
March 20th, 2008 01:45
Will: I think Robin Hanson is pointing to a pretty key weakness in your response. Unless you can answer his question, I don’t think your objection that patriotism is particularistic holds up. You can love your girlfriend because she’s beautiful, funny and smart without loving all the equally beautiful, funny and smart women out there. And you can love your girlfriend for those qualities knowing that if she stopped having them you might not love her anymore. Likewise with love of (not fetishistic worship of) country: I can love America insofar as it has characteristics I find worthy of love, even while being sickened by its participation in, e.g., torture. I’m quite happy that the Danes and Canadians are more or less free also, but I’m not Danish or Canadian so I don’t love Denmark and Canada to the same extent. It’s just like being glad that someone else has wonderful parents: great for them, but for whatever contingent reasons, I just love mine more. Of course, this argument is far from new:
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~cifonemc/index_files/image019.jpg
March 20th, 2008 10:35
Robin, Lots of reasons! One is an ethos of prudence. Loving a particular woman does not contribute to a norm that enables her to wreak terrible violence. Another reason is that we need special particularistic attachments and attachments to individual people are much more satisfying, and less likely to leave you with dirty hands, than attachments to countries. Another is that countries aren’t really real in the same way women are, but are figments of collective imagination, and you should reserve your meaningful particularistic attachments to real things. Or, to get more metaphysical, what we love in individuals is a complex interrelation of properties. The higher-order property that is this specific combination of complementary traits is in principle repeatable, but is in fact completely singular, which encourages us to see it as a sort of quiddity or individual essence, which we take to have special value over and above the constitutive properties. Of course, you are unlikely to be loved unless you can commit to loving more or less unconditionally, and loving a quiddity helps solve the assurance problem at the heart of the reciprocal love game. Countries won’t love you back.
March 20th, 2008 11:05
I think David is correct when he says “I can love America insofar as it has characteristics I find worthy of love, even while being sickened by its participation in, e.g., torture. I’m quite happy that the Danes and Canadians are more or less free also, but I’m not Danish or Canadian so I don’t love Denmark and Canada to the same extent.” But that seems to support the notion that patriotism is particularistic. Perhaps we “shouldn’t” identify with a country in the same way we identify with a family, or a sports team, but people do. And as long as they do, I don’t think there’s anything problematic about patriotism as long as it isn’t unflinching and is conditional. (I am unpersuaded that this a start down a slippery slope to militarism or facism.) Perhaps that isn’t “patriotism”, as Will has defined it but I think this conception is closer to what most in the U.S. think of as patriotism.
March 20th, 2008 12:43
I think you’re confusing patriotism with nationalism, patriotism being love of one’s form of government, while nationalism being love of one’s country/people’s/language/culture/etc. Hitler famously put it that he had no use for patriotism, but every use for nationalism. I put myself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Hitler.
March 20th, 2008 14:17
Loving a particular woman does not contribute to a norm that enables her to wreak terrible violence.
Strange, I think that domestic violence campaigners might disagree about the capacity of love of a single person to enable the violence. Even aside from that, there are plenty of people who have wrought violence on others on behalf of one whom they loved, or who have excused terrible violence wrought by one whom they loved (and in some cases sought to help them escape punishment or otherwise been an accessory.)
Another reason is that we need special particularistic attachments and attachments to individual people are much more satisfying, and less likely to leave you with dirty hands, than attachments to countries
Same old story and I know it’s been told,
some like jelly jelly– some like gold,
Many a man’s done a terrible thing,
just to get baby that shiny diamond ring.
The higher-order property that is this specific combination of complementary traits is in principle repeatable, but is in fact completely singular, which encourages us to see it as a sort of quiddity or individual essence, which we take to have special value over and above the constitutive properties.
There are considerably more people out there than countries, so in principle it is more likely to find a near duplicate of a person than a country. (Of course, one can find another country that suits just as well, but is different on various aspects that are matters of taste, but that is surely true of people.) The argument goes back once again to your assertion that there are no such things as countries or societies.
And as I said before, there’s a similar problem to the reciprocal love game when it comes to countries, especially criticizing them. Demonstration of love of country
March 20th, 2008 18:29
Robin, presumably, any nation state could adopt the “American form of government.” Doesn’t “patriotism” on your analysis entail “loving” every country that does so?
March 20th, 2008 23:02
I think Will’s person/country distinction is valid. The primary difference is that I think of the attributes I value in my wife as being constitutive. If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person. However, a less free USA would still be the USA. On that basis, I find it hard to see why I should value the USA for itself.
March 21st, 2008 01:52
If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person.
So, blejkrajli, if your wife suffers a stroke or brain damage or Alzheimer’s (anger and mood swings are also common symptoms as well, note), then you will no longer love her because she would no longer be the same person? Have you let her know that you would not serve as primary caregiver but rather leave her in such a situation?
March 29th, 2008 21:43
[...] if we followed Wilkinson’s recommendation and loved freedom while being faithless to any particular country, we would need to have [...]