|
|
|
|
Jewish World Review Oct. 24, 2002 / 18 Mar-Cheshvan 5763
Bill Tammeus
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Twice one recent evening, the Rev. Forrest Church, senior minister of All Souls Unitarian Church in New York, suggested in my hearing that there's a substantial difference between nationalism and patriotism. "And I feel more patriotic today than I ever have in my life," he declared. The first time he mentioned it was at the end of a conversation at an outdoor cafe. But we both needed to leave, so we didn't get to unpack his meaning. He next mentioned the difference at the conclusion of his remarks to a group at Community Christian Church in Kansas City, where he spoke about his new book, The American Creed: A Spiritual and Patriotic Primer. Again, there was no time to get him to expand. But it would be helpful for all Americans to ponder the difference between nationalism and patriotism as we wage the war on terrorism and debate extending that war to Iraq. Scholars have devoted whole careers to defining and understanding nationalism, pointing to various foundations for it, from language to ethnicity to religion. And nationalism, in its most docile forms, need not be an evil construct. It can simply describe a theoretically neutral reality. Author Benedict Anderson, for instance, in his 1983 book, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, says that a clear understanding of the concept requires us to understand the idea of nation as "an imagined political community - and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion." Nationalism grew to modern prominence in the 19th century, as people came to prize national identities and as states were more consciously based on a commonality among people than on, say, a monarchial dynasty, a religion or control by a colonial power. But as nationalism became a potent force in an increasingly dangerous world, intellectuals became suspicious of its tendency to produce bad fruit. In 1945, for instance, author George Orwell warned in an essay that "nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. ... By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. ... Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." If Orwell was right - and he was - the question his insights raise is what other differences there are between nationalism and patriotism and how we can encourage the healthy "ism" while avoiding the other. Here are the differences that occur to me: Nationalism, because its goal is power, fears dissent. Patriotism encourages thoughtful dissidence because it knows there's strength in the clashing of ideas. Nationalism thinks it can win only if others lose. Patriotism doesn't see a zero-sum game but seeks answers that benefit everyone. Nationalism seeks the comfort of order for the sake of order. Thus, it produces such slogans as "America - love it or leave it" and "My country right or wrong." Patriotism is comfortable with creative chaos, understanding that freedom and liberty sometimes are messy. Nationalism wins hearts. Patriotism wins hearts and minds. Nationalism has discipline. Patriotism has soul. Nationalism, given its way, is too quick to compromise freedom for security. Patriotism would be more cautious.
If I must choose, I cast my lot with patriotism.
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
|