For Love of God and Country

The love of a people for their country they hold close to their hearts, the nation they protect, the community they value above almost all else is like a glue. It cements people together under the shared banner of patriotism. People cluster together to salute the same flag, sing the same songs, and share tales of strife and triumphs that are told through many generations. These tangible sources of pride help people to link to the universal ideals that form the larger community, the nation itself. Some of these universal concepts are closely related to identity, meaning the sense of being part of a particular group. Other concepts are more related to the idea of self-determination, and whether all decisions made in a nation should be made by that nation, or whether influencers from other nations should have a role. A common example is the United Nations and its unnatural influence affecting policies in the United States that should only be determined by those living within its borders.

The Feeling of Belonging

Think of the pride and joy one feels when cheering in a crowd for the winning Superbowl team. That elation is heightened by the close-knit community of people all relating to and cheering for the same thing. According to Bellamy and Mason (2003), this type of group behavior creates feelings of belonging, almost of being a part of an exclusive club. They believe that to create true feelings of solidarity, people in a society cannot simply relate to civic ideals but need a larger focus. They need to relate to the larger community to which they belong, in this case, the nation as a whole. This national pride makes a country and its citizens stronger and more cohesive. Gilbert (1998) believes that nationalism exists in two philosophical forms, political and cultural. This paper will examine three ways in which nationalism helps strengthen and maintain a country’s foundation – through its defense/politics, social programs as a subset of both defense/politics and culture, and culture.

Defense/Politics

In wartimes, when a country is attacked financially or physically such as 9/11 in the United States, bonding under the same flag can be unifying and even healing. It can also bring emotional strength needed by a country in pain. Only as strong as its people, no nation can stand against its enemies with a fragmented populace unable to support its own. Closing ranks in times of strife creates a united front that is difficult for outside invaders to penetrate. By assimilating all who wish to be part of a nation, all creeds, colors, beliefs, into one harmonious group that identify first by the home country, in one scenario as American, the strength as a nation increases. It is logical that one must integrate into a new society and its beliefs in order to become part of that society.

Kymlicka believes that nationalism protects the culture of the very nation over the identities and liberties of individuals within that state. The state itself must be the priority and remain strong to protect the individuals within its borders. It is safe to assume that in light of 9/11, it is these core beliefs will make the United States stronger as a key example. Identifying cultures that may threaten and harm the strength and community of that very nation is key to protection. Bellamy and Mason (2003) believe that often self-identifying with the origins of a nation, such as the Judeo-Christian culture in the United States, makes the “rejection” of cultures such as Islam easier to understand and defend (p. xvii.).  This explains why countries such as Australia, which are more secular, have less concern over terrorism from these specific religious groups. Never having had their borders infiltrated, never having had their home attacked in such a visceral way also makes it easier in some countries to cast aspersions on nationalistic beliefs in those trying to protect their home (Bellamy and Mason, 2003, p. xv11).

Social Programs

Often people with more nationalistic tendencies are viewed as conservative and automatically assumed to be against things that benefit the larger nation such as social programs, welfare, and health care. This could not be further from a true nationalist ideal. Community strength and solidarity actually encourages communion among members of a nation, so much so that cooperation on these distinct issues is easier to achieve. Clyne and Jupp’s research shows that social programs that are not stable, that are changing with the whims of the political climate and society, create stress and unrest. A strong sense of family within a nation, which is a general description of what nationalism is to some, will make people more likely to want to help and care for one another, making social programs that benefit the whole more likely to be supported. A common society ideal is one that ensures others have an opportunity. This commonality is why programs like Affirmative Action are divisive and unnecessary. Peralta (2016) quotes Judge Clarence Thomas as saying "The Constitution abhors classifications based on race because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all" (para. 9).

Cultural

A nation in itself is a small enough entity that its citizens identify culturally with like values and can still hold democratic elections where people can freely and intelligently make choices for their representatives. Jensen (2016) paraphrases David Hume in his belief that national strength comes from “cultural habits, a shared language, a common religion and being subject to the same government.” (p. 9) These similarities serve as a means of unification. One example of this is the importance of having one national language, a unifying means of communication. Bellamy and Mason quote Ciarán O’Kelly as discussing origins and traditions, things that link people together. In the United States, recalling stories of how the forefathers fought for liberty, hearing the National Anthem played while the flag waves, bowing one’s head in prayer are all strong ties to the culture of being an American. This culture is represented in many areas, even in an area as simple as the money printed with the inscription “In God We Trust. The pledge of allegiance states “one Nation under God, indivisible” showing that this loyalty under God will make its adherents undivided forever.

The Will of the People

It really is that simple. The majority of people in a country, like the United States, should determine their fates. This nationalism sentiment is strong when viewed with the lens of defense, social programs and culture. This paper has proven that in defense, coming together as a united front to defend and support a country in times of war, makes a country stronger. When people love, and respect their nation, their home, they will defend it. They will also in turn support and protect each other with appropriate social programs. And finally, just as a fan cheering at a football game, having like cultures makes a country of people feel united together.

Multicultural Ideals

To fully examine the notion of nationalism it is necessary to look at the converse, the idea of multiculturalism. Proponents of this philosophy claim that nationalism promotes an us and them mindset that actually interferes with a country fully celebrating its rich, diverse heritage. This belief set is against integrating people from different cultures into the nation in which they seek to belong because the cultural richness they bring from their home nations is lost. Clyne and Jupp (2011) describe how founding nations tended to have the upper hand in that they were the holders of the history, government, financial systems and military in a country. This type of authority has negatives such as racism toward outsiders with new and different beliefs and appearances that has been evidenced throughout the world. As immigration became more common around the world after World War Two, viewing the world as a kaleidoscope became more important. Tolerance became key.

Defense in a Multicultural Society

National defense is often a discussion point when viewing multiculturalism. This diversity of beliefs is essential to keeping perspective in these areas, in keeping checks and balances. It is because of states where rampant nationalism has reigned, that some of the world’s notorious wars have been fought. Consider World War I. Excessive nationalism in Great Britain, after “two centuries of imperial, commercial and naval dominance, her empire spanning one quarter of the globe” (Nationalism as a Cause of World War I, 2014, para. 5) had allowed complete faith in the country and its military dominance to develop. This was counteracted by the formation of a new Germany, marked by even more nationalistic tendencies than Britain. The xenophobia in Germany went steps beyond Britain to include public obsessiveness over the strength of the German military (para. 5).

Social Programs Promoting Equality

Social programs such as welfare programs, student aid programs, health care often create opportunities for people in society that are marginalized. Affirmative Action protects from discrimination in the workplace and the schools, allowing all people the opportunity to thrive. Often these groups that are marginalized are newcomers to a country facing forms of racial and ethnic inequality. Parekh (2000) believes that within all societies there is conflict. This conflict centers on what it means to be a true person, to live one true path in life. Different cultures often disagree on these and to try and meld them together into one diverse, all-encompassing social program. Parekh goes on to paraphrase Thomas Aquinas when he refers to perfection in the world as coming from variety, not sameness.

Cultural Influence

Parekh (2000) goes on to discuss religious differences which certainly contribute to cultural disparities between nationalism and multiculturalism. Often in countries such as the United States, which often views its roots as only Christian in history, a misnomer at best, a dichotomy between beliefs causes conflict. In ancient Greek philosophy, cultural norms are based on a fullness of life, a richness of experience. In a strictly Christian based philosophy, cultural norms are instead dictated by a complete body of documents that then determine how to live that life, leaving out the diverse characteristics of other cultures that may not adhere to the same beliefs. It is this contradiction that causes the greatest rift between the two philosophies. One embraces the “other” while the other repels, unless its otherness morphs into an assimilated whole. A more secular example of the richness and strength that comes from the multicultural argument is in language in schools. The multicultural stance believes in maintaining the native languages of immigrants, specifically Spanish language speakers. This is in direct contrast to the policies of assimilation and integrations espoused by nationalist philosophy. The more multi-lingual a society, the easier it becomes to communicate on a diplomatic level worldwide. This is contrary to the isolationistic ideals of nationalism.

Conclusions

Arguments for multiculturalism exist, and to the skimmer of this philosophy, they may seem valid. But look beyond the surface to the reality. Certainly, nationalism is welcoming of all peoples, but in order to truly be part of a strong nation, a country that can stand and defend itself from outside influence, becoming a part of that society, through culture, language, support of its national defense, is crucial. A dominant culture exists in every strong society, and to create a new narrative that discusses stories not central to the dreams of the nation in question countermands what it means to be patriotic. Multiculturalism is a splitter mentality, a philosophy of separatism. It seeks to create many smaller nation states which by definition would be lesser than the whole. Many countries like the United States will always welcome immigrants. But to come to American, to live in America, one must want to actually be an American.

References

Bellamy, Richard and Mason, Andrew. (2003). Political Concepts. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Clyne, Michael and Jupp, James. (2011). Multiculturalism and Integration: A Harmonious Relationship. Canberra: ANU Press.

Gilbert, Paul. (1998). The Philosophy of Nationalism. Boulder: Westview Press.

Jensen, Lott. (2016). The Roots of Nationalism: National Identity Formation in Early Modern Europe, 1600-1815. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Kymlicka, Will (2001). Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Philosophy 76 (298):625-629.

Lerman, Antony. (2010). In defence of multiculturalism. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/22/multiculturalism-blame-culture-segregation

Nationalism as a Cause of World War I. (2014). Retrieved from http://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/nationalism/

Parekh, Bhikhu. (2000). Rethinking Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Peralta, Eyder. (2016). Supreme Court Upholds University Of Texas' Affirmative Action Program. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/23/483228011/supreme-court-upholds-university-of-texas-affirmative-action-program