DISQUS

Dain · 1 year ago

Indeed the difference between patriotism and nationalism should be emphasized. Proudhon was a French (regionalist) patriot, for example, and as an anarchist about the furthest thing from the vulgar nationalists of the GOPAC.

GilM · 1 year ago

Will,

Did you invite John McCain, or one of his intellectual supporters (if you can find some), to participate?

Matthew · 1 year ago

I was intrigued by the article as well—in fact, I wrote a response to it.

I completely agree with Dain, above. Nationalism is different from patriotism. The problem with Kateb's essay is not only that it confuses the two, but that the confusion destroys any logical basis for truly loving one's country.

josh · 1 year ago

Matthew,
I think your response confuses patriotism with a general sort of taking other people into account in your social welfare function. What is the logical basis for valuing one group of people above another? Isn't that the really important distinction of patriotism or nationalism?

John Thacker · 1 year ago

I think that he sets up a straw man when discussing what love of parents is in the first place, and errors proceed from that. He claims that love of parents is based on purely the idea that parents are responsible for one's coming into existence.

I think that's too limited a view of love of one's parents. Is the love between siblings that different from love of parents? But by his measure, siblings are no different from one's country-- one does not owe them existence, even though they may have shaped one, therefore they are a thing "altogether different."

Surely part of the nature of the love involved in family is that it is an inalienable bond; this is something that he touches on in his discussion. Furthermore, that bond does not imply that one merely does whatever one's parents orders-- surely that's not true at the least in modern society. The very nature of the inalienable bond between children and parents, or between siblings, enables us to criticize our siblings and parents in ways that other friends might not. Because there is less worry (though still some) of the relationship being abandoned or destroyed, one feels freer to criticize without worrying that one will say something that will cause an irreparable break. That is a large part of why families fight-- because they are freer to criticize without being seen as an enemy or outsider. This is why people attempt to establish patriotic bona fides before offering criticism. (And, related to the origin of the chestnut that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism.)

Now, of course there is a reasonable argument that one should leave or disassociate from someone rather than criticize, even for their own good. That is, however, a different argument that the one that Professor Kateb made.

Matthew · 1 year ago

I can see what you mean, Josh. Maybe I should have explained it better in my post.

Basically, I think that people affect each other, so much that they form social units, whether those be family, nation, or something else. The closer you are—physically, culturally, and institutionally—to people, the more you affect them. Therefore, when the interests of your group conflict with those of another, you should prefer your own. Of course, the only time you need to do that is when the other group is being antagonistic, and won't cooperate or share with yours.

James · 1 year ago

Apparently not white men.