On patriotism

The nature of the state, and what it means for an individual to be part of a state, has changed considerably throughout history. I use the vague term "part" because most people used to be subjects, rather than citizens, in other words there is really no general term for the relationship between people and the state. The word "citizen," by the way, is related to the word "city," and it derives from the Greek city states and the Roman empire which originally bestowed the status of citizen only on people who lived in the city of Rome. 

 

In those polities, most people were not citizens, but subjects, including women, slaves, and perhaps some free subjects of low status, such as immigrant workers. In most of the world, there was really no citizen class as such until the emergence of the bourgeoisie, the decline of feudalism, and the revolt of lesser nobility against monarchical absolutism. People generally had dimensions of identity based on language, religion or heritage, but these did not necessarily correspond to state boundaries. Rather, states were the domains of their rulers. 

 

When William conquered England, he chose to make his court in London. As a result, England did not become a subject or tributary of France, rather from that point forward for centuries, the English monarch also had a domain in France. But the meaning of the word France was different than it is now. It was the region where most people spoke French, but it consisted of several kingdoms, most of which were the domains of foreign kings. 

 

England was actually fairly exceptional in that it consisted of a realm unified by language and ethnic identity, with a single monarch, for much of its familiar history. However, it did experience civil wars over who would be the monarch, which had nothing to do with any other political issue or anything concerning the people in general until the Reformation, after which there was often a religious element involved. As European states emerged later, however, they did tend to be roughly co-extensive with areas of language and ethnicity, although war and other exigencies often found people in realms in which they were a minority.

The idea that large numbers of people could be citizens rather than subjects -- in other words that they could have rights that the sovereign needed to respect, and ultimately some participation in governance through elections and other means -- spread gradually throughout Europe and the rest of the world. I won't go into the details, which are very complicated, but the status of citizenship was gradually extended more and more widely. A key idea that emerged in the enlightenment was universal personhood, accompanied by religious tolerance. It took a long time for that idea to be extended to women, and the institution of slavery required that it not be extended to Africans, but you get the idea.

So what is a nation-state today? There are still some absolutist regimes, obviously, of various forms, including theocracies and de facto monarchies (e.g. North Korea), and these often have an ethno-nationalist character as well. (China is attempting to assimilate its ethnic minorities to create a homogeneous national identity.) In much of the world, including Europe and North America, it came to be generally understood that the essential character of the state is institutional. It is based on a set of procedures for selecting people in specifically defined, generally very narrow positions of responsibility for governance, in which all adults have a role. Government is constrained by laws and by rights that adhere to its citizens, and there are levels of government below the national sovereign that have their own autonomous powers.

For this to work, it is necessary that nearly all citizens have some form of loyalty to the institutions. We need generally to agree to live by the rules, in other words, and to strive to make them work to produce broadly desired outcomes. However, that does not mean that I personally am automatically "proud to be an American." That pride has to be earned, it isn't bestowed by birth. It also doesn't mean that I'll go along with whatever the government does, least of all when it makes war. On the contrary, my responsibility is to think for myself, to criticize and otherwise oppose what I believe to be national error. People who think "My country, right or wrong" is a patriotic statement are completely misguided.

It also means, crucially, that citizenship -- membership in the polity with attendant rights and responsibilities -- is not contingent on any dimension of identity or personal characteristics other than being here and agreeing to abide by the law and work within the institutions. Yes, there is a question of immigration and naturalization and how much of that there should be, that's a fair discussion to have. But patriotism is not about race, ethnicity, religion, social class, gender, sexuality, or any form of tribal identity. And it isn't about exalting your country over others. It's about responsible participation in a structured community.

If the day comes when I can no longer participate within the institutional structures of the United States, I will cease to be a patriot in that sense. But perhaps I will be in another.