Customer comments on this selection.
 a childish debate
The book consists of an essay that promotes transnational identity over "patriotism". The essay is followed by a series of responses. The problem with the original essay and the responses both is that the entire debate is a childish affair.
A proper answer to the question raised would be that every individual has a relationship in their lifetime with a series of communties growing out from the local neighborhood to the world. The individual needs to help, be interested in and to deal with the problems of each community they are involved in. The problems of the local community cannot be ignored because they are small compared to a global problem and equally a global problem cannot be ignored by local attachments. The mature individual understands that multiple associations and alligances are inevitable in a lifetime.
The original essay is flawed in that it attempts to pidgeonhole "patriotism" into chavanistic nationalism. But it is possible to be a patriot (loyal and supportive of a community) without being a nationalist. The difference is that a nationalist sees the world in terms of competition between communities. But a patriotism centered around supporting the community when it is right and supporting the community in terms of improvement rather than competition is perfectly valid.
The problem with the "cosmopolitanism" the essay promotes is that it is totally rootless. Since there is no "world" to loyal to, what the author is calling for loyal to is transnational political movements and political causes. The problem is that unlike countries, there isn't just "one" of these to be loyal to. And loyalty to political parties and organizations has always been as problematical as patriotism. Political organizations, for example, tend to ignore the needs of a community in favor of broad ideological aims. They also have led to the same blind loyalty dead end as nationalism.
Most of the responses to the essay suffer the same either/or thinking as the essay itself. The only totally dismissive essay makes a poor argument that appeals to tradition and loyality in favor of patriotism.
The problems of the book are in essence the problems of modern academic thought. The wrong question is asked and the responses generated are inevitably empty and predictable.
 food for thought
For most people patriotism is a self-evident virtue that requries little defense or explanation. Here's a book why this should not be the case. Whether in challenging patriotic morality with the cosmopolitan alternative (Martha Nussbaum)or in showing what's good and necessary about patriotism (most of her critics), this book will doubtlessly stimulate your thinking and might even change your take on the subject. Strongly Recommended
 Interesting debates
This book consists of a brief essay by Martha Nussbaum, 16 comments on it by various philosophers and scholars, and a final response by Dr. Nussbaum. Nussbaum's essay is a strong pitch for cosmopolitanism as opposed to devotion to one country. She criticizes "patriotism" for narrowness, intolerance, and proneness to lead to war. Several of the 16 following essays point out, with varying degrees of clarity, that she has rather failed to distinguish patriotism from chauvinism. Most of the essays defend patriotism, or at least local loyalties--to family, culture, and so on.
I would respectfully submit that some clearer thinking is needed. First, real patriotism--love of country--is not only different from chauvinism, it is a quite different feeling. Patriotism involves caring enough about one's institutionalized polity to vote, support candidates, speak, write, fight to defend the country if it is attacked, and generally keep it on an even keel. Patriotism is about recognizing that your nation-state has done a lot for you--protecting you, guaranteeing certain freedoms, subsidizing your education, and so on--and you care about that, so you want to give something back. Chauvinism--the sort of "patriotism" that takes the form of hating other people and other places--is quite different. It comes from fear (where else could hate come from?) and, in particular, deep insecurity. Chauvinists are rarely good citizens. In the US, they have been notoriously prone to oppose the Constitution, especially its freedoms and separation of powers (see the Bush administration, for example). They also are notoriously prone to cheat on obligations to country; they are often corrupt and they don't like serving in the military or otherwise giving back.
Also quite different are commitments to family and to culture. A family is not a polity; loyalty to family is partly instinctive, partly learned, and not the same thing as loyalty to a political entity. Culture is a totally different thing from nationhood. One of the main reasons I love the US is that it is tolerant and multicultural. (Again, chauvinists don't like this, which shows they are not very patriotic.) I am proud of my culture, such as it is, but my culture isn't the US. The US is an institution, not a culture. Popular Anglo-American culture is often called "American culture," but it isn't. America is thoroughly multicultural, and even within the Anglo-American tradition, regionalism is very strong. Southern Scots-Irish culture is very different from anything in New England or Wyoming.
Hating or opposing other people isn't loving one's country, any more than hating all other kids is loving your kids.
America's traditions of freedom, and its heritage (Abraham Lincoln, FDR, etc.), are mentioned by various essayists, but this is only somewhat relevant. Sure, I'm proud of all that, but I would love America's great accomplishments if I were Australian or Mongolian. Being loyal is a somewhat different thing, involving--among other things--putting up with the bad stuff too, and working to fix it. Cherry-picking "good traditions" isn't enough.
Finally, love of country could mean love of landscape (though none of these authors says so). I love the North Cascades--I love equally the part in the US and the part in Canada. Loyalty to one's nation is different.
So, what does one owe to who? My personal view might be very crudely summarized as follows: One owes one's family some real warm love and care--as individuals. One owes one's culture nothing at all, but if you appreciate your culture, go for it, without putting down others' cultures. One owes one's country some loyalty, including defense--as long as one is a citizen of the country and as long as the country is not unalterably set against you and yours. One owes the entire human race a lot of love, support, and concern. One owes the world--the nonhuman lives included--a bit less immediate love and concern, but they too are fellow travelers, and we depend on them, and we can't ignore them. Finally, one owes it to family AND culture AND nation AND planet to fight chauvinism and intolerance at every level and in every way. A patriot must hate that sort of "patriotism." One can be a patriotic American or Italian or Uzbekistani AND a cosmopolitan world citizen, just as one love one's family AND love the human race too (in a different way).
This book could provide a useful start in talking about who owes what to whom, but the grave scholars will have to clarify their thinking a lot more on exactly what emotions and exactly what units we are talking about.
interesting book
This is a collection of essays that discusses and debates the ideas of patriotism and cosmopolitanism. The idea of being a "citizen of the world" is very fascinating and complex, it is of course naturally apart of any discourse regarding globalization. I think this may be why I enjoyed the book, I find most if not all books dealing with globalization very interesting
|
