Patriotism or Philopatria?

by Micah Tillman

Recently, Joe Klein has given us yet another instance of a mysterious phenomenon: people feel the need to defend Obama et al. on the issue of patriotism. If a Conservative called a Progressive a “bigot” or a “greedy imperialist,” the world would simply laugh. But the reaction is much more negative if a prominent Progressive thinks her patriotism is being challenged.

Peter Wehner and Fred Barnes took Klein to task for his statements, and the discussion between the three has been helpful. But I think we need to go further. What exactly is patriotism?

“Ism” words seem to form a family-resemblance class, unified by the sense of derivation or source. We say that “x-ism” is derived or descended from “x,” or that “x” is the source or origin of “x-ism.”

Because of this, three other senses arise.

1: “x-ism” often has the sense of “something typical of x” (e.g., “Bushism,” “Westernism,” “consumerism”).

2: “x-ism” often has the sense of “the focus on x” (e.g., “feminism,” “Aristotelianism,” “psychologism”).

3: “x-ism” often has the sense of “the belief that x is a source of value” (e.g., “capitalism,” “environmentalism,” “pacifism”).

The second and third senses are closely connected, and usually all three are attached to a given ism.

But what about “patriotism”?

Is it “the actions and beliefs typical of patriots”? That sounds correct enough. But if you ask the average person what “a patriot” is, he’ll say something like, “A person who loves his country.”

In fact, most people will define patriotism by skipping over “patriots” and going right to patria.

Thus patriotism has the sense not only of a focus on, but a valuing of the patria. But patriotism is not simply philopatria. It is also “pride in country” (“doksopatria”?).

If I believe that something has value, I may love it. If, however, I think that something is valuable and that it produced me, I will not only love it but will love myself. I will love the fact that I come from it.

In many x-isms, x is merely the progenitor of the ism. But the patria is the source not only of patriotism, but of the patriot herself. Her love of country leads to a love of self. This, in turn, produces a love of the fact that she comes from a lovable country.

Philopatria, in this sense, leads to pride.

Patriotism may come from philopatria, therefore, but is not necessarily identical with it. Patriotism can go beyond love of country to pride in country. Patriotism is love and pride, philodoksopatria. (My apologies to linguists.)

And I believe it is here that we begin to uncover the roots of the debate between Conservatives and Progressives.

Speaking from the outside, for instance, it’s much easier to believe that Progressives love their country than to believe that they are proud of it. It's not Conservatives, after all, who are worrying about America’s image. And I think many (if not most) Progressives know how Michelle Obama feels.

Furthermore, Progressives are into progress. They want to move the country beyond what it is (at the moment) to something better. They seek change.

But this tempts Conservatives to ask, “Why would Progressives want the country to be otherwise, if they didn’t think the country were bad?”

The Progressive response would be, no doubt, that America has a potential to which it has yet to live up. They believe in the “the promise” of America, even if they critique its actuality. And since parents frequently see their children in the same way, this is no reason to say Progressives don’t have philopatria.

But this is a philopatria different from that which Conservatives experience. Conservatives love what (they believe) America is; that is why their focus is on conservation and recovery. Progressives love America for what (they believe) it could be; that is why their focus is on progress and improvement.

America has a greatness for Conservatives: the greatness of actual goodness. This is the kind of greatness which inspires pride. You can “come from” it.

America likewise has a greatness for Progressives, but of the kind proper to potency. It has not necessarily produced you; instead, you seek to actualize it. This is not the kind of greatness which inspires pride. It inspires “attention, preparation, anticipation” — or as they say nowadays, hope (for change).

Since the Conservative type of philopatria automatically generates doksopatria, Conservatives understand patriotism as including both love of and pride in country. But since the Progressive type of philopatria does not generate doksopatria, Progressives see patriotism as consisting simply of love of country.

The difference between Conservative patriotism and Progressive patriotism, therefore, is twofold. First, it is the difference between “love and pride,” and “love alone.” But it is also the difference between two kinds of love: the love which finds value in a thing, and the love which gives value to a thing.

Conservative philopatria is an admirer's (or lover's) love . Progressive philopatria is a mentor's (or guide's) love. But both, in a sense, are a caretaker's love.

And it is this tension between commonalities and differences which generates the debate between Progressives and Conservatives over patriotism. Without some common ground, the argument would be impossible. (You don’t, for instance, find lovers of art and lovers of food arguing about who’s the true lover.). But without important differences, there’d be no dispute.

What I hope I’ve shown here are the boundaries and extremes. I recognize, however, that we often take up positions which mix pure Progressive patriotism and pure Conservative patriotism. Further, the ontologies which underlie the various types of patriotism are complex, and will require further elucidation.

Given the intricacies, Progressives and Conservatives may wish to dissociate the guideposts I’ve labeled “Progressive patriotism” and “Conservative patriotism” from their own theories. But whatever label we give them, I think the boundary markers we’ve explored here can help us get to the heart of what the patriotism debate is all about.

Micah Tillman (micahtillman.com) is a lecturer in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic University of America.