Spencer Case, an assistant teaching professor at Bowling Green State University and host of the Micro-Digressions podcast, discusses the fine line between patriotism and nationalism. He emphasizes the importance of cultivating a positive form of patriotism that fosters inclusivity rather than exclusion. The conversation explores the moral complexities tied to nationalism, as well as the potential dangers of extremism. Additionally, they dive into the philosophical implications of identity politics, especially concerning trans rights, urging a more compassionate understanding.
Patriotism can unify diverse societies but may carry right-wing connotations that provoke defensive liberal responses towards their own patriotism.
The podcast critiques the association of extreme patriotism with violence, urging a moral reflection on prioritizing national allegiance over human obligations.
A positive notion of patriotism is advocated as a means of fostering community solidarity, contrasting it with nationalism's potential for exclusion and prejudice.
Deep dives
The Role of Patriotism in Society
Patriotism is often viewed as a necessary sentiment to unite complex societies like the United States. Despite its history as a given facet of society, recent intellectual discourse has raised skepticism about its value and implications. The podcast emphasizes that while patriotism can connect people across diverse backgrounds, it often carries a right-wing connotation, leading to defensive stances from liberals who articulate their own patriotism. This revelation highlights the changing landscape around patriotism, illustrating a shift towards more overt anti-patriotic sentiments across different political ideologies.
Philosophical Tensions Around Patriotism
The podcast delves into historical and philosophical critiques of patriotism, noting that it has often been associated with violence and nationalism. As discussed, extreme patriotism can lead to harmful actions justified by a belief in superior cultural or national values. Audiences are prompted to reflect on whether a moral consequence arises from prioritizing one's nation over all human obligations, suggesting that this could narrow one's moral perspective. Thus, the dialogue stresses the need for a balanced understanding of patriotism that recognizes its potential benefits and pitfalls.
Civic Patriotism and Shared Identity
The conversation navigates the nuanced relationship between civic patriotism and other forms of identity, advocating for a positive notion of patriotism that fosters community. It's suggested that patriotism can expand sympathy towards fellow citizens, regardless of their background, and can serve as a unifying force. The discussion compares patriotism to familial love, arguing that loving one's country does not diminish care for others but instead enhances it. This perspective urges a re-framing of patriotism as a means of collective social solidarity rather than opposition.
Nationalism Versus Patriotism
A critical distinction between nationalism and patriotism is underscored, where patriotism is framed as a potentially positive sentiment, while nationalism risks devolving into aggression or exclusion. The podcast emphasizes that while values of nationalism can give rise to unity, they can also lead to dangerous forms of prejudice and segregation. The idea that both sentiments can coexist presents a complex tapestry of relationships that must be navigated with caution. This delineation encourages listeners to reflect on how societies can maintain civic pride without devolving into nationalistic fervor that might harm inclusivity.
The Dangers of Extremism and Moral Blindness
The nature of extremism is articulated as a fixation that blinds individuals to alternative moral concerns, showcasing how this fixation can turn positive motives into harmful actions. Through examples like extreme environmental activism, the discourse illustrates how good intentions can lead to problematic behaviors when moral tunnel vision prevails. This raises the critical question of how one reconciles intense moral commitments with the need to consider broader ethical impacts. Thus, listeners are encouraged to evaluate their convictions critically and recognize potential harms stemming from unchecked extremism.
Editor’s Note: This podcast was produced as part of Persuasion’s partnership with the Civil Discourse @ MIT program, at which Spencer Case spoke late last year on the topic “Does Citizenship Require Patriotism?” To learn more about Civil Discourse @ MIT, visit the program’s website here, and to see prior episodes in the series click here.
Spencer Case hosts Micro-Digressions: A Philosophy Podcast. He's the author of many academic philosophy articles and coauthor of IsMorality Real? A Debate. He is currently an assistant teaching professor in the Bowling Green State University philosophy department.
In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Spencer Case explore the difference between patriotism and nationalism, what extremists get wrong, and how to think about self-identification in the debate about trans rights.
