The proud nation! The idea is embedded in our minds via tactics more commonly found in organised religion. Concepts of national identity are introduced early on in youth, whereby they are made to identify with the label of their nationality at a time when the child still relies upon authority figures to inform them on the workings of the wider world. Accounts of historical events are embellished and elevated to the status of simplistic mythologies, complete with noble white knights and dastardly scheming villains: already, descriptions of World War Two have transformed themselves into tales of an epic, Lord-of-the-Rings-esque struggle between Good and Evil, bereft of any profound political or sociological insight. Ancient documents and figures involved in the foundation of the state are treated as if they were sacred texts and divine prophets. This is far more prevalent in American society, where the ‘Founding Fathers’ are spoken of as if they were all-seeing, all-knowing creators, rather than fallible human beings; and where an equal level of veneration is afforded to the US Constitution, holy scripture the mandates of which are never to be contradicted. How often have you heard someone begin a sentence with “our country was founded on…” when arguing in favour of reintroducing some silly, outdated tradition? As if the antiquity of an opinion alone were enough to validate it?
Naturally, no religion would be complete without regular ceremonial rituals to firmly cement its ‘sanctity’ within the public mind. The flying of the flag, the singing of the national anthem, the self-congratulatory procession of narcissistic parades, with the marchers dressed up in elegant regal garments, the erection of memorials, plinths and statues commemorating national triumphs, and, of course, the unconditional disapproval and disdain reserved for those who express any heretical--
anti-patriotic-- views.
When it comes to political point-scoring, the invocation of patriotism has been an incredibly useful weapon; whether it’s by
calling an opponent’s patriotism into question, or by
associating yourself ardently with its perceived values.
That smarm-drenched Tory android, David Cameron, has been quick to pounce on the topic, lamenting about the state of
‘Britain’s broken society’, whilst simultaneously selling us the cure to this cataclysmic ailment, more
emphasis on national identity across the board. It clearly does not occur to the somewhat vacuous leader of the opposition that the ingrained desire to belong to a particular, predefined group is not only what draws people into their own respective camps but also what persuades them to cling to notions of national identity. For the everyday, unremarkable citizens leading a mediocre and ultimately joyless existence, national identity provides a comforting security blanket to hold onto; a false sense of purpose and importance that was previously lacking comes over them, negating any urge towards self-doubt. There is no concern shown here over the senseless appeal of narrow collectivism; Cameron instead merely laments a lack of loyalty to
his preferred collective.
Inevitably, the problem of humans’ intuitive gravitation toward hierarchical structures begins to emerge. An indisputably social animal, humans have survived throughout their history partly due to the composition of secure, tightly-knit social tribes. Whilst this social dimension of human evolution has had numerous advantages, it unfortunately also renders us all, as human beings, prone to irrational herd mentality. This is a particularly worrisome dilemma: it is not too far-fetched to suggest that humans are now intelligent enough to be able to choose any possible allegiances through logical deliberation alone; and yet, there is no getting around the fact that we have been pre-programmed to be instinctively drawn towards our tribal need to belong to a clearly demarcated social group. And unlike beliefs, instincts are not something one can be reasoned out of.
There is no immediate solution to this dilemma that I can foresee. The best thing for it seems to be simply to remain mindful of one’s own judgement, and attempt to reconcile instinct with intellect.
An apolitical argument in favour of national identity would be one that posits it as a cultural concept. That is, that even without the political aspect, we would still define different nations by their cultural differences. Personally, I feel that multiculturalism renders this somewhat redundant. After all, most progressive societies in the world today are host to a wide spectrum of people from various cultural backgrounds.
In recent
parliamentary debates on the subject of ‘Britishness’, multiculturalism has been suggested to be incompatible with integration. Frankly, this argument doesn’t hold much water with me, as I see no real conflict between the two. Multiculturalism need not be about separation, just as integration need not signify cultural castration. The conflict described within these debates was not one between multiculturalism and integration, but between insular dismissal and social engagement. Splits in the community have occurred due to indifference, stubbornness and neglect. Comprehensive dialogue and cultural exchange are pivotal components of multiculturalist ideals. Standards of identity should not be imposed upon others. Rather, we must accept that culture is a fluid, ever-fluctuating entity, the transformation of which should not be obstructed for the sake of national arrogance. Proper cultural cohesion and social integration can only come about if all parties are willing to participate in this exchange of ideas, allowing a shared culture to evolve gradually out of this process.
Patriotism contributes nothing of any worth to this. Does the patriotic idea make it easier for cultures to intermingle and expand? Hardly. It has the effect of tying down cultural characteristics to their country of origin, never to be shared with, and opened up to, those on the outside.
It might seem unrealistic to think that patriotism will fade away altogether, but nevertheless, there is no reason why we today cannot try and better our own outlooks and gaze beyond such needless boundaries. There are other places beyond the horizon, no matter what country you’re in, and what haunts you frequent. Advances in communication and technology make it easier for us to converse across vast distances, and travel to far-away locations is thousands of times easier now than it was some decades ago. We have before us the very means with which to bridge the gap between those once completely separated due to distance alone; does it not therefore stand to reason that what we must do now is discard the last piece of that barrier, in our ideologies? The ferocious irrationality of patriotism?
And so, my friends, I say to you: ask not what you can do for your country.
Ask what your country has to do with anything, at all.
