what is a true patriot essay

What Is Patriotism? Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology
• B.S., Texas A&M University

Simply stated, patriotism is the feeling of love for one’s country. Demonstrating patriotism—being “patriotic”—is one of the necessities of being the stereotypical “ good citizen .” However, patriotism, like many well-intentioned things, can be harmful when taken to an extreme .

Key Takeaways

• Patriotism is the feeling and expression of love for one’s home country, along with a feeling of unity with those who share those feelings
• Though it shares patriotism’s love of country, nationalism is the belief that one’s home county is superior to all others
• While considered a necessary attribute of good citizenship, when patriotism becomes politically mandatory, it can cross a line

Patriotism Definition

Along with love, patriotism is the feeling of pride, devotion, and attachment to a homeland, as well as a feeling of attachment to other patriotic citizens. The feelings of attachment may be further bound up in factors like race or ethnicity , culture, religious beliefs, or history.

Historic Perspective

Patriotism originated some 2,000 years before the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Greek and especially Roman antiquity provide the roots for a philosophy of political patriotism that conceives of loyalty to the “patria,”—the power that the male head of a family exercised over his children—like loyalty to a political conception of the republic. It is associated with the love of law and common liberty, the search for the common good , and the duty to behave justly toward one’s country. The Roman meaning of patria is repeated in the context of the Italian city-states of the 15th century, such as Naples and Venice, as representing the common liberty of the city, which can only be safeguarded by the citizens’ civic spirit.

To Renaissance period Italian diplomat, author, philosopher, and historian Niccolò Machiavelli , the love of common liberty enabled citizens to see their private and particular interests as part of the common good and helped them to resist corruption and tyranny. While this love of the city is typically intermixed with pride in its military strength and cultural superiority, it is the political institutions and way of life of the city that form the distinctive focal point of this kind of patriotic attachment. To love the city is to be willing to sacrifice one’s own good—including one’s life—for the protection of common liberty.

While patriotism is evident throughout history, it was not always considered a civic virtue. In 18th-century Europe, for example, devotion to the state was considered a betrayal of devotion to the church.   

Other 18th-century scholars also found fault with what they considered excessive patriotism. In 1775, Samuel Johnson , whose 1774 essay The Patriot had criticized those who falsely claimed devotion to Britain, famously called patriotism “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Arguably, America’s first patriots were its Founding Fathers who had risked their very lives to create a nation that reflected their visions of freedom with equality. They summarized this vision in The Declaration of Independence :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In that single sentence, the Founders dispelled the long-held belief of the ruling British Monarchy that an individual’s pursuit of personal happiness was nothing more than a disloyal act of self-indulgence. Instead, they acknowledged that the right of each citizen to pursue personal fulfillment was essential to the qualities, such as ambition and creativity, that would fuel the nation’s economy. As a result, the pursuit of happiness became and remains the force behind America’s entrepreneurial system of free-market capitalism .  

The Declaration of Independence further states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In this phrase, the Founding Fathers rejected the autocratic rule of monarchs and confirmed the revolutionary principle of “government of the people, by the people” as the basis of American democracy and the reason the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins with the words “We the People.”

Examples of Patriotism

There are countless ways of showing patriotism. Standing for the National Anthem and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance are obvious ones. Perhaps more importantly, many of the most beneficial acts of patriotism in the U.S. are those that both celebrate the country and make it stronger. A few of these include:

• Participating in the representative democracy by registering to vote and voting in elections .
• Volunteering for community service or running for elected government office.
• Serving on juries.
• Obeying all laws and paying taxes.
• Understanding the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

While the words patriotism and nationalism were once considered synonyms, they have taken on different connotations. While both are the feelings of love people feel for their country, the values upon which those feelings are based are very different.

Feelings of patriotism are based on the positive values the country embraces—like freedom, justice, and equality. The patriot believes that both the system of government and the people of their country are inherently good and work together for a better quality of life.

In contrast, feelings of nationalism are based on a belief that one’s country is superior to all others. It also carries a connotation of distrust or disapproval of other countries, leading to the assumption that other countries are rivals. While patriots do not automatically denigrate other countries, nationalists do, sometimes to the point of calling for their country’s global dominance. Nationalism, through its protectionist beliefs, is the polar opposite of globalism .

Historically, the effects of nationalism have been both positive and negative. While it has driven independence movements, like the Zionist movement that created modern Israel, it was also a key factor in the rise of the German Nazi Party , and the Holocaust . 

Patriotism versus nationalism arose as a political issue when U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron verbally sparred over the meaning of the terms.

At a rally on October 23, 2018, President Trump defended his populist “Make America Great Again” platform and protectionist policies of tariffs on foreign imports, officially declaring himself a “nationalist":

“A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much,” he said. “And you know what? We can't have that. You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It's called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, OK? I’m a nationalist.”

President Macron, speaking at the 100th Armistice Day ceremony in Paris on November 11, 2018, offered a different meaning of nationalism. He defined nationalism as “putting our nation first, and not caring about the others.” By rejecting the interests of other countries, Macon asserted, “we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential, its moral values.”

Pros and Cons of Patriotism

Few countries survive and prosper without some degree of patriotic feelings among their people. A love of country and shared pride bring the people together, helping them endure challenges. Without shared patriotic beliefs, colonial Americans may not have chosen to travel the road to independence from England. More recently, patriotism brought the American people together to overcome the Great Depression and achieve victory in World War II .

The potential downside of patriotism is that if it becomes a mandatory political doctrine, it can be used to turn groups of people against each other and can even lead the country to reject its fundamental values.

A few examples from United States history include:

As early as 1798, extreme patriotism, spurred by fears a war with France, led Congress to enact the Alien and Sedition Acts allowing the jailing of certain U.S. immigrants without due process of law and restricting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press .

In 1919, early fears of Communism triggered the Palmer raids resulting in the arrest and immediate deportation without trial of more than 10,000 German- and Russian-American immigrants.

After the December 7, 1941, Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor , the Franklin Roosevelt administration ordered some 127,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry imprisoned in internment camps for the duration of World War II.

During the Red Scare of the early 1950s, the McCarthy era saw thousands of Americans accused without evidence by the government of being communists or communist sympathizers. After a series of so-called “investigations” conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy, hundreds of those accused were ostracized and prosecuted for their political beliefs.

• Johnson, Samuel (1774). “ The Patriot .” SamuelJohnson.com
• “ Nationalism .” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Plato.stanford.edu
• Boswell, James, Hibbert, “The Life of Samuel Johnson.” Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-14-043116-0
• Diamond, Jeremy. “ Trump embraces 'nationalist' title at Texas rally .” CNN (October 23, 2018)
• Liptak. Kevin. “ Macron rebukes nationalism as Trump observes Armistice Day. ” CNN (November 12, 2018)
• Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?
• What Is Nationalism? Definition and Examples
• Regionalism: Definition and Examples
• What Is Totalitarianism? Definition and Examples
• Veterans Day Quotes
• Barack Obama's Inspiring 2004 Democratic Convention Speech
• 32 Patriotic Independence Day Quotes
• Your Rights and Responsibilities as a New US Citizen
• Causes of the Russian Revolution
• 'On National Prejudices' by Oliver Goldsmith
• Comparing Nationalism in China and Japan
• What Are Individual Rights? Definition and Examples
• Understanding Political Culture
• What Is Sectionalism? Definition and Examples
• Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism
• What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Patriotism Essay

Essay on Patriotism

Patriotism is more than just a word; it's a feeling that resides deep within the hearts of individuals who share a common bond with their country. In simple terms, patriotism is the love and devotion one has for their homeland. This essay explores the essence of patriotism, its significance in our daily lives, and how it contributes to the overall growth and prosperity of a nation.

Defining Patriotism

At its core, patriotism is about love and loyalty to one's country. It's the recognition of the values, culture, and shared history that bind people together. This sentiment is not limited to grand gestures or extraordinary acts; it often finds expression in simple, everyday actions that collectively contribute to the betterment of society.

Love for the Land

Patriotism begins with a genuine love for the land one calls home. It's about appreciating the natural beauty, diverse landscapes, and resources that make a country unique. Whether it's the rolling hills, expansive plains, or the sparkling waters that surround us, patriotism involves recognizing and cherishing the inherent beauty of our homeland.

Cultural Identity

A strong sense of patriotism is closely tied to cultural identity. It's the pride in the traditions, languages, and customs that have been passed down through generations. Embracing and celebrating cultural diversity fosters a sense of unity, enriching the fabric of the nation with a tapestry of different backgrounds and experiences.

Shared History

Patriotism is also rooted in a shared history that forms the foundation of a nation. Understanding the struggles, triumphs, and challenges faced by previous generations fosters a sense of continuity and responsibility. By acknowledging the sacrifices made by those who came before us, we honor their legacy and contribute to the ongoing narrative of our country.

Individual Responsibility and Civic Duty

One of the essential aspects of patriotism is the recognition of individual responsibility and civic duty. It's not just about enjoying the benefits of living in a particular country; it's about actively participating in its growth and development. This can range from voting in elections to volunteering in local communities, each act contributing to the collective well-being of the nation.

Patriotism in Daily Life

While grand displays of patriotism, such as national celebrations and parades, are noteworthy, it is in the small, everyday actions that the true essence of patriotism is often found. Acts of kindness, respect for fellow citizens, and a commitment to upholding shared values are all expressions of patriotism in daily life.

Respecting Differences

A patriotic individual understands the importance of unity in diversity. Respecting the differences among fellow citizens, whether they be cultural, religious, or ideological, is a testament to a mature and inclusive patriotism. It involves fostering an environment where everyone feels valued and accepted, contributing to a stronger and more harmonious society.

Environmental Stewardship

Caring for the environment is another manifestation of patriotism. Recognizing that the health of the land directly impacts the well-being of its inhabitants, a patriotic person takes measures to protect and preserve natural resources. This can involve sustainable practices, conservation efforts, and a commitment to reducing one's ecological footprint.

Education and Knowledge

Promoting education and knowledge is a patriotic act that invests in the future of a nation. By valuing learning, supporting educational initiatives, and encouraging intellectual curiosity, individuals contribute to the development of a knowledgeable and skilled population. A well-educated society is better equipped to face challenges and drive innovation, ensuring the continued progress of the nation.

Economic Contribution

Contributing to the economic prosperity of the country is an integral part of patriotism. This involves not only being a responsible consumer but also actively participating in the workforce. Whether through entrepreneurship, hard work, or innovation, individuals play a crucial role in building a robust and thriving economy that benefits everyone.

National Pride and Unity

Patriotism fosters a sense of national pride and unity. This pride extends beyond individual accomplishments to a collective celebration of the achievements of the entire nation. It's about recognizing and highlighting what makes the country unique and exceptional, fostering a shared sense of identity that transcends individual differences.

Challenges and Criticisms

While patriotism is generally seen as a positive force, it is essential to acknowledge that blind nationalism and exclusionary practices can emerge if taken to extremes. A healthy patriotism embraces diversity and encourages open dialogue, recognizing that different perspectives contribute to the strength and resilience of a nation.

Patriotism: A Historical Perspective

An essay on patriotism seems incomplete without delving into the historical context, particularly the role of freedom fighters. They are the heroes of times when the quest for freedom ignited the spirits of individuals who sought independence in economic, social, political, and cultural aspects.

India's Patriots

The history of India’s freedom struggle shines through the immortal courage of heroic personalities like Veer Damodar Savarkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and many more. These great patriots fought for the country and against the atrocities perpetrated on the countrymen.

Singing slogans of ‘Vande Mataram’, ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’, ‘Jay Hind’, these patriots went to the cross for the country with a smile on their faces and pride in their hearts. A very inspiring quote by Swami Vivekanand, says, “Do you love the country? Then, come, let us struggle for higher and better things; look not back, no, not even if you see the dearest and nearest cry. Look no back, but forward!”

The gist of Swami Vivekanand’s thought is that when you have started your journey on the path of the country’s welfare, then there must not be any looking back. All you need is to create a list of the priority things that you want to do for your country. Once you accomplish one thing just move ahead with the next one. The slogans like Jai Hind or Bharat Mata ki Jai work as your motivation on the path of doing something for the country. So, are you prepared to do something special for the nation?

Patriotism in Different Roles

People express their patriotism in different ways and in different roles. Soldiers, scientists, doctors, politicians, and other citizens express their patriotism through their hard work in their profession.

Indian soldiers are role models for the youth of India. Highly scrupulous, positively secular, completely apolitical, with an ethos of working hard, simple needs and frugal habits, a soldier is the epitome of courage and unflinching devotion to the country.

Mangalyaan or Mars Orbiter Mission is one of the best examples of scientists' devotion toward the country. In the pandemic situation, the hardship of doctors and nurses proves their devotion towards their country.

Patriotism does not always mean that you have to sacrifice your life for your country; contributing good service towards the country and its people is also equivalent to your sacrifice.

Mathunny Mathews has set a great example of patriotism. Mathews was an Indian, a resident in Kuwait, and was one of the people credited with the safe airlift evacuation of about 1, 70,000 Indians from Kuwait during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Only celebrating the flag hoisting ceremony on 15th August and 26th January, posing for photos with the flag, and posting on social media doesn’t imply that you are a true patriot. A real patriot is a person who has a true love for his country. He fights against the atrocities upon his countrymen by insiders or outsiders of the country.

Patriotism by Freedom Fighters

An essay on patriotism seems incomplete without the mention of freedom fighters. They are the heroes of the times when we all wanted to get freedom. We all need freedom in economic, social, political, and cultural aspects. These were the people who did not give a second thought before offering complete sacrifice to stay in a free country.

Patriotism is a simple yet profound celebration of love for our country. It encompasses a range of sentiments, from appreciation of the land and culture to a commitment to individual responsibility and civic duty. Patriotism is not a static concept; it evolves as societies grow and change. By embodying the principles of patriotism in our daily lives, we contribute to the collective well-being of our nation, ensuring a brighter future for generations to come. In the end, patriotism is about recognizing the beauty in our shared journey and working together to build a stronger, more united society. Explore the meaning of patriotism, its significance, and the diverse ways in which people express their love for their country. Learn about the role of patriotism in the lives of individuals, from freedom fighters to modern-day citizens, and understand how it contributes to the development of a nation.

FAQs on Patriotism Essay

1. How is patriotism important for a country?

Patriotism helps in promoting brotherhood and belongingness among the citizens of a country. Corruption takes a back seat when the feeling of fraternity exists among the citizens. Also, the love for one’s country creates a feeling of responsibility towards the countrymen and brings forth the best of their services, in various fields.

For example, when an IAS officer is a true patriot at heart, he will ensure that there is no corruption in his immediate system and best efforts are being delivered by his team. Similarly, doctors, soldiers, scientists, and people from every walk of life put their best efforts into serving their countrymen, when they have patriotism deep down in their hearts.

2. What are the important points to be written in an essay on patriotism?

The following outlines will help you write an essay on patriotism in your own words.

What is the meaning of patriotism in simple words?

How is patriotism different from nationalism?

Who were the great patriots of India?

Role of patriotic personalities in India’s freedom struggle.

Showcasing patriotism on Independence Day and Republic Day through social media posts is not always a sign of true patriotism.

How does patriotism play a role in the development of a nation?

These are the basic points for this essay topic, and you may add more examples of patriotic personalities and emphasize the role of patriotism in safeguarding the interests of a nation, in your essay, depending upon the required word count.

3. How can I express my patriotism?

There are many ways to express your patriotism. Some common examples include:

Participating in civic duties, such as voting and volunteering.

Obeying the law and respecting the national symbols.

Educating yourself about your country's history and culture.

Supporting your country's athletes and teams in international competitions.

Contributing to social causes and community development efforts.

4. Is patriotism the same as nationalism?

No, patriotism and nationalism are not the same. Patriotism is a positive feeling of love and pride for one's country, while nationalism can be a more extreme and exclusionary ideology that emphasizes the superiority of one's own nation over others.

5. Can patriotism be dangerous?

Yes, patriotism can be dangerous if it is used to justify harmful actions, such as discrimination against other countries or groups of people. It is important to remember that patriotism should be combined with other values, such as tolerance, respect for human rights, and a commitment to international cooperation.

6. What are some good examples of patriotism in history?

There are many examples of people who have expressed patriotism in positive ways throughout history. Some famous examples include:

Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight for civil rights in the United States.

Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent resistance to British rule in India.

Nelson Mandela's fight against apartheid in South Africa.

The volunteers who helped rebuild communities after natural disasters.

7. What are some common arguments against patriotism?

Some people argue that patriotism is outdated, irrelevant, or even harmful. Some common arguments against patriotism include:

It can be used to justify war and violence.

It can lead to blind obedience and a lack of critical thinking.

It can be used to exclude and discriminate against minority groups.

It can be a form of tribalism that creates divisions between people.

Essay on Patriotism for Students and Children

500+ words essay on patriotism.

Essay on Patriotism: Patriotism refers to the passionate love one has for their country. This virtue pushes to citizens of a country to work for their country selflessly and make it better. A truly developed country is made up of true patriots. In other words, patriotism means keeping the country’s interest first and then thinking about oneself. Patriotism can be specifically seen during times of war. Moreover, it helps in building the nation stronger. There are other significances of patriotism as well.

Significance of Patriotism

Usually, we refer to our country as our motherland. This further proves that we must have the same love for our country as we have for our mother. After all, our country is no less than a mother; it nurtures us and helps us grow. Everyone must possess the virtue of patriotism as it makes it better.

In addition, it also enhances the life quality of the citizens . It does that by making people work for the collective interest of the country. When everyone works for the betterment of the country, there would be no conflict of interest. Thus, a happier environment will prevail.

After that, peace and harmony will be maintained through patriotism. When the citizens have the spirit of brotherhood, they will support one another. Hence, it will make the country more harmonious.

In short, patriotism does have great importance in developing the country. It eliminates any selfish and harmful motives which in turn lessens corruption. Similarly, when the government becomes free of corruption , the country will develop faster.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Great Patriots of India

India has had a fair share of patriots from the very beginning. The struggle for independence gave birth to various patriots. These patriots have made a lot of sacrifices for the county to flourish and prosper. Their names have gone down in history and are still taken with respect and admiration. Some of the greatest patriots of India were Rani Lakshmi Bai, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, and Maulana Azad.

Rani Lakshmi Bai was one of the most famous patriots of the country. Her courage and bravery are still talked about. Her name always comes up in the revolt of 1857. She revolted against the British rule and to fight for independence. She gave her life fighting on the battlefield for our country.

Shaheed Bhagat Singh is another name that is synonymous with patriotism. He was determined to free India from the clutches of the British rule. He was a part of several freedom struggles. Similarly, he also started a revolution for the same. He dedicated his life to this mission and died as a martyr for the love of his country.

Maulana Azad was a true patriot. The first education minister of India played a great role in the freedom struggle. He traveled through cities and created awareness of the injustices by the British. He united people through his activism and led India to freedom.

In conclusion, these are just a few who were patriots of the country. They lived for their country and did not hesitate before devoting their lives to it. These names are shining examples for the generations to come. We must possess patriotism and work for our motherland to see it succeed.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [{ “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Why is patriotism important?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Patriotism is important for the development of a country. It helps in nation-building and driving people to work for the betterment of the country. Furthermore, it fights corruption as well.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Name some of the patriots of India.”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”:”India has had a lot of true patriots, especially during the British reign. Some of the renowned ones were Rani Lakshmi Bai, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, and Maulana Azad.”} }] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Patriotism raises questions of the sort philosophers characteristically discuss: How is patriotism to be defined? How is it related to similar attitudes, such as nationalism? What is its moral standing: is it morally valuable or perhaps even mandatory, or is it rather a stance we should avoid? Yet until a few decades ago, philosophers used to show next to no interest in the subject. The article on patriotism in the Historical Dictionary of Philosophy , reviewing the use of the term from the 16 th century to our own times, gives numerous references, but they are mostly to authors who were not philosophers. Moreover, of the few well known philosophers cited, only one, J. G. Fichte, gave the subject more than a passing reference – and most of what Fichte had to say actually pertains to nationalism, rather than patriotism (see Busch and Dierse 1989).

This changed in the 1980s. The change was due, in part, to the revival of communitarianism, which came in response to the individualistic, liberal political and moral philosophy epitomized by John Rawls’ Theory of Justice (1971); but it was also due to the resurgence of nationalism in several parts of the world. The beginning of this change was marked by Andrew Oldenquist’s account of morality as a matter of various loyalties, rather than abstract principles and ideals (Oldenquist 1982), and Alasdair MacIntyre’s argument that patriotism is a central moral virtue (MacIntyre 1984). Largely in response to MacIntyre, some philosophers have defended constrained or deflated versions of patriotism (Baron 1989, Nathanson 1989, Primoratz 2002). Others have argued against patriotism of any sort (Gomberg 1990, McCabe 1997, Keller 2005). There is now a lively philosophical debate about the moral credentials of patriotism that shows no signs of abating. A parallel discussion in political philosophy concerns the kind of patriotism that might provide an alternative to nationalism as the ethos of a stable, well-functioning polity.

1.1 What is patriotism?

1.2 patriotism and nationalism, 2.1 patriotism and the ethics of belief, 2.2 the moral standing of patriotism, 3. the political import of patriotism, other internet resources, related entries, 1. conceptual issues.

The standard dictionary definition reads “love of one’s country.” This captures the core meaning of the term in ordinary use; but it might well be thought too thin and in need of fleshing out. In the first philosophical book-length study of the subject, Stephen Nathanson (1993, 34–35) defines patriotism as involving:

• Special affection for one’s own country
• A sense of personal identification with the country
• Special concern for the well-being of the country
• Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good

There is little to cavil about here. There is no great difference between special affection and love, and Nathanson himself uses the terms interchangeably. Although love (or special affection) is usually given expression in special concern for its object, that is not necessary. But a person whose love for her country was not expressed in any special concern for it would scarcely be considered a patriot. Therefore the definition needs to include such concern. Once that is included, however, a willingness to make sacrifices for one’s country is implied, and need not be added as a separate component. Identification with the country, too, might be thought implied in the phrase “one’s country.” But the phrase is extremely vague, and allows for a country to be called “one’s own” in an extremely thin, formal sense too. It seems that if one is to be a patriot of a country, the country must be his in some significant sense; and that may be best captured by speaking of one’s identification with it. Such identification is expressed in vicarious feelings: in pride of one’s country’s merits and achievements, and in shame for its lapses or crimes (when these are acknowledged, rather than denied).

Accordingly, patriotism can be defined as love of one’s country, identification with it, and special concern for its well-being and that of compatriots.

This is only a definition. A fuller account of patriotism is beyond the scope of this article. Such an account would say something about the patriot’s beliefs about the merits of his country, his need to belong to a group and be a part of a more encompassing narrative, to be related to a past and a future that transcend the narrow confines of an individual’s life and its mundane concerns, as well as social and political conditions that affect the ebb and flow of patriotism, its political and cultural influence, and more.

Discussions of both patriotism and nationalism are often marred by lack of clarity due to the failure to distinguish the two. Many authors use the two terms interchangeably. Among those who do not, quite a few have made the distinction in ways that are not very helpful. In the 19 th century, Lord Acton contrasted “nationality” and patriotism as affection and instinct vs. a moral relation. Nationality is “our connection with the race” that is “merely natural or physical,” while patriotism is the awareness of our moral duties to the political community (Acton 1972, 163). In the 20 th century, Elie Kedourie did the opposite, presenting nationalism as a full-fledged philosophical and political doctrine about nations as basic units of humanity within which the individual can find freedom and fulfilment, and patriotism as mere sentiment of affection for one’s country (Kedourie 1985, 73–74).

George Orwell contrasted the two in terms of aggressive vs. defensive attitudes. Nationalism is about power: its adherent wants to acquire as much power and prestige as possible for his nation, in which he submerges his individuality. While nationalism is accordingly aggressive, patriotism is defensive: it is a devotion to a particular place and a way of life one thinks best, but has no wish to impose on others (Orwell 1968, 362). This way of distinguishing the two attitudes comes close to an approach popular among politicians and widespread in everyday discourse that indicates a double standard of the form “us vs. them.” Country and nation are first run together, and then patriotism and nationalism are distinguished in terms of the strength of the love and special concern one feels for it, the degree of one’s identification with it. When these are exhibited in a reasonable degree and without ill thoughts about others and hostile actions towards them, that is patriotism; when they become unbridled and cause one to think ill of others and act badly towards them, that is nationalism. Conveniently enough, it usually turns out that we are patriots, while they are nationalists (see Billig 1995, 55–59).

There is yet another way of distinguishing patriotism and nationalism – one that is quite simple and begs no moral questions. We can put aside the political sense of “nation” that makes it identical with “country,” “state,” or “polity,” and the political or civic type of nationalism related to it. We need concern ourselves only with the other, ethnic or cultural sense of “nation,” and focus on ethnic or cultural nationalism. In order to do so, we do not have to spell out the relevant understanding of “nation”; it is enough to characterize it in terms of common ancestry, history, and a set of cultural traits. Both patriotism and nationalism involve love of, identification with, and special concern for a certain entity. In the case of patriotism, that entity is one’s patria , one’s country; in the case of nationalism, that entity is one’s natio , one’s nation (in the ethnic/cultural sense of the term). Thus patriotism and nationalism are understood as the same type of set of beliefs and attitudes, and distinguished in terms of their objects, rather than the strength of those beliefs and attitudes, or as sentiment vs. theory.

To be sure, there is much overlap between country and nation, and therefore between patriotism and nationalism; thus much that applies to one will also apply to the other. But when a country is not ethnically homogeneous, or when a nation lacks a country of its own, the two may part ways.

2. Normative issues

Patriotism has had a fair number of critics. The harshest among them have judged it deeply flawed in every important respect. In the 19 th century, Russian novelist and thinker Leo Tolstoy found patriotism both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best of all whereas, obviously, only one country can qualify. It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries and by any means, including war, and is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us (Tolstoy 1987, 97). Recently, Tolstoy’s critique has been seconded by American political theorist George Kateb, who argues that patriotism is “a mistake twice over: it is typically a grave moral error and its source is typically a state of mental confusion” (Kateb 2000, 901). Patriotism is most importantly expressed in a readiness to die and to kill for one’s country. But a country “is not a discernible collection of discernible individuals”; it is rather “an abstraction … a compound of a few actual and many imaginary ingredients.” Specifically, in addition to being a delimited territory, “it is also constructed out of transmitted memories true and false; a history usually mostly falsely sanitized or falsely heroized; a sense of kinship of a largely invented purity; and social ties that are largely invisible or impersonal, indeed abstract …” Therefore patriotism is “a readiness to die and to kill for an abstraction … for what is largely a figment of the imagination” (907).

Some of these objections can easily be countered. Even if full-fledged patriotism does involve a belief in one’s country’s merits, it need not involve the belief that one’s country is better than all others. And the fact that a country is not a collection of “discernible individuals” and that the social ties among compatriots are “largely invisible or impersonal,” rather than palpable and face-to-face, does not show that it is unreal or imaginary. As Benedict Anderson, who coined the term “imagined community,” points out, “all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact … are imagined.” “Imagined community” is not the opposite of “real community,” but rather of community whose members have face-to-face relations (Anderson 1991, 6).

However, there is another, more plausible line of criticism of patriotism focusing on its intellectual, rather than moral credentials. Moreover, Tolstoy’s and Kateb’s arguments questioning the moral legitimacy of patriotic partiality and those highlighting the connection of patriotism with international tensions and war cannot be so easily refuted.

When asked “why do you love your country?” or “why are you loyal to it?”, a patriot is likely to take the question to mean “what is so good about your country that you should love it, or be loyal to it?” and then adduce what she believes to be its virtues and achievements. This suggests that patriotism can be judged from the standpoint of ethics of belief – a set of norms for evaluating our beliefs and other doxastic states. Simon Keller has examined patriotism from this point of view, and found it wanting.

Keller argues that whereas one’s love of and loyalty to a family member or a friend may coexist with a low estimate of the person’s qualities, patriotism involves endorsement of one’s country. If the patriot is to endorse her country, she must consider her beliefs about the country’s virtues and achievements to be based on some objectively valid standards of value and an unbiased examination of the country’s past and present record that leads to the conclusion that it lives up to those standards. However, the patriot’s loyalty is not focused on her country simply because it instantiates a set of virtues a country can have. If that were the case, and if a neighboring country turned out to have such virtues to an even higher degree, the patriot’s loyalty would be redirected accordingly. She is loyal to her country because that country, and only that country, is her country; hers is a loyalty “in the first instance.” Thus the patriot is motivated to think of the patria as blessed by all manner of virtues and achievements whether the evidence, interpreted objectively, warrants that or not. Accordingly, she forms beliefs about her country in ways different from the ways in which she forms beliefs about other countries. Moreover, she cannot admit this motivation while at the same time remaining a patriot. This leads her to hide from herself the true source of some of the beliefs involved. This is bad faith. Bad faith is bad; so is patriotism, as well as every identity, individual or collective, constituted, in part, by patriotic loyalty. This, in Keller’s view, amounts to “a clear presumptive case against patriotism’s being a virtue and for its being a vice” (Keller 2005, 587–88).

This portrayal does seem accurate as far as much patriotism as we know it is concerned. Yet Keller may be overstating his case as one against patriotism as such. When queried about one’s loyalty to one’s country, couldn’t one say: “This is my country, my home; I need no further reason to be loyal to it and show special concern for its well-being”? This might not be a very satisfactory answer; we might agree with J.B. Zimmermann that “the love for one’s country … is in many cases no more than the love of an ass for its stall” (quoted in Nathanson 1993, 3). But however egocentric, irrational, asinine, surely it qualifies as patriotism. (In a later statement of his argument (2007a, 80–81), Keller seems to be of two minds on this point.)

Many think of patriotism as a natural and appropriate expression of attachment to the country in which we were born and raised and of gratitude for the benefits of life on its soil, among its people, and under its laws. They also consider patriotism an important component of our identity. Some go further, and argue that patriotism is morally mandatory, or even that it is the core of morality. There is, however, a major tradition in moral philosophy which understands morality as essentially universal and impartial, and seems to rule out local, partial attachment and loyalty. Adherents of this tradition tend to think of patriotism as a type of group egoism , a morally arbitrary partiality to “one’s own” at odds with demands of universal justice and common human solidarity. A related objection is that patriotism is exclusive in invidious and dangerous ways. Love of one’s own country characteristically goes together with dislike of and hostility towards other countries. It tends to encourage militarism, and makes for international tension and conflict. Tolstoy’s and Kateb’s moral objections to patriotism, mentioned above, are in line with this position.

What, then, is the moral status of patriotism? The question does not admit of a single answer. We can distinguish five types of patriotism, and each needs to be judged on its merits.

2.2.1 Extreme patriotism

Machiavelli is famous (or infamous) for teaching princes that, human nature being what it is, if they propose to do their job well, they must be willing to break their promises, to deceive, dissemble, and use violence, sometimes in cruel ways and on a large scale, when political circumstances require such actions. This may or may not be relevant to the question of patriotism, depending on just what we take the point of princely rule to be. A less well known part of Machiavelli’s teaching, however, is relevant; for he sought to impart the same lesson to politicians and common citizens of a republic. “When the safety of one’s country wholly depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious” (Machiavelli 1998 [1518], 515). The paramount interests of one’s country override any moral consideration with which they might come into conflict.

This type of patriotism is extreme, but by no means extremely rare. It is adopted much too often by politicians and common citizens alike when their country’s major interests are thought to be at stake. It is encapsulated in the saying “our country, right or wrong,” at least on the simplest and most obvious construal of this saying. Not much needs to be said about the moral standing of this type of patriotism, as it amounts to rejection of morality. “Our country, right or wrong ” cannot be right.

2.2.2 Robust patriotism

In his seminal lecture “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” Alasdair MacIntyre contrasts patriotism with the liberal commitment to certain universal values and principles. On the liberal view, where and from whom I learn the principles of morality is just as irrelevant to their contents and to my commitment to them, as where and from whom I learn the principles of mathematics is irrelevant to their contents and my adherence to them. For MacIntyre, where and from whom I learn my morality is of decisive importance both for my commitment to it and for its very contents.

There is no morality as such; morality is always the morality of a particular community. One can understand and internalize moral rules only “in and through the way of life of [one’s] community” (MacIntyre 1984, 8). Moral rules are justified in terms of certain goods they express and promote; but these goods, too, are always given as part and parcel of the way of life of a community. The individual becomes a moral agent only when informed as such by his community. He also lives and flourishes as one because he is sustained in his moral life by his community. “… I can only be a moral agent because we are moral agents … Detached from my community, I will be apt to lose my hold upon all genuine standards of judgment” (10–11).

If I can live and flourish as a moral agent only as a member of my community, while playing the role this membership involves, then my very identity is bound up with that of my community, its history, traditions, institutions, and aspirations. Therefore,

if I do not understand the enacted narrative of my own individual life as embedded in the history of my country … I will not understand what I owe to others or what others owe to me, for what crimes of my nation I am bound to make reparation, for what benefits to my nation I am bound to feel gratitude. Understanding what is owed to and by me and understanding the history of the communities of which I am a part is … one and the same thing. (16)

This leads MacIntyre to conclude that patriotism is not to be contrasted with morality; it is rather a central moral virtue, indeed the bedrock of morality.

The object of patriotic loyalty is one’s country and polity; but this does not mean that a patriot will support any government in power in her country. Here MacIntyre’s position is different from a popular version of patriotism that tends to conflate the two. The patriot’s allegiance, he says, is not to the status quo of power, but rather to “the nation conceived as a project ” (13). One can oppose one’s country’s government in the name of the country’s true character, history, and aspirations. To that extent, this type of patriotism is critical and rational. But at least some practices and projects of the patria , some of its “large interests,” must be beyond questioning and critical scrutiny. To that extent, MacIntyre grants that what he considers true patriotism is “a fundamentally irrational attitude” (13). But a more rational and therefore more constrained loyalty would be “emasculated,” rather than real patriotism.

This account of patriotism is exposed to several objections. One might question the communitarian foundations of MacIntyre’s case for patriotism: his view of the moral primacy of the community over the individual. One might find fault with the step from communitarianism to patriotism:

Even if his communitarian conception of morality were correct and even if the process of moral development ensured that group loyalty would emerge as a central virtue, no conclusion would follow about the importance of patriotism. The group to which our primary loyalty would be owed would be the group from which we had obtained our moral understanding. This need not be the community as a whole or any political unit, however. It could be one’s family, one’s town, one’s religion. The nation need not be the source of morality or the primary beneficiary of our loyalty. (Nathanson 1989, 549)

Yet another objection would focus on the fundamentally irrational character of robust patriotism: its insistence that “large interests” of the patria must be beyond questioning.

MacIntyre concedes that “on occasion patriotism might require me to support and work for the success of some enterprise of my nation as crucial to its overall project … when the success of that enterprise would not be in the best interests of mankind” (14). If so, this type of patriotism would seem to involve the rejection of such basic moral notions as universal justice and common human solidarity.

Tolstoy and other critics have argued that patriotism is incompatible with these notions – that it is egoism writ large, an exclusive and ultimately aggressive concern for one’s country, and a major cause of international tensions and war. This is not a fair objection to patriotism as such. Patriotism is defined as a special concern for one’s country’s well-being, and that is not the same as an exclusive and aggressive concern for it. But the objection is pertinent, and has considerable force, when brought up against the type of patriotism advocated by MacIntyre. MacIntyre’s patriot may promote his country’s interests in a critical, and therefore non-exclusive way, over a range of issues. But when it comes to those “large interests” of his country that are beyond criticism and must be supported in an irrational way, his concern will inevitably become exclusive, and most likely aggressive too. If justice is understood in universal, rather than parochial terms, if common human solidarity counts as a weighty moral consideration, and if peace is of paramount importance and war is morally permissible only when it is just, then this kind of patriotism must be rejected.

2.2.3 Moderate patriotism

Rejecting robust patriotism does not entail adopting sweeping impartialism that acknowledges no special obligations, and allows no partiality, to “our own.” Nor does it entail adopting the more restricted, cosmopolitan position, that allows no partiality to our own country and compatriots. There is considerable middle ground between these extremes. Exploring this middle ground has led some philosophers to construct positions accommodating both the universal and the particular point of view – both the mandates of universal justice and claims of common humanity, and the concern for the patria and compatriots.

One such position is “patriotism compatible with liberal morality,” or “liberal patriotism” for short, advocated by Marcia Baron (1989). Baron argues that the conflict between impartiality and partiality is not quite as deep as it may seem. Morality allows for both types of considerations, as they pertain to different levels of moral deliberation. At one level, we are often justified in taking into account our particular commitments and attachments, including those to our country. At another level, we can and ought to reflect on such commitments and attachments from a universal, impartial point of view, to delineate their proper scope and determine their weight. We can conclude, for example, “that with respect to certain matters and within limits, it is good for an American to judge as an American, and to put American interests first” (Baron 1989, 272). In such a case, partiality and particular concerns are judged to be legitimate and indeed valuable from an impartial, universal point of view. This means that with respect to those matters and within the same limits, it is also good for a Cuban to judge as a Cuban and to put Cuban interests first, etc. Actually, this is how we think of our special obligations to, and preferences for, our family, friends, or local community; this kind of partiality is legitimate, and indeed valuable, not only for us but for anyone.

In MacIntyre’s view, the type of partiality in general, and patriotism in particular, that is at work only at one level of moral deliberation and against the background of impartiality at another, higher level, lacks content and weight. For Baron, on the other hand, MacIntyre’s strongly particularistic type of patriotism is irrational and morally hazardous. Baron also finds problematic the popular understanding of patriotism which focuses on the country’s might and its interests as determined by whatever government is in power. She emphasizes concern for the country’s cultural and moral excellence. By doing so, she argues, our patriotism will leave room for serious, even radical criticism of our country, and will not be a force for dissension and conflict in the international arena.

Another middle-of-the-road view is “moderate patriotism” propounded by Stephen Nathanson (1989, 1993). He, too, rejects the choice between MacIntyre’s robust patriotism and cosmopolitanism, and argues that impartiality required by morality allows for particular attachments and special obligations by distinguishing different levels of moral thinking. A good example is provided by the Ten Commandments, a major document of Western morality. The wording of the commandments is for the most part universal, impartial; but they also tell us “honor your father and your mother.”

The kind of patriotism defended by Nathanson and Baron is moderate in several distinct, but related respects. It is not unbridled: it does not enjoin the patriot to promote his country’s interests under any circumstances and by any means. It acknowledges the constraints morality imposes on the pursuit of our individual and collective goals. For instance, it may require the patriot to fight for his country, but only in so far as the war is, and remains, just. Adherents of both extreme and robust patriotism will consider themselves bound to fight for their country whether its cause be just or not. Extreme patriots will also fight for it in whatever way it takes to win. Whether adherents of MacIntyre’s robust patriotism, too, will do so is a moot point. If they do not, that will be because the morality of their own community places certain constraints on warfare, whether of a particularistic type (“a German officer does not execute POWs”), or by incorporating some universalistic moral precepts (“an officer does not execute POWs”).

Moderate patriotism is not exclusive. Its adherent will show special concern for his country and compatriots, but that will not prevent him from showing concern for other countries and their inhabitants. Moreover, this kind of patriotism allows for the possibility that under certain circumstances the concern for human beings in general will override the concern for one’s country and compatriots. Such patriotism is compatible with a decent degree of humanitarianism. By contrast, both extreme and robust patriotism give greater weight to the (substantial) interests of one’s country and compatriots than to those of other countries and their inhabitants whenever these interests come into conflict.

Finally, moderate patriotism is not uncritical, unconditional, or egocentric. For an adherent of this type of patriotism, it is not enough that the country is her country. She will also expect it to live up to certain standards and thereby deserve her support, devotion, and special concern for its well-being. When it fails to do so, she will withhold support. Adherents of both extreme and robust patriotism, on the other hand, love their country unconditionally, and stand by it whatever it does as long as its “safety” or its “large interests” more generally are concerned.

Baron and Nathanson have found a middle ground between sweeping cosmopolitanism that allows for no attachment and loyalty to one’s country and compatriots, and extreme or robust patriotism that rejects universal moral considerations (except those that have become part and parcel of one’s country’s morality). They have shown that the main objections usually advanced against patriotism as such apply only to its extreme or robust varieties, but not to its “liberal” or “moderate” versions. The latter type of patriotism need not conflict with impartial justice or common human solidarity. It will therefore be judged morally unobjectionable by all except some adherents of a strict type of cosmopolitanism .

However, both Baron and Nathanson fail to distinguish clearly between showing that their preferred type of patriotism is morally unobjectionable and showing that it is morally required or virtuous, and sometimes seem to be assuming that by showing the former, they are also showing the latter. Yet there is a gap between the two claims, and the latter, stronger case for moderate patriotism still needs to be made.

2.2.4 Deflated patriotism

What is the case for the claim that moderate patriotism is morally mandatory – that we have a duty of special concern for the well-being of our country and compatriots, similar to special duties to family or friends?

Gratitude is probably the most popular among the grounds adduced for patriotic duty. Echoing Socrates in Plato’s Crito (51c-51d), Maurizio Viroli writes: “… We have a moral obligation towards our country because we are indebted to it. We owe our country our life, our education, our language, and, in the most fortunate cases, our liberty. If we want to be moral persons, we must return what we have received, at least in part, by serving the common good” (Viroli 1995, 9).

Both Socrates and Viroli are exaggerating the benefits bestowed on us by our country; surely any gratitude owed for being born or brought up is owed to parents, rather than patria . But there are important benefits we have received from our country; the argument is that we are bound to show gratitude for them, and that the appropriate way to do so is to show special concern for the well-being of the country and compatriots.

One worry here is that considerations of gratitude normally arise in interpersonal relations. We also speak of gratitude to large and impersonal entities – our school, profession, or even our country – but that seems to be an abbreviated way of referring to gratitude to particular persons who have acted on behalf of these entities. A debt of gratitude is not incurred by any benefit received. If a benefit is conferred inadvertently, or advisedly but for the wrong reason (e.g. for the sake of the benefactor’s public image), gratitude will be misplaced. We owe a moral debt of gratitude (rather than the mere “thank you” of good manners) only to those who confer benefits on us deliberately and for the right reason, namely out of concern for our own good. And we cannot talk with confidence about the reasons a large and complex group or institution has for its actions.

Perhaps we can think of compatriots as an aggregate of individuals. Do we owe them a debt of gratitude for the benefits of life among them? Again, it depends on the reason for their law-abiding behavior and social cooperation generally. But there is no single reason common to all or even most of them. Some do their part without giving much thought to the reasons for doing so; others believe that doing so is, in the long run, the most prudent policy; still others act out of altruistic motives. Only the last group – surely a tiny minority – would be a proper object of our gratitude.

Moreover, gratitude is appropriate only for a benefit conferred freely, as a gift, and not as a quid pro quo . But most of the benefits we receive from our country are of the latter sort: benefits we have paid for by our own law-abiding behavior in general, and through taxation in particular.

The benefits one has received from her country might be considered relevant to the duty of patriotism in a different way: as raising the issue of fairness . One’s country is not a land inhabited by strangers to whom we owe nothing beyond what we owe to any other human being. It is rather a common enterprise that produces and distributes a wide range of benefits. These benefits are made possible by cooperation of those who live in the country, participate in the enterprise, owe and render allegiance to the polity. The rules that regulate the cooperation and determine the distribution of burdens and benefits enjoin, among other things, special concern for the well-being of compatriots which is not due to outsiders. As Richard Dagger puts it:

Compatriots take priority because we owe it to them as a matter of reciprocity. Everyone, compatriot or not, has a claim to our respect and concern … but those who join with us in cooperative enterprises have a claim to special recognition. Their cooperation enables us to enjoy the benefits of the enterprise, and fairness demands that we reciprocate. … We must accord our fellow citizens a special status, a priority over those who stand outside the special relationship constituted by the political enterprise. […] [Our fellow citizens] have a claim on us … that extends to include the notion that compatriots take priority. (Dagger 1985, 446, 443)

This argument conflates the issue of patriotism with that of political obligation , and the notion of a patriot with that of a citizen. Unlike informal cooperation among tenants in a building, for instance, cooperation on the scale of a country is regulated by a set of laws. To do one’s part within such a cooperative enterprise is just to obey the laws, to act as a citizen. Whether we have a moral duty to obey the laws of our country is one of the central issues in modern political philosophy, discussed under the heading of political obligation. One major account of political obligation is that of fairness. If successful, that account shows that we do have a moral duty to abide by the laws of our country, to act as citizens, and that this duty is one of fairness. To fail to abide by one’s country’s laws is to fail to reciprocate, to take advantage of compatriots, to act unfairly towards them. But whereas a patriot is also a citizen, a citizen is not necessarily a patriot. Patriotism involves special concern for the patria and compatriots, a concern that goes beyond what the laws obligate one to do, beyond what one does as a citizen; that is, beyond what one ought, in fairness , to do. Failing to show that concern, however, cannot be unfair – except on the question-begging assumption that, in addition to state law, cooperation on this scale is also based on, and regulated by, a moral rule enjoining special concern for the well-being of the country and compatriots. Dagger asserts that the claim our compatriots have on us “extends to include” such concern, but provides no argument in support of this extension.

Some philosophers seek to ground patriotic duty in its good consequences (see the entry on consequentialism ). The duty of special concern for the well-being of our country and compatriots, just like other duties, universal and special, is justified by the good consequences of its adoption. Special duties mediate our fundamental, universal duties and make possible their most effective discharge. They establish a division of moral labor, necessary because our capacity of doing good is limited by our resources and circumstances. Each of us can normally be of greater assistance to those who are in some way close to us than to those who are not. By attending first to “our own,” we at the same time promote the good of humanity in the best way possible.

Patriots will find this account of their love of and loyalty to their country alien to what they feel patriotism is all about. It presents the duty of special concern for the well-being of one’s country and compatriots as a device for assigning to individuals some universal duties. Patriotic duty owes its moral force to the moral force of those universal duties. But if so, then, as a proponent of this understanding of patriotism concedes, “it turns out that ‘our fellow countrymen’ are not so very special after all” (Goodin 1988, 679). They merely happen to be the beneficiaries of the most effective way of putting into practice our concern for human beings in general. The special relationship between the patriot and the patria and compatriots – the relationship of love and identification – has been dissolved.

There is also a view of patriotic duty that, in contrast to the consequentialist account, does not dissolve, but rather highlight this relationship. That is the view of patriotism as an associative duty (see the entry on special obligations , section 4). It is based on an understanding of special relationships as intrinsically valuable and involving duties of special concern for the well-being of those we are related to. Such duties are not means of creating or maintaining those relationships, but rather their part and parcel, and can only be understood, and justified, as such, just as those relationships can only be understood as involving the special duties pertaining to them (while involving much else besides). For instance, one who denies that she has an obligation of special concern for the well-being of her friend shows that she no longer perceives and treats the person concerned as a friend, that (as far as she is concerned) the friendship is gone. One who denies that people in general have a duty of special concern for the well-being of their friends shows that she does not understand what friendship is.

Andrew Mason has offered an argument for the duty of special concern for the well-being of compatriots based on the value embodied in our relationship to compatriots, that of common citizenship. By “citizenship” he does not mean mere legal status, but takes the term in a moral sense, which involves equal standing. Citizenship in this sense is an intrinsically valuable relationship, and grounds certain special duties fellow citizens have to one another. Now citizenship obviously has considerable instrumental value; but how is it valuable in itself?

Citizenship has intrinsic value because in virtue of being a citizen a person is a member of a collective body in which they enjoy equal status with its other members and are thereby provided with recognition. This collective body exercises significant control over its members’ conditions of existence (a degree of control which none of its members individually possesses). It offers them the opportunity to contribute to the cultural environment in which its laws and policies are determined, and opportunities to participate directly and indirectly in the formation of these laws and policies. (Mason 1997, 442)

Mason goes on to claim:

Part of what it is to be a citizen is to incur special obligations: these obligations give content to what it is to be committed or loyal fellow citizen and are justified by the good of the wider relationship to which they contribute. In particular, citizens have an obligation to each other to participate fully in public life and an obligation to give priority to the needs of fellow citizens. (442)

The first of these two special duties can be put aside, as it is not specific to patriotism, but rather pertains to citizenship. It is the second that is at issue. If we indeed have a duty of special concern towards compatriots, and if that is an associative duty, that is because our association with them is intrinsically valuable and bound up with this duty. The claim about the intrinsic value of our association might be thought a moot point. But even if it were conceded, one might still resist the claim concerning the alleged duty. If someone were to deny that she has a duty of special concern for the well-being of her country and compatriots, beyond what the laws of her country mandate and beyond the concern she has for humans and humanity, would she thereby cease to be a citizen (in the sense involving equal standing)? If she were to deny that citizens generally have such an obligation, would that betray lack of understanding of what citizenship (in the relevant sense) is? If she came across two strangers in a life-threatening situation and could only save one, would she have a prima facie moral duty to save the one who was a compatriot? Mason’s position commits him to answering “yes” in each case, but all three claims are implausible (Primoratz 2009).

All the main arguments for the claim that patriotism is a duty, then, are exposed to serious objections. Unless a new, more convincing case for patriotism can be made, we have no good reason to think that patriotism is a moral duty.

If not a duty, is patriotism morally valuable? Someone showing concern for the well-being of others well beyond the degree of concern for others required of all of us is considered a morally better person than the rest of us (other things equal), an example of supererogatory virtue. Patriotism is a special concern for the well-being of one’s country and compatriots, a concern beyond what we owe other people and communities. Isn’t a patriot, then, a morally better person than the rest of us (other things equal)? Isn’t patriotism a supererogatory virtue?

One standard example of such virtue is the type of concern for those in an extreme plight shown by the late Mother Theresa, or by Doctors Without Borders. But they are exemplars of moral virtue for the same reason that makes a more modest degree of concern for others a moral duty falling on all of us. The same moral value, sympathy for and assistance to people in need, grounds a certain degree of concern for others as a general moral duty and explains why a significantly higher degree of such concern is a moral ideal. This explanation, however, does not apply in the case of patriotism. Patriotism is not but another extension of the duty of concern for others; it is a special concern for my country because it is my country, for my compatriots because they are my compatriots. Unlike Mother Theresa and Doctors Without Borders, whose concern is for all destitute, sick, dying persons they can reach, the concern of the patriot is by definition selective; and the selection is performed by the word “my.” But the word “my” cannot, by itself, play the critical role in an argument showing that a certain stance is morally valuable. If it could, other types of partialism, such as tribalism, racism, or sexism, would by the same token prove morally valuable too.

If patriotism is neither a moral duty nor a supererogatory virtue, then all its moral pretensions have been deflated. It has no positive moral significance. There is nothing to be said for it, morally speaking. We all have various preferences for places and people, tend to identify with many groups, large and small, to think of them as in some sense ours, and to show a degree of special concern for their members. But however important in other respects these preferences, identifications, and concerns might be, they lack positive moral import. They are morally permissible as long as they are kept within certain limits, but morally indifferent in themselves. The same is true of patriotism (Primoratz 2002).

2.2.5 Ethical patriotism

All four types of patriotism reviewed so far seek to defend and promote what might be termed the worldly, i.e. non-moral, interests of the patria : its political stability, military power, riches, influence in the international arena, and cultural vibrancy. They differ with regard to the lengths to which these interests will be promoted: adherents of extreme and robust patriotism will ultimately go to any length, whereas those whose patriotism is moderate or deflated will respect the limits universal moral considerations set to this pursuit. Marcia Baron also calls for expanding patriotic concern for the flourishing of one’s country to include its “moral flourishing” (see 2.2.3 above).

Thus Baron’s position is half-way between the usual, worldly kind of patriotism, and what might be described as its distinctively ethical type. The latter would put aside the country’s well-being in a mundane, non-moral sense, and would focus instead on its distinctively moral well-being, its moral identity and integrity. A patriot of this sort would not express his love for the patria by seeking to husband the country’s resources and preserve its natural beauty and its historical heritage, or make it rich, powerful, culturally preeminent, or influential on the world scene. Instead, he would seek to make sure that the country lives up to moral requirements and promotes moral values, both at home and internationally. He would work for a just and humane society at home, and seek to ensure that the country acts justly beyond its borders, and shows common human solidarity towards those in need, however distant and unfamiliar. He would also be concerned with the country’s past moral record and its implications for the present. He would support projects exploring the dark chapters of the country’s history, acknowledging the wrongs perpetrated in the past and responding to them in appropriate ways, whether by offering apologies or making amends, and by making sure such wrongs are not perpetrated again.

A patriot of this, distinctively ethical type, would want to see justice done, rights respected, human solidarity at work at any time and in any place. But her patriotism would be at work in a concern that her country be guided by these moral principles and values which is more sustained and more deeply felt than her concern that these principles and values should be put into practice generally. She would consider her own moral identity as bound up with that of her country, and the moral record of the patria as hers too. Unlike a patriot of the more worldly type, she might not feel great pride in her country’s worldly merits and achievements. She would be proud of the country’s moral record, when it inspires pride. But her patriotism would be expressed, above all, in a critical approach to her country and compatriots: she would feel entitled, and indeed called, to submit them to critical moral scrutiny, and to do so qua patriot.

While we have no moral reason to be patriots of the more usual, mundane kind, we do have reason to show special concern for our own country’s moral well-being. As a rule, when someone is wronged, someone else benefits from that. When a country maintains an unjust or inhumane practice, or enacts and enforces an unjust or inhumane law or policy, at least some, and sometimes many of its citizens reap benefits from it. Sometimes such a practice, legislation or policy affects people beyond the country’s borders; in such cases, the population as a whole may benefit. The responsibility for the injustice or lack of basic human solidarity lies with those who make the decisions and those who implement them. It also lies with those who give support to such decisions and their implementation. But some responsibility in this connection may also devolve on those who have no part in the making of the decisions or in their implementation, nor even provide support, but accept the benefits such a practice, law or policy generates.

A degree of complicity may also accrue to those who have no part in designing or putting into effect immoral practices, laws or policies, do not support them or benefit from them, but do benefit in various ways from being citizens of the country. One may derive significant psychological benefit from membership in and identification with a society or polity: from the sense of belonging, support and security such membership and identification afford. If one accepts such benefits, while knowing about the immoral practices, laws or policies at issue, or having no excuse for not knowing about them, that, too, may be seen as implicating him in those wrongs. To be sure, he makes no causal contribution to those wrongdoings, has no control over their course, and does not accept benefits from them. But in accepting benefits from his association with the wrongdoers, he may be seen as underwriting those wrongs and joining the class of those properly blamed. His complicity is lesser and the blame to be laid at his door is lesser too – but he still bears some moral responsibility and deserves some moral blame on that account. He cannot say in good faith: “Those wrongs have nothing to do with me. I am in no way implicated in them.”

If this is correct, we have reason to develop and exercise a special concern for the moral identity and integrity of our country. By doing so, we will be attending to an important aspect of our own moral identity and integrity. While patriotism of the more usual, worldly kind is neither morally required nor virtuous, but at best morally permitted, ethical patriotism can, under certain fairly common circumstances, be a moral duty (Primoratz 2006).

While moral philosophers debate the standing of patriotism as an instance of the problem of reconciling universal moral considerations with particular attachments and loyalties, political theorists are primarily interested in patriotism as an ethos of the well-ordered polity and an antidote to nationalism. Since the rise of the nation-state, it has been widely held that some form of nationalism is indispensable as a pre-political basis of the unity of the state that makes for solidarity among citizens and provides them with motivation to participate in public life and make sacrifices for the common good. As Roger Scruton put it, “for a liberal state to be secure, the citizens must understand the national interest as something other than the interest of the state . Only the first can evoke in them the sacrificial spirit upon which the second depends” (Scruton 1990, 319). But in the course of the 20 th century nationalism was deeply compromised. That has led political theorists to look for alternatives. Some have argued that an emphatically political patriotism could perform the unifying function of nationalism while avoiding its perils. This “new patriotism” puts aside, or at least de-emphasizes, pre-political ties such as common ancestry, language, or culture, and enjoins love of, and loyalty to, one’s political community, its laws and institutions, and the rights and liberties they make possible.

In view of the disastrous record of national socialism, it is not surprising that German thinkers in particular should be suspicious of patriotism as long as it has not been dissociated from nationalism. As early as 1959, political theorist Dolf Sternberger called for a new understanding of the concept of fatherland. “The fatherland is the ‘republic,’ which we create for ourselves. The fatherland is the constitution, to which we give life. The fatherland is the freedom which we truly enjoy only when we ourselves promote it, make use of it, and stand guard over it” (Sternberger 1990, 12). In 1979, on the 30 th anniversary of the Federal Republic, he coined the term “constitutional patriotism” ( Verfassungspatriotismus ) to describe the loyalty to the patria understood in these terms (13–16). The term was later adopted by Jürgen Habermas in the context of a case for overcoming pre-political, i.e. national and cultural, loyalties in public life, and supplanting them with a new, postnational, purely political identity embodied in the laws and institutions of a free and democratic state. Habermas argues that this identity, expressed in and reinforced by constitutional patriotism, can provide a solid foundation for such a state, given the ethnic and cultural heterogeneity characteristic of most countries in western Europe. It can also facilitate further European integration, and provide an antidote to the “chauvinism of affluence” tempting these countries (Habermas 1990).

Constitutional patriotism is the most widely discussed, but not the sole variety of “new patriotism.” Another is “covenanted patriotism” advocated by John H. Schaar as appropriate for countries whose population is much too ethnically and culturally heterogeneous to allow for “natural patriotism.” Schaar’s paradigmatic example is the United States, whose citizens “were bonded together not by blood or religion, not by tradition or territory, not by the walls and traditions of a city, but by a political idea … by a covenant, by dedication to a set of principles and by an exchange of promises to uphold and advance certain commitments” (Schaar 1981, 291). Still another variety is the “patriotism of liberty” propounded by Maurizio Viroli, who calls for a return to what patriotism used to be before it was harnessed in the service of the nation-state and submerged in nationalism: love of the laws and institutions of one’s polity and the common liberty they make possible (Viroli 1995).

This new, emphatically political version of patriotism has been met with both sympathy and skepticism. Those sympathetic to it have been discussing the prospects of a European constitutional patriotism (see Müller 2007, 93–139). Skeptics have argued that patriotism disconnected from all pre-political attachments and identities can generate only much too thin a sense of identity and much too weak a motivation for political participation – that, thus understood, “patriotism is not enough” (Canovan 2000).

• Acton, Lord, 1972, “Nationality,” Essays on Freedom and Power , Gloucester: Peter Smith, 141–70.
• Addams, Jane, 2004, “Patriotism in Time of War,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 28: 102–18.
• Anderson, Benedict, 1991, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism , rev. ed., London: Verso.
• Anderson, John P., 2003, “Patriotic Liberalism,” Law and Philosophy , 22: 577–95.
• Appiah, Kwame Anthony, 2005, The Ethics of Identity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Archard, David, 1995, “Three Ways to Be a Good Patriot,” Public Affairs Quarterly , 9: 101–13.
• –––, 1999, “Should We Teach Patriotism?” Studies in Philosophy and Education , 18: 157–73.
• Arneson, Richard J., 2005, “Do Patriotic Ties Limit Global Justice Duties?” Journal of Ethics , 9: 127–50.
• Audi, Robert, 2009, “Nationalism, Patriotism, and Cosmopolitanism in an Age of Globalization,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 365–81.
• Axinn, Sidney, 1986, “Honor, Patriotism and Ultimate Loyalty,” in Avner Cohen (ed.), Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity , Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld, 273–88.
• –––, 1987, “Loyalty and the Limits of Patriotism,” in Kenneth Kipnis and Diana T. Meyers (eds.), Political Realism and International Morality , Boulder: Westview Press, 239–50.
• Bader, Veit, 1999, “For Love of Country,” Political Theory , 27: 379–97.
• –––, 2005, “Reasonable Impartiality and Priority for Compatriots: A Critique of Liberal Nationalism’s Main Flaws,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 83–103.
• Baron, Marcia, 1989, “Patriotism and ‘Liberal’ Morality,” in D. Weissbord (ed.), Mind, Value, and Culture: Essays in Honor of E.M. Adams , Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Co., 269–300. Reprinted with a postscript in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Billig, Michael, 1995, Banal Nationalism , London: Sage Publications.
• Blattberg, Charles, 2003, “Patriotic, Not Deliberative, Democracy,” CRISPP: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 6: 155–74.
• Boutros, Victor, 2003, “Patriotism and International Aid: An Analysis of Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘Is Patriotism a Virtue?’,” Contemporary Philosophy , 25: 9–16.
• Boxill, Bernard B., 2009, “Frederick Douglass’s Patriotism,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 301–17.
• Breda, Vito, 2004, “The Incoherence of the Patriotic State: A Critique of ‘Constitutional Patriotism’,” Res Publica , 10: 247–65.
• Brighouse, Harry, 2006, “Justifying Patriotism,” Social Theory and Practice , 32: 547–58.
• Busch, Hans Jürgen, and Ulrich Dierse, 1989, “Patriotismus,” in Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie , Basel: Schwabe & Co., Vol. 7: 207–17.
• Cafaro, Philip, 1995, “Patriotism as an Environmental Virtue,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 23: 185–302.
• Callan, Eamon, 2006, “Love, Idolatry, and Patriotism,” Social Theory and Practice , 32: 525–46.
• –––, 2010, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Patriotism and Dirty Hands,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 18: 249–70.
• Canovan, Margaret, 2000, “Patriotism Is Not Enough,” British Journal of Political Science , 30: 413–32. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Cohen, Joshua (ed.), 1996, For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism , Boston: Beacon Press.
• Coons, Christian, 2002, “Wellman’s ‘Reductive’ Justification for Redistributive Policies that Favor Compatriots,” Ethics , 111: 782–87.
• Cronin, Ciaran, 2003, “Democracy and Collective Identity: A Defence of Constitutional Patriotism,” European Journal of Philosophy , 11: 1–28.
• Dagger, Richard, 1985, “Rights, Boundaries, and the Bonds of Community: A Qualified Defense of Moral Parochialism,” American Political Science Review , 79: 436–47.
• Dombrowski, Daniel, 1992, “On Why Patriotism Is not a Virtue,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy , 7: 1–4.
• Fullinwider, Robert K., 1992, “The New Patriotism,” in Claudia Mills (ed.), Values and Public Policy , Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 449–54.
• –––, 1996, “Patriotic History,” in Robert K. Fullinwider (ed.), Public Education in a Multicultural Society: Policy, Theory, Critique , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203–28.
• Gaffney, James, 1993, “Patriotism: Virtue or Vice?” Philosophy and Theology , 8: 129–47. A revised version is reprinted in Igor Primoratz (ed.), 2007, Politics and Morality , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Gilbert, Margaret, 2009, “ Pro Patria : An Essay on Patriotism,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 319–46.
• Gomberg, Paul, 1990, “Patriotism Is Like Racism,” Ethics , 101: 144–50. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• –––, 2000, “Patriotism in Sports and in War,” in Torbjorn Tannsjo and Claudio Tamburrini (eds.), Values in Sport , London: Taylor & Francis, 87–98.
• Goodin, Robert E., 1988, “What Is So Special about Our Fellow Countrymen?” Ethics , 98: 663–86. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Gordon, Rupert H., 2000, “Modernity, Freedom, and the State: Hegel’s Concept of Patriotism,” Review of Politics , 62: 295–325.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992, “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe,” Praxis International , 12: 1–19. Reprinted in Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
• Hand, Michael, 2011, “Should We Promote Patriotism in Schools?” Political Studies , 59: 328–47.
• Hughes, Martin, 1989, “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” Cogito , 3: 98–104.
• Hulas, Maciej, and Stanislaw Fel (eds.), 2015, Intricacies of Patriotism: Towards a Complexity of Patriotic Allegiance , Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Kateb, George, 2000, “Is Patriotism a Mistake?” Social Research , 67: 901–24; reprinted in G. Kateb, Patriotism and Other Mistakes , Ithaca: Yale University Press, 2006.
• Kedourie, Elie, 1985, Nationalism , 3 rd edition, London: Hutchinson.
• Keller, Simon, 2005, “Patriotism as Bad Faith,” Ethics , 115: 563–92.
• –––, 2007a, The Limits of Loyalty , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2007b, “Are Patriotism and Universalism Compatible?” Social Theory and Practice , 32: 609–24.
• –––, 2009, “Making Nonsense of Loyalty to Country,” in Bodewijn de Bruin and Christopher S. Zurn (eds.), New Waves in Political Philosophy , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 87–104.
• Khan, Carrie-Ann Biondi, 2003, “The Possibility of Liberal Patriotism,” Public Affairs Quarterly , 17: 265–90.
• Klampfer, Friderik, 1998, “Can the Appeal to the Intrinsic Value of Citizenship Really Help Us Justify Special Duties to Compatriots?” in P. Kampits, K. Kokai and A. Weiberg (eds.), Applied Ethics: Proceedings of the 21st International Wittgenstein Symposium (Volume 1), Kirchberg am Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, 358–63. 
• Kleingeld, Pauline, 2000, “Kantian Patriotism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 29: 313–41.
• –––, 2003, “Kant’s Cosmopolitan Patriotism,” Kant–Studien , 94: 299–316.
• Kleinig, John, Simon Keller, and Igor Primoratz, 2015, The Ethics of Patriotism: A Debate , Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
• Kodelja, Zdenko, 2011, “Is Education for Patriotism Morally Required, Permitted or Unacceptable?” Studies in Philosophy and Education , 30: 127–40.
• Königs, Peter, 2012, “Patriotism: A Case Study in the Philosophy of Emotions,” Grazer Philosophische Studien , 85: 299–309.
• Macedo, Stephen, 2011, “Just Patriotism?” Philosophy and Social Criticism , 37: 413–23.
• Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1998 [1518], The Discourses , B. Crick (ed.), L.J. Walker (trans.), Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984, Is Patriotism a Virtue? (The Lindley Lecture), Lawrence: University of Kansas. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Mason, Andrew, 1997, “Special Obligations to Compatriots,” Ethics , 107: 427–47.
• McCabe, David, 1997, “Patriotic Gore, Again,” Southern Journal of Philosophy , 35: 203–23. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• McHugh Griffin, Michelle, 2007, “As a Woman I Have No Country,” Peace Review , 10: 255–59.
• Michelman, Frank I., 2001, “Morality, Identity and Constitutional Patriotism,” Ratio Juris , 14: 253–70.
• Miller, David, 2005, “Reasonable Partiality towards Compatriots,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 63–81.
• Miller, Richard W., 1997, “Killing for the Homeland: Patriotism, Nationalism and Violence,” Journal of Ethics , 1: 165–85.
• Müller, Jan-Werner, 2007, Constitutional Patriotism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Montague, Phillip, 1994, “Patriotism and Political Obligation,” Journal of Social Philosophy , 25: 44–56.
• Moore, Margaret, 2009, “Is Patriotism an Associative Duty?” Journal of Ethics , 13: 383–99.
• Nathanson, Stephen, 1989, “In Defense of ‘Moderate Patriotism’,” Ethics , 99: 535–52. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• –––, 1993, Patriotism, Morality, and Peace , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2009, “Patriotism, War, and the Limits of Permissible Partiality,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 401–22.
• –––, 2016, “Immigration, Citizenship, and the Clash Between Partiality and Impartiality,” in Ann Cudd and Win-chiat Lee (eds.), Citizenship and Immigration , New York: Springer, 137–52.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 2012, “Teaching Patriotism: Love and Critical Freedom,” University of Chicago Law Review , 79: 215–51.
• Oldenquist, Andrew, 1982, “Loyalties,” Journal of Philosophy , 79: 173–93. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Orwell, George, 1968, “Notes on Nationalism,” Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters , Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (eds.), London: Secker & Warburg, vol. 3, 361–80.
• Papastephanou, Marianna, 2017, “Patriotism and Pride beyond Richard Rorty and Martha Nussbaum,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 25: 484–503.
• Primoratz, Igor, 2002, “Patriotism: A Deflationary View,” Philosophical Forum , 33: 443–58.
• –––, 2006, “Patriotism: Worldly and Ethical,” in Igor Primoratz and Aleksandar Pavković (eds.), Identity, Self-Determination and Secession , Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 91–106.
• –––, 2009, “Patriotism and the Value of Citizenship,” Acta Analytica , 24: 63–67.
• Primoratz, Igor (ed.), 2002, Patriotism , Amherst: Humanity Books.
• Primoratz, Igor, and Aleksandar Pavković (eds.), 2007, Patriotism: Philosophical and Political Perspectives , Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
• Sardoc, Mitja (ed.), 2020, Handbook of Patriotism , Cham: Springer.
• Schaar, John H., 1981, “The Case for Patriotism,” Legitimacy in the Modern State , New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 285–311. Reprinted in Primoratz (ed.), 2002.
• Scruton, Roger, 1990, “In Defence of the Nation,” The Philosopher on Dover Beach , Manchester: Carcanet, 299–328.
• Shue, Henry, 1988, “Mediating Duties,” Ethics , 98: 687–704.
• Singer, Peter, 2002, One World: The Ethics of Globalization , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Somerville, John, 1981, “Patriotism and War,” Ethics , 91: 568–78.
• Soutphommasane, Tim, 2012, The Virtuous Citizen: Patriotism in a Multicultural Society , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberger, Dolf, 1990, Verfassungspatriotismus ( Schriften , Vol. 10), Frankfurt/M.: Insel Verlag.
• Tan, Kok-Chor, 2004, Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism and Patriotism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tolstoy, Leo, 1987, “On Patriotism” and “Patriotism, or Peace?” Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence , Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 51–123, 137–47.
• Toth, Szilard Janos, 2019, “Justifying Republican Patriotism,” Philosophy and Society , 30: 287–303.
• Van Hooft, Stan, 2009, “Political Patriotism,” Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy , 1: 20–29.
• Vandevelde, Toon, 1997, “Communitarianism and Patriotism,” Ethical Perspectives , 4: 180–90.
• Vincent, Andrew, 2009, “Patriotism and Human Rights: An Argument for Unpatriotic Patriotism,” Journal of Ethics , 13: 347–64.
• Viroli, Maurizio, 1995, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Weil, Simone, 1952, The Need for Roots , trans. A.F. Wills, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Wellman, Christopher Heath, 2000, “Relational Facts in Liberal Political Theory: Is there Magic in the Pronoun ‘My’?” Ethics , 110: 537–62.
• –––, 2001, “Friends, Compatriots, and Special Political Obligations,” Political Theory , 29: 217–36.
• White, John, 2001, “Patriotism without Obligation,” Journal of Philosophy of Education , 35: 141–51.
• Woolf, Virginia, 1938, Three Guineas , London: Hogarth Press.
• Zmora, Hillay, 2004, “Love of Country and Love of Party: Patriotism and Human Nature in Machiavelli,” History of Political Thought , 25: 424–45.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

communitarianism | consequentialism | cosmopolitanism | egoism | impartiality | loyalty | nationalism | obligations: special | political obligation | responsibility: collective

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Simon Keller, Stephen Nathanson, and Thomas Pogge for helpful comments on a draft of this article.

Copyright © 2020 by Igor Primoratz < igorprim @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

In defense of a reasonable patriotism

Subscribe to governance weekly, william a. galston william a. galston ezra k. zilkha chair and senior fellow - governance studies.

July 23, 2018

• 22 min read

This essay is adapted from remarks delivered by William Galston at the Estoril Political Forum on June 25, 2018. Galston was invited to deliver the forum’s Dahrendorf Memorial Lecture on the topic of “Patriotism, Cosmopolitanism, and Democracy.”

Introduction

In this essay, adapted from a lecture I recently delivered on the topic of “Patriotism, Cosmopolitanism, and Democracy,” I will defend what I term a “reasonable patriotism,” and I will argue that separate and distinct political communities are the only sites in which decent and—especially—democratic politics can be enacted.

I begin with some conceptual clarifications.

Cosmopolitanism is a creed that gives primary allegiance to the community of human beings as such, without regard to distinctions of birth, belief, or political boundaries. The antithesis of cosmopolitanism is particularism , in which one’s primary allegiance is to a group or subset of human beings with shared characteristics. There are different forms of particularism reflecting the varying objects of primary allegiance—communities of co-religionists (the Muslim ummah ), ethnicity, and shared citizenship, among others.

Patriotism denotes a special attachment to a particular political community, although not necessary to its existing form of government. Nationalism , with which patriotism is often confused, stands for a very different phenomenon—the fusion, actual or aspirational, between shared ethnicity and state sovereignty. The nation-state, then, is a community is which an ethnic group is politically dominant and sets the terms of communal life.

Nationalism, with which patriotism is often confused, stands for a very different phenomenon—the fusion, actual or aspirational, between shared ethnicity and state sovereignty.

Now to our topic. We gather today under a cloud. Throughout the West, nationalist forces—many tinged with xenophobia, ethnic prejudice, and religious bigotry—are on the rise. The recent Hungarian election featured nakedly anti-Semitic rhetoric not heard in Europe since the 1940s. Citizens are being invited to discard unifying civic principles in favor of divisive and exclusionary particularism.

It is tempting to respond by rejecting particularism root and branch and pinning our hopes on purely civic principles—to embrace, that is, what Jurgen Habermas has called “constitutional patriotism.” But matters are not, and cannot be, so simple.

The United States is often seen as the birthplace and exemplar of a civic order. You are or become an American, it is said, not because of religion or ethnicity but because you affirm, and are prepared to defend, the community’s basic principles and institutions. “All men are created equal.” “We the People.” What could be clearer?

And yet, the very document that famously holds certain truths to be self-evident begins by invoking a concept that is far from self-evident—namely, a distinct people may dissolve the political bands that have connected it to another people and to assume a “separate and equal standing” among the nations of the earth to which it is entitled by nothing less than “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” The equality and independence of peoples is grounded in the same sources as the rights of individuals.

But what is a people, and what separates it from others? As it happens, John Jay, the least known of the three authors of the Federalist, went the farthest toward answering this question. In Federalist 2, he wrote that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.”

This description of the American people was only partly true at the time. It did not apply to African Americans, not to mention Catholics and those many denizens of the colonies for whom German was the language of daily life. It is much less true today. Nonetheless, it calls for reflection.

We can read Jay to be suggesting that certain commonalities foster the identity and unity of a people and that the absence of these commonalities complicates this task. Religious differences can be divisive, especially when they are linked to controversial ideas about government, as Catholicism was until the middle of the past century and Islam is today. The absence of a shared language makes it more likely that linguistic sub-communities will think of themselves as separate peoples, as was the case throughout much of Canada’s history and remains the case in Belgium today. Conversely, participation in shared struggle can forge popular unity and foster civic equality.

It is no accident, I suggest, that the strands of universality and particularity are braided through the history of American peoplehood, as they are I suspect, for political communities throughout the West. Nor is it an accident that during periods of stress—security threats and demographic change, for example—the latent tension between these strands often reemerges. A reasonable patriotism gives particularity its due without allowing the passions of particularism to drown out the voice of broader civic principles.

There is a difference between cosmopolitanism and universalism. We speak of some principles as universal, meaning that they apply everywhere. But the enjoyment of these principles requires institutions of enforcement, most often situated within particular political communities. In this vein, the U.S. Declaration of Independence attributes certain rights to all human beings but adds immediately that securing these rights requires the establishment of government s . Note the plural: not only will there be a multiplicity of governments, but they may assume a variety of forms, all legitimate as long as they defend rights and rest on the consent of the governed.

As you can see, there is no contradiction, at least at the level of principle, between universal principles of right and patriotic attachment to particular communities. For many Americans and Europeans, in fact, their country’s willingness to defend universal principles intensifies their patriotic pride. Universality denotes the range in which our principles apply; it has nothing to do with the scope of our primary allegiance.

By contrast, there is a contradiction between patriotism and cosmopolitanism. You cannot be simultaneously a citizen of the world and of a particular country, at least in the sense that we must often choose between giving pride of place to humanity as a whole as opposed to some subset of humanity.    

There is a contradiction between patriotism and cosmopolitanism. You cannot be simultaneously a citizen of the world and of a particular country, at least in the sense that we must often choose between giving pride of place to humanity as a whole as opposed to some subset of humanity.

This formulation assumes what some would contest—that the phrase “citizen of the world” has a discernible meaning. In a much-discussed speech, British Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere.” On the surface, this is obviously true, because there is no global entity to be a citizen of . But if we dig a bit deeper, the matter becomes more complicated.

For example, we can observe many kinds of cosmopolitan groups—scientists and mathematicians, for example, whose quest for truth depends on principles of evidence and reason that take no account of political boundaries. As the son of a scientist, I have vivid memories of conferences in which hundreds of colleagues (the term itself is revealing) gathered—it didn’t really matter where—to discuss their latest experiments, wherever they were conducted, on fully common ground. Similarly, I suspect we have all heard of the organization “Doctors without Borders,” which rests on the principle that neither human need nor medical responsibility respects national boundaries.

There is a form of cosmopolitanism, finally, that may be observed among some government officials—the belief that it is their duty to maximize human wellbeing, regardless of the nationality of those who stand to benefit. This global utilitarianism, defended by philosophers such as Peter Singer, shaped the thinking of some officials who successfully urged then-Prime Minister Tony Blair to throw open Britain’s immigration gates after the EU expansion of 2004, without availing himself of the extended phase-in period that the terms of accession permitted. As subsequent events showed, there is a tension between global utilitarianism and the expectation that leaders will give priority to the interests of their own citizens. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a political community in which the belief in the legitimacy of collective self-preference does not hold sway—which is not to say that most citizens attach a weight of zero to the interests of human beings beyond the borders of their community, or that they should do so. Self-preference is one thing, moral obtuseness another.

There is a distinction, on which I need not dwell at length, between liberal and populist democracy. Of late, we have heard much about a “democracy deficit” in the European Union and throughout the West. Unelected bureaucrats and experts, it is alleged, are making decisions over the head and against the will of the people. Populist democrats endorse this complaint, at least in principle, because they believe that all decisions should ultimately be subject to the people’s judgment. The referendum is the purest expression of this conception of democracy.

Liberal democracy, by contrast, distinguishes between decisions that the popular majorities should make, either directly or through their elected representatives, and issues involving rights, which should not be subject to majority will. The defense of fundamental rights and liberties is not evidence of a democracy deficit no matter how intensely popular majorities may resent it. Along with independent civil society, institutions such as constitutional courts give life to democracy, so understood. It is this conception of democracy on which I rely in the remainder of my remarks.

How patriotism can be reasonable

The philosopher Simon Keller argues at length against the proposition that patriotism is “a character trait that the ideal person would possess,” at least if one’s conception of the good or virtuous human being includes a propensity to form and act upon justified belief rather than distorted judgments and illusions. The core of Keller’s thesis is that patriotic attachment leads patriots to deny unflattering truths about their country’s conduct, hence to maintain their attachment in “bad faith.” Patriotism should yield to truth, in short, but it doesn’t.

Keller has put his finger on a dangerous tendency, one that I suspect most of us can feel within ourselves. It is often hard to acknowledge that one’s country has erred, perhaps even committed hideous crimes. Sometimes monsters masquerade as patriots and manipulate patriotic sentiments to serve their own ends.

Just as patriots can go astray, they can also acknowledge their mistakes and do their best to make reparations for them. No one ever accused Ronald Reagan of being deficient in patriotism, but he was the president who formally apologized to Japanese-Americans on behalf of the country for their unjust internment during World War II.

But just as patriots can go astray, they can also acknowledge their mistakes and do their best to make reparations for them. No one ever accused Ronald Reagan of being deficient in patriotism, but he was the president who formally apologized to Japanese-Americans on behalf of the country for their unjust internment during World War II.

In classic Aristotelian fashion, patriotism can be seen as a mean between two extremes—blinding zeal for one’s country at one end of the continuum, culpable indifference or outright hostility at the other. Or, if you prefer, we can see patriotism as a sentiment that needs principled regulation. Carl Schurz, who left Germany for the United States after the failed 1848 revolution, became a Union general during the Civil War and then a U.S. senator. Attacked on the Senate floor as too willing to criticize his adopted country, Schurz replied, “My country, right or wrong: if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.” This is the voice of the reasonable patriot.

Patriotism does not mean blind fidelity, no matter what. It means, rather, caring enough about one’s country to try to correct it when it goes astray and, when that is not possible, making a difficult choice. A number of non-Jewish German patriots left their country in the 1930s because they could not stand what Hitler was doing to their Jewish fellow-citizens, did not want to be complicit, and hoped to ally themselves with external forces that might eventually bring down Hitler’s evil regime.

In sum: I can believe that my country has made serious mistakes that must be acknowledged and corrected without ceasing to be a patriot. I can believe that my country’s political institutions are evil and need wholesale replacement without ceasing to be a patriot. I can believe that other objects of regard (my conscience, or God) on occasion outrank my country without ceasing to be a patriot. The fact that zealous patriotism can have terrible consequences does not mean that reasonable and moderate patriotism does so.

The fact that zealous patriotism can have terrible consequences does not mean that reasonable and moderate patriotism does so.

Despite these arguments, it is understandable that morally serious people may continue harbor doubts about the intrinsic value of a sentiment that can yield evil. Even so, it is possible to endorse patriotism as an instrumental good—as necessary to the preservation of political communities whose existence makes the human good possible.

Another well-known philosopher, George Kateb, hesitates to take even this step. Patriotism, he argues, is an intellectual mistake because its object, one’s country, is an “abstraction”—that is, a “figment of the imagination.”  Patriotism is a moral mistake because it requires (and tends to create) enemies, exalts a collective form of self-love, and stands opposed to the only justified morality, which is universalist. Individuals and their rights are fundamental; one’s country, he says, is at most a “temporary and contingent stopping point on the way to a federated humanity.”

Intellectuals, especially philosophers, should know better, Kateb insists. Their only ultimate commitment should be to Enlightenment-style independence of mind, not just for themselves, but as an inspiration to all. In this context, “A defense of patriotism is an attack on the Enlightenment.” From this standpoint, it is hard to see how civic virtue can be instrumentally good if the end it serves—the maintenance of one’s particular political community—is intellectually and morally dubious.

But Kateb is too honest an observer of the human condition to go that far. While the existence of multiple political communities guarantees immoral behavior, government is, he acknowledges, not just a regrettable fact but a moral necessity: “By providing security, government makes possible treating other persons morally (and for their own sake).” It would seem to follow that the beliefs and traits of character that conduce to government’s security-providing function are ipso facto instrumentally justified, as civic virtues. That is the basis on which a reasonable patriotism may be defined and defended. Yes, the individual community that makes moral conduct possible is embedded in an international system of multiple competing communities that invites, even requires, immoral behavior. But as Kateb rightly says, rather than positing and acting on a non-existent global community, “One must learn to live with the paradox.”  As long as we must, there will be a place for patriotism.

Isn’t it better to spread, hence mitigate, the threat of tyranny with multiple independent states so that if some go bad, others remain to defend the cause of freedom?

One more step, and I reach the end of this strand of my argument. The existence of multiple political communities is not just a fact that moral argument must take into account; it is preferable to the only non-anarchic alternative—a single global state. Dani Rodrik, a politically astute economist, spells out this case. There are many institutional arrangements, none obviously superior to others, for carrying out essential economic, social, and political functions. But some may be better suited than others to particular local circumstances. Groups will strike varying balances between equality and opportunity, stability and dynamism, security and innovation. In the face of Joseph Schumpeter’s famous description of capitalist markets as “creative destructive,” some groups will embrace the creativity while others shrink from the destruction. All this before we reach divisions of language, history, and religion. Individual countries struggle to contain these differences without repressing them. How likely is it that a single world government could preserve itself without autocracy or worse? Isn’t it better to spread, hence mitigate, the threat of tyranny with multiple independent states so that if some go bad, others remain to defend the cause of freedom?

These questions answer themselves. If the human species best organizes and governs itself in multiple communities, and if each community requires devoted citizens to survive and thrive, then patriotism is not the way-station to the universal state. It is a permanent requirement for the realization of goods that human beings can know only in stable and decent polities.

Why impartiality is not always right

One familiar line of objection to patriotism rests on the premise that partiality is always morally suspect because it violates, or at least abridges, universal norms. By treating equals unequally for morally arbitrary reasons, goes the argument, we give too much weight to some claims and too little to others.

Critics note that patriots are devoted to a particular political order because it is their own and “not only” because it is legitimate. That’s true, but so what? My son happens to be a fine young man; I cherish him for his warm, caring heart, among many other virtues. I also cherish him above other children because he is my own. Am I committing a moral mistake? I would be if my love for my son led me to regard other children with indifference—for example, if I voted against local property taxes because he is no longer of school age. But it is perfectly possible to love one’s own without becoming morally narrow, or unreasonable, let alone irrational.

It is perfectly possible to love one’s own without becoming morally narrow, or unreasonable, let alone irrational. This is so because a certain degree of partiality is both permissible and justified.

This is so because a certain degree of partiality is both permissible and justified. Two philosophers’ examples will make my point. If I’m sunbathing on a beach and hear two young swimmers—my son and someone else—crying out for help, I should want to rescue both if I can. But suppose I can’t. Does anyone really think that I’m obligated to flip a coin to decide which one? On what theory of human existence would that be the right or obligatory thing to do?

But now the second example. As I’m walking my son to school, I see a boy in danger of drowning in the local swimming-hole, where he is unwisely playing hooky. Although I’m pretty sure I can rescue him, it will take time to pull him out, dry him off, calm him down, and return him to his parents. In the process, my son will be late for school and miss an exam he has worked hard to prepare for. Does anyone think that this harm would justify me in turning my back on the drowning boy?

These considerations apply not only to individual agents, but also to governments. There are situations in which one country can prevent a great evil in another, and do so at modest cost to itself. In such circumstances, the good that can be done for distant strangers outweighs the burden of doing it. In this vein, Bill Clinton has said that his failure to intervene against the genocide in Rwanda was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

What’s going on is obvious, I think: in ordinary moral consciousness, both partial and impartial claims have weight, the proper balance between which is determined by facts and circumstances. While it is hard (some would say impossible) to reduce this balance to rules, there is at least a shared framework—based on the urgency and importance of conflicting interests—to guide our reflections. As a rule of thumb, we can presume that because human beings tend too much toward partiality, we should be careful to give non-partial claims their due. But that doesn’t mean that they should always prevail.

Why patriotism is not so different from other loyalties

Sensing the danger of proving too much, the critics of patriotism draw back from the root-and-branch rejection of partiality. Instead, they try to drive a wedge between patriotism and other forms of attachment.

George Kateb does not offer a generalized critique of partial attachments. Instead, he argues, patriotism represents the wrong kind of partiality, because its object—one’s country—is an abstraction, and a misleading one at that. Individuals are real; countries aren’t. Individuals are worthy of special attachments in a way that countries are not. That is why he works so hard to drive a wedge between love of parents and love of country.

A country is, among other things, a place, a language (one’s “mother tongue”), a way of life, and a set of institutions through which collective decisions are made and carried out. One can love these things reasonably, and many do.

I disagree. While love of parents and of country are not the same, it does not follow that one’s country cannot be a legitimate object of affection. To be sure, a country is not a person, but it begs the question to say that love is properly directed only to persons. It abuses neither speech nor sense to say that I love my house and for that reason would feel sorrow and deprivation if disaster forced me to leave it. (I have had such an experience.) A country is, among other things, a place, a language (one’s “mother tongue”), a way of life, and a set of institutions through which collective decisions are made and carried out. One can love these things reasonably, and many do.

Consider immigrants who arrive legally in the U.S. from impoverished and violent lands. Their lives in their new country often are arduous, but they at least enjoy the protection of the laws, the opportunity to advance economically, and the right to participate in choosing their elected officials. Is it unreasonable for them to experience gratitude, affection, and the desire to perform reciprocal service for the country that has given them refuge?

Kateb is clearly right to insist that citizens don’t owe their “coming into being” to their country in the way that children owe their existence to their parents. But here again, his conclusion does not follow from his premise. Surely we can love people who are not responsible for our existence: parents love their children, husbands their wives. Besides, refugees may literally owe their continuing existence to countries that offer them sanctuary from violence. Is it less reasonable and proper to love the institutions that save our life than the individuals who give us life?

As another philosopher, Eamonn Callan, has suggested, if patriotism is love of country, then the general features of love are likely to illuminate this instance of it. Among his key points: “love can be admirable when directed to objects whose value is severely compromised and admirable then not despite but because of the compromised value.”  An example of this is the love of parents for an adult child who has committed a serious crime, a bond that demonstrates the virtues of constancy and loyalty. This does not mean that parents are free to deny the reality of their child’s deeds or to make up bogus excuses for them. To do that would be to surrender both intellectual and moral integrity. But to say that parental love risks crossing the line in these ways is not to say that parents are required to turn their backs on criminals who happen to be their children, or to cease all efforts to reform them. (Nor is it to fault parents who have wrenchingly concluded that they must cut these ties.)

Conclusion: the last full measure of devotion

There is one more objection to my conception of reasonable patriotism: it is irrational to choose a life that puts you at heightened risk of dying for your country. The objector may say that there is nothing worth dying for, a proposition I reject. More often, the suggestion is that even if there are things that warrant the sacrifice of one’s life (one’s children, for example), one’s country is not in this category. Children are concrete and innocent, while countries are abstract (“imagined communities,” in Benedict Anderson’s phrase) and problematic.

Must a political community be morally unblemished to be worth killing or dying for? The United States was a deeply flawed nation when it went to war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The servicemen on the Normandy beaches harbored none of the dulce et decorum est illusions that led young Englishmen to welcome the outbreak of the first world war; the GIs fought against pure evil in the name of a partial good. They were neither wrong nor deceived to do so, or so I believe.

Suppose one’s country is attacked and thousands of fellow-citizens die. Is everything done in response an expression of delusion? Not at all: some reactions are necessary and justified; others are excessive and illegitimate. I favored retaliation against the Taliban, which asked some Americans to kill and die for their country. Most Americans agreed, and I think we were right. Attacking those who did not attack us was—and is—another matter altogether.

As long as we have multiple communities, and as long as evil endures, citizens will face choices they would rather avoid, and patriotism will be a necessary virtue.

Lurking behind the critique of patriotism is the longing for an unattainable moral purity in politics. I take my stand with Max Weber, with the ethic of responsibility that embraces the necessary moral costs of maintaining our collective existence—all the more so when our government rests on the consent of the governed. It is only within decent political communities that citizens can hope to practice the ordinary morality we rightly cherish. As long as we have multiple communities, and as long as evil endures, citizens will face choices they would rather avoid, and patriotism will be a necessary virtue.

Governance Studies

Elaine Kamarck, Jordan Muchnick

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

Mark MacCarthy

The Chicago Blog

Smart and timely features from our books and authors

What Does Patriotism Mean in America Today?

July 4 th generally conjures images of barbeques, fireworks, and large, billowing flags. But due to large protests against police brutality, concerns of COVID, and an upcoming election that symbolizes both fear and hope for many, the holiday this year looks very different. This Independence Day, instead of a celebration of patriotism, we wanted to dedicate some time to reflecting on it. We invited three of our political science authors to answer the following questions: What does patriotism mean in America today? Given that definition, should Americans be patriotic today? Below are their thoughtful responses.

LaFleur Stephens-Dougan author of Race to the Bottom: How Racial Appeals Work in American Politics

Reflecting on what patriotism means to me so close to the celebration of our nation’s Independence Day is a weighty endeavor.  In my opinion, patriotism in the United States is fraught with contradiction, especially for Black Americans. Black Americans have made countless contributions to the United States, a country they love, but are still engaged in a centuries-old struggle for economic, political, and social equality.  As the child of Black immigrants, who came to this country voluntarily, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices that African Americans have made on behalf on all of us, essentially serving as the nation’s conscience—the keepers of democracy. 

Patriotism means loving one’s country so much that you hold it accountable to the ideals that it proclaims.  You call on patriots to strive to live out stated ideals: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the Declaration of Independence, this trifecta of inalienable rights was given to all humans by their creator, and, government was formed to protect these  rights  for all citizens.  Yet, some 244 years later after that document was penned, Black people are disproportionately dying at the hands of the state, and sometimes at the hands of civilians, who question whether Black people should jog (Ahmaud Arbery), walk home from the store (Trayvon Martin), or ask for help (Renisha McBride).

Of course, the Declaration of Independence was authored primarily by Thomas Jefferson, himself a slaveholder.  He surely did not perceive African Americans as beneficiaries of the ideals he had mind.  Still, Black people remain America’s moral conscience.  Even amidst a global pandemic that has disproportionately harmed African Americans, that same community and their allies rightly protest to hold the country accountable to its own stated ideals.  As we reflect on Independence Day 2020, there’s nothing more patriotic than that, in my humble opinion.

Rachel Blum, author of How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics

The protests following the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor by their own government have brought two warring visions of American patriotism into sharp relief: patriotism as a characteristic and patriotism as an action. In this first vision patriotism is a characteristic that is possessed by a certain group of people (patriots). These patriots consider themselves to be the only “real” Americans — the only ones deserving of the full rights and protections of citizenship. Here’s the catch: membership in the patriot class is almost exclusively reserved for native-born, English-speaking whites. Conceived in this way, patriotism is just another tool for discriminating between “us” and “them.”  In the second vision, patriotism is an active state of caring for the country you call home and the people in it. Caring for your country is different from blindly loving it, or swearing fealty to its leaders. It bears more resemblance to the way members of a family care for one another: paying attention, taking responsibility for one another’s well-being, having difficult conversations about problematic behaviors, and protecting one another from abuse. The question is not whether Americans today should be patriotic, but which vision of patriotism we will choose.

Benjamin I. Page, coauthor of Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It

Patriotism can be thoughtful or shallow; loving or hostile; encompassing or exclusive; uplifting or complacent. It can be subservient or independent. Judging by our public discourse, Americans today may seem to have sunk into the lowest sort of exclusive and xenophobic patriotism. Our ills, from the pandemic to terrorism to poverty, are blamed on “foreign” scapegoats – China, Muslims, Mexican immigrants. The bully pulpit is used to bully. A debased vision of national greatness celebrates racism, nativism, sexism, and go-it-alone nationalism.

But studies of public opinion make clear that this rancid rhetoric from politicians and shouters does not reflect the views of most ordinary Americans. To most, patriotism means inclusive love of family, friends, community, and country – in all their diversity and messiness – without hatred of the “other.” To most, patriotism allows for criticism, seeks progress, and embraces cooperation rather than conflict with the wider world. On this Independence Day it is quite possible to love our country while working to replace officials and abate the noxious noise that bombards us.

All of these books are available on our website or from your favorite bookseller .

The True Meaning of Patriotism

(This essay is adapted from an earlier version published in September 2002 on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington)

Patriotism these days is like Christmas — lots of people caught up in a festive atmosphere replete with lights and spectacles. We hear reminders about “the true meaning” of the occasion — and we may even mutter a few guilt-ridden words to that effect ourselves — but like most people, each of us spends more time and thought in parties, gift-giving, and the other paraphernalia of a secularized holiday than we do deepening our devotion to the “true meaning.” The attention we pay the fictional Santa Claus rivals that which we pay the One whose name the holiday is meant to hallow.

So it is with patriotism. Walk down Main Street America and ask one citizen after another what it means and with few exceptions, you’ll get a passel of the most self-righteous but superficial and often dead-wrong answers. America’s Founders, the men and women who gave us reason to be patriotic in the first place, would think we’ve lost our way if they could see us now.

Especially since the attacks of 9/11, Americans are feeling “patriotic.” For most, that mere feeling suffices to make one a solid patriot. But if I’m right, it’s time for Americans to take a refresher course to appreciate what being a patriot should really mean.

Patriotism is not love of country, if by “country” you mean scenery — amber waves of grain, purple mountains’ majesty and the like. Almost every country has pretty collections of rocks, water, and stuff that people grow and eat. If that’s what patriotism is all about, then Americans have precious little for which we can claim any special or unique love. And surely, patriotism cannot mean giving one’s life for a river or a mountain range.

Emma Goldman, in a 1911 essay, rightly disparaged this parochial, location-based concept. That kind of patriotism, she said, “assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.” Like Emma Goldman, I’d like to think there’s something about being a patriotic American that’s far removed from the young Nazi soldier who marched into battle for “the Fatherland.” After all, he thought he was patriotic too.

Patriotism is not blind trust in anything our leaders tell us or do. That’s just stupidity, and it replaces some very lofty concepts about the true meaning of the word with the mindless goose-stepping of cowardly sycophants.

Patriotism is not picnics, fireworks, or a day off work. At best, those are outward manifestations of something that could be patriotism, but it might also for some be nothing more than a desire to have a little fun.

Patriotism is not simply showing up to vote. You need to know a lot more about what motivates a voter before you judge his patriotism. He might be casting a ballot because he just wants something at someone else’s expense. Maybe he doesn't much care where the politician he's hiring gets it. Remember Dr. Johnson’s wisdom: "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." Others have wisely counseled that an ill-informed people can easily vote a democratic republic into bankruptcy and oblivion.

Waving the flag can be an outward sign of patriotism, but let’s not cheapen the term by ever suggesting that it’s anything more than a sign. And while it’s always fitting to mourn those who lost their lives in its defense, that too does not fully define patriotism.

People in every country and in all times have expressed feelings of something we flippantly call "patriotism" but that just begs the question. What is this thing, anyway? Can it be so cheap and meaningless that a few gestures make you patriotic?

Not in my book.

I subscribe to a patriotism rooted in ideas that in turn gave birth to a country, but it’s those ideas that I think of when I’m feeling patriotic. I think a patriotic American is one who reveres the ideas that motivated the Founders and compelled them, in many instances, to put their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line.

What ideas? Read the Declaration of Independence again. Or, if you’re like most Americans these days, read it for the very first time. It’s all there. All men are created equal. They are endowed not by government but by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Premier among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government must be limited to protecting the peace and preserving our liberties, and doing so through the consent of the governed. It’s the right of a free people to rid themselves of a government that becomes destructive of those ends, as our Founders did in a supreme act of courage and defiance more than 200 years ago.

Call it freedom. Call it liberty. Call it whatever you want, but it’s the bedrock on which this nation was founded and from which we stray at our peril. It’s what has defined us as Americans. It’s what almost everyone who has ever lived on this planet has yearned for, though only a few have ever risen above selfishness, ignorance, or barbarism to attain it. It makes life worth living, which means it’s worth fighting and dying for.

I know that this concept of patriotism puts an “American” spin on the term. But I don’t know how to be patriotic for Uganda or Paraguay. I hope the Ugandans and Paraguayans have lofty ideals they celebrate when they feel patriotic, but whether or not they do is a question you’ll have to ask them. I can only tell you what patriotism means to me as an American.

I understand that America has often fallen short of the superlative ideas expressed in the Declaration. That hasn’t diminished my reverence for them, nor has it dimmed my hope that future generations of Americans will be re-inspired by them. Whatever our shortcomings, the fact remains that our Founders bequeathed us a marvelous mechanism whereby we can fix those flaws and perhaps someday shepherd our form of government to as close to perfection as may be humanly possible. This brand of patriotism, in fact, gets me through the roughest and most cynical of times.

My patriotism did not flag when one president debased the Oval Office with a young intern, or when another one covered up an illegal break-in. My patriotism is never affected by any politician’s failures, or any shortcoming of some government policy, or any slump in the economy or stock market. I’ve never felt my patriotism to be for sale or up for a vote. I never cease to get that rush that comes from watching Old Glory flapping in the breeze, no matter how far today’s generations have departed from the original meaning of those stars and stripes. No outcome of any election, no matter how adverse, makes me feel any less devoted to the ideals our Founders put to pen in 1776.

Indeed, as life’s experiences mount, the wisdom of what giants like Jefferson and Madison bestowed upon us becomes ever more apparent to me. I get more fired up than ever to help others come to appreciate the same things.

During a recent visit to the land of my ancestors, Scotland, I came across a few very old words that gave me pause. Though they preceded our Declaration of Independence by 456 years, and come from 3,000 miles away, I can hardly think of anything ever written here that more powerfully stirs in me the patriotism I’ve defined above.

In 1320, in an effort to explain why they had spent the previous 30 years in bloody battle to expel the invading English, Scottish leaders ended their Declaration of Arbroath with this line: “It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life.”

Freedom — understanding it, living it, and teaching it to posterity. That, my fellow Americans, is what patriotism should mean to each of us today.

(Lawrence W. Reed is president emeritus of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Michigan.)

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government. Through our research and education programs, we challenge government overreach and advocate for a free-market approach to public policy that frees people to realize their potential and dreams.

Please consider contributing to our work to advance a freer and more prosperous state.

Donate | About | Blog | Pressroom | Publications | Careers | Site Map | Email Signup | Contact

(989) 631-0900 | 140 W. Main Street Midland, MI 48640 P.O. Box 568 | [email protected] | © 2024 Mackinac Center for Public Policy

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

What Is Patriotism Essay? – Definitions, Topics, Examples

Do you want to write a patriotism essay and don’t know where to start? Don’t worry about it too much! We are here to help you write the best patriotism essay possible in the shortest amount of time. We will explain the concept of patriotism and clarify why it is essential, discuss patriotism essay examples, and then provide you with some topics. Some tips and tricks are included and the end of the blog post. They should make it much easier to write a patriotic essay.

What Is Patriotism Essay?

Why is patriotism important is it the same as nationalism, good patriotism examples make for good essays, patriotism essay list of 68 topics, get our patriotism essay examples, the importance of patriotic essay examples, tips for the best essay on patriotism.

The first thing we want to discuss is the definition of the patriotism essay. What is patriotism essay? Defining patriotism is a very difficult thing to do. Some would tell you that it is the love and devotion one feels for their country. Others would tell you that it is just a set of principles. And then there are others who consider patriotism to be just a special feeling. You will need to know all these definitions if you want to write a patriotism definition essay. However, in most cases, you will be required to write an essay on patriotism, not on its definition. That means you will have to decide what patriotism means specifically to you. It will influence the way you write the academic paper, of course. However, no approach is wrong, simply because patriotism has different meanings to different people. That applies to everything from a speech on patriotism to patriotism in a sentence prompt.

In some cases, you may be required to write a ”what does patriotism mean to me essay.” That is a bit more complicated because you need to understand why patriotism is important. It also means you have to know the differences between it and nationalism. Be aware that nationalism is not simply the love for the people who live in a country. And patriotism is not the love for the country. The reality is that patriotism is a moral principle, a feeling, or a level of loyalty to the country. On the other hand, nationalism is a political ideology that protects the interests of everything a nation stands for: people, language, traditions, industry, etc.

When writing an article on patriotism, it is important to realize that the patriotism essay ideas you come up with are very important. You want a topic that is both interesting and original. You want something you can write about, so make sure the topic you choose has plenty of information about it online. However, make sure to narrow down the topic – unless you want to write a short novel on it. You can find plenty of examples of American patriotism all over the Internet, so you have a lot of topics to choose from. Ensure the topic is something your classmates didn’t think about. You can read some patriotism essay examples to get an idea of how experienced writers organize their writing and their ideas. Don’t hesitate to look at the winners of a patriotism essay contest. You’ll find a lot of neat ideas. And you also learn how a proper patriotism essay is written.

We have answered the “why is patriotism important” question and helped you pick the right topic. But we are prepared to do much more. We have asked our experienced patriotism essay writers to compile a list of topics for our readers. Patriotism is a broad concept, and there are many standpoints that you can perceive it. If you want to write a patriotism essay or you need patriotism ideas, here are some topics that you can write about:

• What is true patriotism?
• Do Americans still practice true patriotism?
• Can patriotism be related to extremism?
• American heroes and their patriotic acts.
• The uniqueness of American patriotism
• How is American patriotism different from that of other countries?
• Does patriotism change the way we treat foreigners?
• How did American patriotism start?
• How to reach patriotism to children and teenagers
• Movies that portray patriotism
• How music has helped to explain the concept of patriotism.
• Is dissent the highest form of patriotism?
• Dying for your country: patriotism or suicide?
• What does patriotism mean to you?
• How does patriotism affect our relationship with people from other countries?
• Difference between patriotism and nationalism
• President John F. Kennedy’s We Choose To Go To The Moon speech and how it portrays patriotism.
• The true definition of patriotism
• How the entertainment industry teaches true patriotism.
• What is blind patriotism?
• Are patriots racists?
• Is the patriotism level in the country declining or increasing?
• Patriotism 100 years ago and now: what has changed?
• What role does patriotism play in genocide?
• How is patriotism reflected in our day-to-day lives?
• How did patriotism help to galvanize World War I?
• Xenophobia is an act of patriotism, true or false?
• The difference between patriotism and cosmopolitanism
• How does patriotism influence the kind of products we use?
• Do people consider patriotism when choosing the kind of car to buy?
• Rock n Roll and patriotism
• Patriotic acts that people need to emulate
• Breaking the law in the name of patriotism: can that be regarded as patriotism?
• Misconceptions about patriotism
• How the government and other people have exploited patriotism for their selfish use
• Is patriotism taught in school?
• Why patriotism should or should not be taught in schools
• Is American patriotism the same as blind patriotism?
• Is terrorism also a form of patriotism?
• How to encourage people to be more patriotic
• Is patriotism important? Why?
• What are the benefits of patriotism?
• How is patriotism portrayed in literary works?
• What is/are the correlation(s) between patriotism and colonialism?
• What is/are the correlation(s) between patriotism and nationalism?
• Patriotism and realism: How to connect one with another
• Are there limits to what you should do as a true patriot?
• What is the meaning of overwhelming patriotism?
• How to pursue your American dream as a patriot
• The national anthem and the national pledge and how it helps you to be more patriotic
• Examples of patriotism during the American Revolution.
• Compare and contrast patriotism and xenophobia.
• Are conscientious objectors traitors?
• What patriotism means to me?
• The worst case of ethnic chauvinism.
• What does true patriotism mean?
• Patriotism still matters in the modern world. (excellent pride in one’s country essay topic)
• The difference between patriotism and nationalism.
• Teens and patriotism today.
• The importance of Independence Day.
• Why are we proud of our patriots?
• Veterans and their tales of patriotism.
• Is patriotism a good thing?
• What is national chauvinism?
• Discussing the pledge of allegiance in schools.
• Patriotism is an excuse for war.
• Is patriotism stronger than the love for family?
• Avoiding western chauvinism and learning from our mistakes.

These topics are excellent starting points for any high school or college student. Remember that finding amazing patriotism examples is important — the more interesting the tale, the better the essay. There are many ways to state your ideas and express your views about patriotism in essays by presenting facts and deducing a conclusion.

A group of people can pick a topic from different patriotism essay ideas and write entirely different essays. There are different ways patriotic essays can be written. It all depends on how the writer views the topic.

If the essay is a narrative essay like the President John F. Kennedy’s ‘We Choose To go To the Moon speech;’

• Narrate every bit of the event. Paint a mental picture of the event so that the reader can understand the history of the essay.
• After narrating the event, draw out parts of the story that relate to patriotism.
• One after the other, explain how these parts that you have drawn relate to patriotism.

When you are writing a patriotic essay that expresses your viewpoint on an issue, the writing style will be different. In essays like “Is American patriotism the same as blind patriotism?” you are expected to present the essay in a detailed and logical manner. You can do that by using the guide below:

• Introduce the essay by explaining the topic. In the example above, you will explain American patriotism and blind patriotism.
• After the introduction, you will present facts to explain both American and blind patriotism.
• Provide correlation(s) between the facts that you have presented.
• End the essay by stating your viewpoint about the subject matter.

There are patriotism essays ideas that require you to take sides on an issue. “Does patriotism change the way we treat foreigners?” is an example of a patriotic essay that needs you to pick aside. To write a similar or more convincing patriotic essay;

• State facts and do not come from an emotional place.
• Be clear on where you stand from the beginning.
• Present your facts that support your stand on the argument.

If you want to write a patriotic essay to persuade people to do something, this is where you apply your emotions. Applying your emotions helps others to relate better and get interested in the message you’re trying to pass.

• Give reasons why you are writing the essay.
• Explain the personal and collective benefits of the essay topic.

Did you know that the best way to learn how to write an amazing patriotism essay is to read the best patriotic essay examples you can find? The truth is that you can learn most of the things simply by carefully reading works written by seasoned writers. You will quickly understand the concepts of patriotism and will also get the chance to see how a good patriotism essay is structured. Don’t miss the chance to write down all the ideas you deem important. Bottom line, you can read an excellent essay on what makes America great, and then replicate its structure and ideas in your own writing. However, make sure you avoid plagiarism.

• The first tip , we can give you is to choose the best topic possible. For example, why not write a ‘dissent is the highest form of patriotism’ essay?
• Second , don’t forget to list the values of patriotism in the intro. Each paragraph of the essay body should discuss and support a single idea. The conclusion is used to sum everything up, and further support your position.
• Third , don’t forget to make effective use of the five-paragraph essay structure (intro, three body paragraphs, conclusion).
• The last tip , and perhaps the most important one is to get help when you need it.

There are many seasoned academic writers who know exactly how to write an amazing patriotic essay, master’s thesis , or any other paper you might possibly need. Don’t hesitate to get help, especially if you are running out of time!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

104 Patriotism Essay Ideas & Examples

Welcome to our list of patriotism essay ideas! Choose among positive and negative topics on patriotism and make sure to check out our patriotism essay examples.

🔝 Top 10 Patriotism Essay Ideas to Write about

🏆 best patriotism topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 most interesting patriotism topics to write about, 👍 good research topics about patriotism, ❓ questions related to patriotism.

• Patriotism and Global Citizenship
• Traditional and Popular Patriotic Songs
• Patriotism, Diversity, and Multiculturalism
• Social Media’s Effect on National Sentiment
• What Happens to Patriotism in Times of Crisis?
• Does Patriotism Foster Civic Engagement?
• The Line Between Patriotism and Nationalism
• The Role of Literature, Music, and Art in Nation-Building
• What’s the Connection Between Patriotism and Identity?
• National Flags and Anthems as Expressions of Patriotism
• Patriotism in the Modern World and Its Categories The other category is constructive or critical patriotism which is the belief that the best way to love one’s country is with constructive criticism of the government The constructive or critical patriotism leads me to […]
• Poems comparing: Country Lovers and What It’s like to be a Black Girl In the poem, What it’s like to be a Black Girl, Smith explores the issue of racism in a jagged society.
• Roman Patriotism in Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” The gladiator Maximus, and the general in one person, embodies the greatest Roman patriotism, in the name of which he sacrifices his wife and son, loses his liberty and wastes his precious life.
• Loyalty Imagery in “Patriotism” by Yukio Mishima This highlights the theme of loyalty, as the soldiers are ready to obey orders well aware of the dangers involved. The author continues to explore the symbol of compliance and selflessness by explicating how soldiers […]
• “Patriotism” by Yukio Mishima Literature Analysis Nevertheless, the use of imagery to underscore the theme of devotion comes out clearly, as the story unfolds. In this case, the education edict comes out as an image, a controversial image for the author […]
• Summary of the Movie “Patriot” by Roland Emmerich Therefore, the paper aims to summarize the plot and the characters of the film “Patriot” in the framework of those historical events.
• Patriotism in Music of Lee Greenwood, Jean Sibelius, John Legend and Others The speed of the beat that is in this is sometimes slow and, at times, medium. Scale is a pattern of notes that makes the melody in a song familiar.
• Patriotism in Music and Songs of America Patriotism can be defined as the attachment to a country and its core attributes, which does not always equal loyalty to the government or a sense of superiority.
• The U.S. Patriot Act and Controversy The key components of the USA PATRIOT Act are characterized by a crosscutting reduction in the restrictions imposed on law enforcement entities curtailing their domain of influence in carrying out telephone, e-mail communication, medical and […]
• A Critical Review of Nancy Ward: American Patriot or Cherokee Nationalist The article states that Nancy Ward’s actions come from her understanding of changes that Cherokee had to face, and her will to adapt to the changes rather than commit to American Patriotism or Cherokee nationalism.
• “Patriotism” by Yukio Mishima They worship photos of their “Imperial Majesties,” and each offers total allegiance to their respective gods: Shinji to the army, and Reiko to Shinji.
• Blame Them if You Are a True Patriot If a citizen of any country speaks against the policies or actions of the country, especially when the nation is engaged in war, it appears to others as treason because it is assumed that the […]
• “The Patriot” by Roland Emmerich Other aspects of social life, such as the number of children Ben had, the idea that the mother had died at a young age, the presence of black people working as servants and slaves, and […]
• The Problem of Patriotism Analysis Thus, the era of social revolutions in Russian and their attempts in Europe was characterized by a critique of patriotism as it was defined in the liberal tradition.
• Philosophy: Is Patriotism a Virtue? Hence, in the above context, patriotism is the feeling that arises from the concerns of the safety of the people of a nation.
• The Phenomenon of Patriotism in the Context of the U.S. War of Independence It is important to consider the phenomenon of patriotism in the context of the US War of Independence. Exploring the reasons for the victory of the American revolution, which led to the formation of the […]
• Adolf Hitler: From Patriotism to Racism He was also forced to live and work in the city and it is was the cultural and social shock that he experienced as he transferred from the rural to the urban that changed the […]
• Comparison and Contrasting: Country Lovers and Child of the Americas For instance, the first paragraph gives the picture of the environment or the setting of the story as a farm, which harbors two races blacks and whites.
• Fake Democracy and Patriotism: “Give Me Liberty” by Naomi Wolf It also define the battle plan that the American citizens would use in ensuring that they fight back and regain back the rule of laws defined in the American constitution that enhance the liberty that […]
• Comparison of Ethnicity and Racism in “Country Lovers” and “The Welcome Table” In both cases, the texts have devoted their concerns to the plight of a black female who is deposed off her meaning within the realms of the society.
• The Question of Loyalty and Patriotism Considering the fact that the alien country, is where one lives and has accumulated most of her/his wealth, it becomes reasonable to show loyalty to the country though this action can also result into negatives […]
• Notions of Community and Notions of Self in The Plague and Patriotism Rieux, though a competent doctor and essentially kind hearted, exhibits a slightly annoyed air during the early days of the plague, and as the disease wears on, this annoyance graduates to full blown resentment.”The whole […]
• American Patriotism: Struggle for Independence The children’s’ efforts in the struggle for independence were greatly recognized and appreciated by the government which led to the introduction of classes on patriotism and nationalism.
• Differences Between Nationalism and Patriotism-Which Is Better for Nation Building
• Comparing Patriotism and Volunteerism in the Society
• The American Revolution: Treason or Patriotism
• United States Declaration of Independence and Patriotism
• The Effects of Country of Origin Image and Patriotism on British Consumers’ Preference for Domestic and Imported Beef
• An Analysis of the Patriotism of the Immigrants in the United States
• An Argument Which Argues Whether Children Should Be Taught in Education to Be Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism
• Patriotism Should Be Propagated In Singapore Schools
• Patriotism and the Historical Inaccuracies in The Patriot, a Film by Roland Emmerich
• The Subtle Use of Patriotism in the Works of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
• Gandhi’s Views On Patriotism and One’s Love for Their Country
• The European Charter – Between deep Diversity and Constitutional Patriotism
• Patriotism And National Identity : A Symbol Of National Hero
• U.S. Definition of Patriot and Patriotism
• Japanese Culture vs. Chinese Culture: the Loss of Patriotism
• Patriotism: American Identity Defined Through Opportunity, Hard Work, And Loyalty
• Racism, Unprovoked Hatred and Misguided Patriotism in Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson
• American Patriotism: The Love for the Country
• The Patriotism Of Despair By Serguei Alex Oushakine
• The Influence of The Miracle on Ice Game in Changing the Public Attitude and Feelings of Patriotism in America
• Preserving the American Idea of Patriotism
• Economic Patriotism, the Clash of Capitalisms, and State Aid in the European Union
• False Patriotism in America
• Patriotism, Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism and Purchase Behavior
• The Consequences Of Patriotism As Moral Justification
• Comparing Patriotism and Nationalism
• The Representation of Patriotism and Militarism in the Drinking Fountain
• The Different Versions of Our True Patriotism
• Red White and Beer: a Rhetorical Analysis of America’s Retail Patriotism
• The Relation Between Seppuku and Patriotism Within the Japanese Society
• Is American Patriotism Also Blind Patriotism
• The Birthplace of American Patriotism
• Patriotism in United States After September 11th Incident
• The Use of Media to Promote Unity and Patriotism in America
• Is Patriotism a Byproduct of Fascism
• The Idea of Freedom and Patriotism in America
• Wanda Coleman, Colin Kaepernick, and The Refusal to Prioritize Patriotism Over Blackness
• Patriotism, Preferences and Serendipity: Understanding the Adoption of the Defence Transfers Directive
• The Policy Of Economic Nationalism: From Origins To New Variations Of Economic Patriotism
• U.S. Patriotism: A Link to American Hatred. Politics in the Media
• A Deeper Look at Patriotism, Conscience and the Mexican War
• How Does Economic Patriotism Differ from Nationalism?
• What Acts Promote Patriotism?
• How Can a Teacher Show Patriotism in Education?
• What Values Lead to Patriotism?
• Does Patriotism Contribute to the Growth of a Nation?
• What Is the Concept of Economic Patriotism?
• How Are Terrorism, Patriotism, and the Farce of Loyalty Oaths Related to Each Other?
• Why Is Patriotism an Important Value?
• How Do You Demonstrate Patriotism?
• What Is Patriotism in Core Values?
• Should the Canadian Government Coordinate the Organization of Youth Groups That Would Encourage Patriotism?
• Was the American Revolution a Treason or Patriotism?
• How Does Promoting Patriotism Contribute to Economic Prosperity?
• What Are the Positive Effects of Patriotism?
• How Has Patriotism Changed Over the Centuries?
• What Are the Main Types of Patriotism?
• Did the First World War Change the Idea of War and Patriotism?
• What Is the Relationship Between Seppuku and Patriotism in Japanese Society?
• How Does Globalization Affect Patriotism?
• What Is the Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism, and Which Is Better for Nation Building?
• How Is Patriotism, Bravery, and Freedom Described in the Book “Born on the Fourth of July”?
• What Is Your Idea of Patriotism and Its Importance in Our Lives?
• Should Teachers Emphasize Patriotism and Heroes?
• What Are the Factors Affecting Patriotism?
• How Can the American Idea of Patriotism Be Preserved?
• What Does True Patriotism Mean to You?
• How Important Is Patriotism for Young People?
• What Are the Qualities of a Good Leader That Promote Patriotism?
• Is It Important to Educate Patriotism in Elementary School?
• What Does the Concept of Patriotism Mean to Mishima?
• Freedom Topics
• Immigration Titles
• American Dream Research Topics
• Conservatism Essay Titles
• Nationalism Topics
• Fascism Questions
• US History Topics
• Cultural Competence Research Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 26). 104 Patriotism Essay Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/patriotism-essay-examples/

"104 Patriotism Essay Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/patriotism-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '104 Patriotism Essay Ideas & Examples'. 26 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "104 Patriotism Essay Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/patriotism-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "104 Patriotism Essay Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/patriotism-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "104 Patriotism Essay Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/patriotism-essay-examples/.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

ReadingJunction

Ultimate hub of educational content (Essay, Speech, Debate, Festivals, Events)

Essay on Patriotism for Students in 1000 Words

March 9, 2020 by ReadingJunction 3 Comments

In this post, you will read an Essay on Patriotism for students in 1000 Words. It includes ideology behind patriotism, its importance, history, and about how it works?

So, let’s start the Essay on Patriotism …

Table of Contents

Introduction (Essay on Patriotism)

Patriotism can be defined as the quality of becoming patriotic. Patriotic is someone who has respect, loyalty, and devotion towards his nation and robust support for the homeland.

Patriots were known for their country’s love and affection, and feel very proud to be the citizens. We have such a sense of solidarity with other people. We can be culturally, politically, or historically linked to one’s homeland onto the basis of that same ideal and many other things.

Ideology behind patriotism

A Patriotic person is always on his own country’s side or supports his leaders when they deserve it. They are committed to their nation, care about their security, hold their country’s interest at their goal, and will always want their stability, development, and growth. People have an emotional relationship with their country and so this attachment is often referred to as national sentiment and national pride.

Patriotism was firmly related to a collection of nationalist ideals and is often even used synonymously. But perhaps the key difference between these two concepts would be that the patriot felt proud of his heritage at what it does, and no matter what it does; the nationalist makes it feel proud of his nation. Therefore patriotism creates a feeling of duty while patriotism establishes a sense of arrogance and ignorance, which may even lead to chaos.

Although several people think patriotism has to do with laying somebody’s life for their country, that’s more than that. It implies defending the country in every possible way, working for their battlement or willingness to protect their own lives whenever necessary.

Importance of patriotism

Having patriotism is quite essential for either the country’s independence and our freedom fighters were the most exceptional example of that. While a nationalist has stipulated his life in their country’s sake, in reality, he becomes immortal. They were worshipped mostly by their peasants and honored throughout the world.

Today they have suffered great hardships for their country and even sometimes have sacrificed a lot of everything for freedom. By self-sacrifice, they receive an immortalized name. Thus many patriots win the hearts and minds of their countrymen after potentially losing many things, including their lives.

History of patriotism in India

In the past, particularly during the most British rule over India, several people have fought for their country or even sacrificed their lives for it. Yet there are several people who continue to fight for their country with the same dedication and are ready to lay down their lives to protect their homeland against intruders or invaders.

Indian revolutionaries were packed with feelings and patriotism and have never thought about their life. As such, they selflessly operated for the country. Also now, many people serve our country in whatever form they can, in absolute commitment.

How does patriotism work?

However, that spirit of patriotism is slowly waning these days since today’s youth are not feeling as deeply about their country when new generation people would feel.

Both the parents and teachers need to make efforts to instill the spirit for patriotism throughout the generations to come. We must encourage patriotism sentiment, as when the country’s youths must love the country, feel connected to it, and make an effort or work to make it a stronger nation.

Several educational organizations, except on 15th August as well as 26th January, organize classes, events, and activities. By this time, the sense of patriotism seemed to overtake the whole country. But in fact, this isn’t true patriotism.

Such an environment needs to be developed not only on these crucial dates but also in general. Only then should these feelings become permanently instilled in every citizenry’s heart. A nation in which the youth love this country and are motivated to socially and economically change its condition will have a better chance of growing and developing.

For our country, we should have respect, affection, and a sense of community, and at the same time, we should not hate certain countries. To prevent the conflicts here between two nations from breaking out, we not only should love our country and also have reverence for other countries.

Our flag was not only a piece of cloth with colors on it, although it is a symbol of pride, liberty, devotion, and is colored by the blood of those that have died in protection. And so when a person realizes they can become a true patriot, they encourage those behind him to work to create a powerful, better, and prosperous country.

A true patriot

He seems to be a true patriot that can give away his career and everything for his country. Its country’s future hinges upon its rulers. Whether the rulers seem to be real patriots, they think of a country’s interests as well as the people.

They continue to do this for the nation’s better. A nationalist puts the importance of the land before his own. He is trying to lead people to such a proper way of living. He was kind, compassionate, genuine, and honest.

A fake patriot

But certain false patriots do exist. They’re just fond of taking undue advantage of this situation. They were men of neither faith nor character. We don’t have a high sensitivity to motivation and sacrifice. They were selfish. We live on our own in such a small world. These people represent the nation’s enemies.

Patriot’s rewards

The true patriot works for his mother country and dies. Throughout life and again after the death, he’s respected and loved. That kind of nationalist is everlasting. Among these people are modern-day Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru , Subhash Chandra Bose , and many others. Maharana Pratap, Shivaji, and others have been among many of the Ancients.

The bottom line

A nationalist must think not only of national interest but from the international community as well. He has to climb above emotions at home. He has to believe the human race’s welfare. Mahatma Gandhi aptly says,

“My patriotism requires the public good of mankind.”

I hope you like this Essay on Patriotism for students.

Reader Interactions

August 13, 2021 at 6:49 pm

Thanq u so much for this good content

November 20, 2021 at 2:20 pm

Literally amazing ????✨

February 6, 2022 at 7:29 pm

It’s really awesome I don’t know even the meaning of patriotism word but it’s amazing very easy to understand and memorizing it’s really good thankyou so much for a good content keep it up like this

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright Protection

All articles on this website are Copyright Protected. Copying or Using any material in any form is a serious offense.

Important Links

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Political Systems & Ideologies — Patriotism

Essays on Patriotism

When it comes to writing an essay on patriotism, the topic you choose can make a big difference. Patriotism is a broad and complex subject that encompasses a wide range of ideas, emotions, and actions. Choosing the right topic is essential for crafting a compelling and engaging essay that captures the essence of patriotism. In this guide, we will discuss the importance of the topic, provide advice on choosing a topic, and offer a detailed list of recommended essay topics, divided by category.

Patriotism is a concept that holds different meanings for different people. It is not only about love for one's country, but also about the values and principles that one believes in. Writing an essay on patriotism allows you to explore and express your thoughts on these important ideas. The topic you choose will shape the direction of your essay and influence the way your audience perceives your perspective on patriotism.

When choosing a topic for your patriotism essay, it's important to consider your own interests and beliefs. Think about what aspects of patriotism are meaningful to you and what you want to communicate to your audience. Consider topics that are relevant and timely, as well as those that offer opportunities for in-depth exploration and analysis. Additionally, make sure to choose a topic that is manageable within the scope of your assignment and that allows you to present a compelling argument or narrative.

Recommended Patriotism Essay Topics

When writing an essay about patriotism, it's important to choose a topic that is both interesting and relevant. Here is a list of patriotism essay topics categorized by different themes:

Historical Perspectives

• The role of patriotism in the American Revolution
• Patriotic symbolism in the Civil War
• Patriotism in World War I and II
• The impact of patriotism on the founding of a nation

Modern Perspectives

• The relationship between patriotism and nationalism
• Patriotism in the context of globalization
• The influence of patriotism on contemporary politics
• The role of social media in shaping patriotic sentiment

Cultural Perspectives

• Patriotism in literature and the arts
• Patriotic traditions and celebrations around the world
• Patriotism in popular culture and media
• Immigrant perspectives on patriotism

Ethical and Philosophical Considerations

• The ethics of patriotism and its implications
• Patriotism vs. cosmopolitanism: a philosophical debate
• The role of patriotism in shaping moral values
• Patriotism and the concept of duty

Personal Reflections

• My personal journey with patriotism
• Family traditions and patriotism
• Patriotism and identity: a personal exploration
• How my perspective on patriotism has evolved over time

Global Perspectives

• Comparative analysis of patriotism across different cultures
• The role of patriotism in international relations
• Patriotism and global citizenship
• Patriotism and the challenges of multiculturalism

Social and Political Implications

• The impact of patriotism on social cohesion
• Patriotism and protest movements
• The role of patriotism in promoting social change
• The intersection of patriotism and social justice

Education and Patriotism

• The role of patriotism in the school curriculum
• Patriotism and civic education
• Teaching patriotism in a diverse classroom
• Patriotism and the challenge of historical accuracy

Psychological Perspectives

• The psychology of patriotism
• Patriotism and identity formation
• The impact of patriotism on mental health
• Patriotism and group dynamics

Environmental Considerations

• Patriotism and environmental conservation
• The role of patriotism in sustainable development
• Patriotism and climate change activism
• The intersection of patriotism and ecological ethics

These recommended essay topics cover a wide range of perspectives on patriotism, offering ample opportunities for exploration and analysis. Whether you are interested in historical, cultural, philosophical, or personal reflections on patriotism, there is a topic that will suit your interests and allow you to craft a compelling and thought-provoking essay.

Remember to choose a topic that resonates with you personally and provides a platform for expressing your thoughts and ideas in a meaningful way. With the right topic, your patriotism essay has the potential to spark important conversations and inspire critical thinking about the concept of patriotism in today's world.

The Patriot: a Revolutionary War Hero Or a Complex Figure?

An analysis of "an abc for baby patriots", made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The True Meaning of Patriotism

The decline of patriotism in modern day society, my understanding of what patriotism is, patriotism and youth in america, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Nation-building Process

The implications of usa patriot act, the subtle use of patriotism in the works of henry wadsworth longfellow, gandhi's views on patriotism and one's love for their country, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Symbolic Meaning of Bruce Springsteen’s Song

John brown: a terrorist and a patriot, the power of persuasion in speeches of pericles and sanders, leviathan for liberty: a defense of the usa patriot act, the notion of political culture in kashmir, role of music in má vlast poems, what does it mean to love your country, what is patriotism: the meaning and forms, the pledge of allegiance: origins and controversies.

Patriotism is the feeling of love, devotion, and sense of attachment to one's country. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings, language relating to one's own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects.

Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jürgen Habermas, Johann Gottfried von Herder, etc.

Relevant topics

• Abraham Lincoln
• Andrew Jackson
• Electoral College
• Transportation
• Political Corruption

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Advertisement

Supported by

Russia Plans New Offensive in Ukraine’s Northeast, Zelensky Says

Moscow is again amassing forces near the border, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine warned. His comments came as officials said that a Russian strike had killed at least 16 people in Kharkiv.

• Share full article

By Matthew Mpoke Bigg

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said on Sunday that Moscow’s forces were massing for a new ground offensive on the northeast of his country, a day after a Russian missile strike on a hardware superstore in the city of Kharkiv killed at least 16 people and wounded dozens more, according to Ukrainian officials.

“Russia is the only source of aggression and constantly tries to expand the war,” Mr. Zelensky said in a speech delivered in English inside the ruins of a publishing house in Kharkiv that was destroyed last week in a Russian strike.

“Russia is preparing for offensive actions,” around 60 miles northwest of Kharkiv, he said, adding that Moscow was gathering “another group of troops near our border.” Mr. Zelensky gave no further details about the potential attack.

Moscow surprised Ukraine on May 10 when its troops poured across the northeastern border, punching through Ukrainian defenses and seizing villages close to the frontier. That forced the government in Kyiv to rush in reinforcements in a bid to halt the Russian advance .

One target for an assault, based on Mr. Zelensky’s comments, could be the Sumy region in northeastern Ukraine, which has seen frequent cross-border fire but no ground attacks since Russian forces attempted to seize its main city, also called Sumy, at the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 . They were later forced to withdraw after fierce fighting. Ukraine’s military has previously warned of another Russian border assault in the northeast. A spokesman for Ukraine’s border guard service, Andriy Demchenko, told Ukrainian television on Sunday that it did not appear that the Russian forces gathered near the frontier were sufficient to mount a major attack.

But even a limited increase in Russian military activity near the border “could have the effect of stretching Ukrainian forces along a wider front,” according to the Institute for the Study of War, a research organization based in Washington. This would be true even if Russia only “threatens penetrations” of border areas beyond Kharkiv, the institute said last week.

The May incursion was the most significant in months of fighting, and military experts say that a key Russian objective was to expand the length of the battlefield, which already stretches hundreds of miles, and in that way force Ukraine to spread its troops more thinly. In doing so, Moscow apparently hoped to extend its existing advantage in terms of the size of its military, the experts say.

The war has ebbed and flowed since President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia launched the invasion, with Ukrainian forces now defending against Russian advances in the eastern region of Donetsk, in the northeast and in the southern region of Zaporizhzhia.

One immediate casualty has been Kharkiv, which has seen a sharp escalation in the ferocity of Russian aerial attacks this month, forcing many to flee. On Sunday, the death toll from the attack on the hardware superstore rose to 16, with another 43 people wounded, according to a social media post from the region’s military administration.

Fire fighters extinguished the flames at the superstore, the local authorities said, and 200 emergency workers were dealing with the aftermath of the attack, according to Oleh Syniehubov, the head of the region’s military administration.

The Ukrainian police service on Sunday posted a brief video it said showed the store’s interior at the moment of the attack. It showed customers browsing calmly amid displays of bathroom furniture including toilets and sinks as store workers dressed in blue T-shirts stood nearby. Suddenly, the scene is obliterated in a flash of light. There was no independent confirmation of the video’s authenticity.

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, said the strike had been conducted to ensure maximum civilian casualties . “He can’t occupy Kharkiv, hence he tries to kill it,” Mr. Kuleba wrote on social media, referring to Mr. Putin.

The Telegram social media channel of the Russian Defense Ministry has made extensive comments about fighting in recent days but made no comment about the Kharkiv strike or about others reported by Ukrainian officials, in keeping with its general practice.

Mr. Kuleba called on Ukraine’s allies in NATO to supply his country with more Patriot missiles and other systems that can defend against missile strikes.

A multibillion-dollar military aid package was stalled for months in the U.S. Congress, leaving Ukraine short of ammunition and increasingly exposed to Russian missile and drone attacks. The package finally passed last month, but much of the hardware has yet to reach Ukraine.

In a sign of Kharkiv’s vulnerability, Mr. Syniehubov reported on a second strike on Saturday, which he said hit civilian commercial infrastructure in the center of the city just hours after the attack on the superstore. At least 25 people were wounded, including a 14-year-old boy who was hospitalized, according to the regional prosecutor’s office. There was no comment from the Russian authorities.

Russia also conducted attacks beyond the usual recent battlegrounds. Gov. Vitaliy Kim , head of the military administration in the Mykolaiv region of southern Ukraine, said that exploding drones had damaged a preschool building there, while the Ukrainian public broadcasting company Suspilne reported explosions in ​Khmelnytskyi, a central region.

In his speech from Kharkiv, Mr. Zelensky appealed to President Biden and President Xi Jinping of China to attend a peace summit on Ukraine in Switzerland next month. Kyiv has attempted to rally global support for a framework that would involve the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all of Ukraine’s territory and an end to attacks on Ukrainian soil.

Matthew Mpoke Bigg is a London-based reporter on the Live team at The Times, which covers breaking and developing news. More about Matthew Mpoke Bigg