Contents
download video
Patriotism is defined as a moral and political principle, a social feeling, the content of which is love for the Fatherland and the willingness to subordinate one’s private interests to its interests. Patriotism implies pride in the achievements and culture of one’s Motherland, the desire to preserve its character and cultural characteristics and self-identification (a special emotional experience of one’s belonging to the country and one’s citizenship, language, traditions) with other members of the people, the desire to protect the interests of the Motherland and one’s people. Patriotism can manifest itself in the following forms:
- state patriotism — love for the state.
- imperial patriotism — loyalty to the empire and its government.
- leavened patriotism (cheers-patriotism) is an exaggerated feeling of love for the state and its people.
- local patriotism — love for the local way of life, traditions, peculiarities, cults.
- ethnic patriotism — love for one’s ethnic group.
Not everyone who loves his country considers himself a patriot.
Patriotism in history
The concept itself had a different content and was understood in different ways. In antiquity, the term patria («homeland») was applied to the native city-state, but not to wider communities (such as «Hellas», «Italy»). At the same time, there have always been people with other views: in the Iliad one can hear the motives of Italian patriotism, and some ancient Greek philosophers (such as the Cynic Diogenes) considered themselves cosmolites, that is, «citizens of the world.»
In the Roman Empire, patriotism existed in the form of local «polis» patriotism and imperial patriotism. Christianity with its preaching undermined the foundations of local religious cults and thereby weakened the positions of polis patriotism. However, after the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, the empire began to use Christianity to strengthen the unity of the empire, counteract local nationalism and local paganism, forming ideas about the Christian empire as the earthly homeland of all Christians.
In the Middle Ages, when loyalty to the civil collective gave way to loyalty to the monarch, the term lost its relevance and regained it only in modern times.
The preaching of the equality of all peoples before God contributed to the rapprochement of the peoples of the Roman Empire and prevented local nationalism. Therefore, at the level of cities, the preaching of Christianity ran into opposition from patriotic pagans, who saw the local cults as the basis for the well-being of the city.
A vivid example of such opposition is the reaction of the Ephesians to the preaching of the Apostle Paul. In this sermon, they saw a threat to the local cult of the goddess Artemis, which formed the basis of the material well-being of the city. (Acts 19:-24-28)
Imperial Rome, in turn, saw Christianity as a threat to imperial patriotism. Despite the fact that Christians preached obedience to the authorities and prayed for the well-being of the empire, they refused to take part in imperial cults, which, in the opinion of the emperors, should contribute to the growth of imperial patriotism.
The preaching of Christianity about the heavenly homeland and the idea of the Christian community as a special «people of God» raised doubts about the loyalty of Christians to the earthly fatherland.
Patriotism in modern times
In the era of the American and French bourgeois revolutions, the concept of «patriotism» was identical to the concept of «nationalism», with a political (non-ethnic) understanding of the nation; for this reason, in France and America at that time, the concept of «patriot» was synonymous with the concept of «revolutionary» (the symbols of this revolutionary patriotism are the «Declaration of Independence» and «La Marseillaise»). With the advent of the concept of «nationalism», patriotism began to be opposed to nationalism, as commitment to the country (territory and state) — commitment to the human community (nation).
In Russia, Leo Tolstoy considered patriotism to be a feeling “gu.e.m, harmful, shameful and bad, and most importantly, immoral.”
Tell people that war is bad, they will laugh: who does not know this? Say that patriotism is bad, and most people will agree to this, but with a small caveat. — Yes, bad patriotism is bad, but there is another patriotism, the one we hold on to. — But what is this good patriotism, no one explains. If good patriotism consists in not being aggressive, as many say, then after all, all patriotism, if it is not aggressive, is certainly retaining, that is, that people want to keep what was previously conquered, since there is no such country that It would not be founded by conquest, and what has been won cannot be retained by other means than by the same means by which something is won, that is, by violence, murder. If, however, patriotism is not even restraining, then it is restorative patriotism of the conquered, oppressed peoples — Armenians, Poles, Czechs, Irish, etc. And this patriotism is perhaps the worst, because it is the most embittered and requiring the greatest violence. They will say: «Patriotism has bound people into states and maintains the unity of states.» But after all, people have already united in states, this thing has been accomplished; why now support the exclusive devotion of people to their state, when this devotion produces terrible disasters for all states and peoples. After all, the same patriotism that brought about the unification of people into states is now destroying these same states. After all, if there were only one patriotism: the patriotism of the English alone, then one could consider it unifying or beneficent, but when, as now, there is patriotism: American, English, German, French, Russian, all opposed to one another, then patriotism is no longer connects and separates.
He believed that patriotism inevitably gives rise to wars and serves as the main support for state oppression. Tolstoy believed that patriotism was deeply alien to the Russian people, as well as to the working representatives of other peoples: in all his life he had not heard from the representatives of the people any sincere expressions of a feeling of patriotism, but on the contrary, he heard many times expressions of disdain and contempt for patriotism. University of Chicago professor Paul Gomberg compares patriotism with racism, in the sense that both involve moral obligations and human ties, primarily with representatives of «their» community. Critics of patriotism also note the following paradox: if patriotism is a virtue, and in time of war the soldiers of both sides are patriots, then they are equally virtuous; but it is for virtue that they kill each other, although ethics forbids killing for virtue.
Boris Akunin’s opinion on patriotism
Most of all, for the glory and true greatness of the country, it is not politicians who do it, but people of culture and science. The best that the world has received from Russia and for which it is grateful to it is Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Mendeleev. As far as I know, none of them shouted at the top of their lungs about their love for Russia and the government.
Not every worthy person is a patriot. It is unlikely that Mother Teresa was a noisy patriot of her native Macedonia; for the Apostle Paul there was neither a Jew nor a Greek; L. Tolstoy believed that patriotism is harmful and dangerous.
“Patriotism, as a feeling of exceptional love for one’s people and as a doctrine of the valor of sacrificing one’s peace, property and even life to protect the weak from beating and violence of enemies, was the highest idea of the time when every people considered it possible and just, for their own good and power, to beat and rob people of another nation; but already about 2000 years ago, the highest representatives of the wisdom of mankind began to recognize the highest idea of the brotherhood of people, and this idea, more and more entering into consciousness, has received in our time the most diverse implementation.
But every true patriot is a worthy person, because he wants to make his country more worthy. It is by this parameter and only by it that you need to keep track of who is a patriot and who is not. It remains only to determine what a «worthy country» is. I propose the following criteria by which the dignity of a country can be measured: the more points, the higher it is.
- Without exception, all residents have the most equal starting chances for self-realization.
- Those who cannot take care of themselves or need help receive it from the state.
- It is more profitable for citizens to live honestly, according to the law and by their own labor, than to cheat, cheat and parasitize.
- The country is loved and therefore respected in the world (exactly so, and not «they are afraid and therefore respected»). That is, they are respected for science, culture and generosity, and not for the atomic bomb.
Whoever works to improve at least one of these indicators is a patriot. Even if he can’t stand the word “patriotism” and out of dislike for pathos he says “this country” about the Motherland.
Patriotism and Christian Tradition
The consistent universalism and cosmopolitanism of early Christianity, its preaching of a heavenly homeland as opposed to earthly fatherlands, and the notion of the Christian community as a special «God’s people» undermined the very foundations of polis patriotism. Christianity denied any differences not only between the peoples of the empire, but also between the Romans and the «barbarians». The apostle Paul taught: “If you have risen with Christ, then seek what is above (…) by putting on a new
The opinions of modern theologians and Christian hierarchs about patriotism differ to some extent. Patriarch Alexy II believed that patriorism is relevant and makes the people and every person responsible for the life of the country.
“Patriotism is undoubtedly relevant. This is the feeling that makes the people and every person responsible for the life of the country. Without patriotism there is no such responsibility. If I do not think about my people, then I have no home, no roots. Because the house is not only comfort, it is also the responsibility for the order in it, it is the responsibility for the children who live in this house. A person without patriotism, in fact, does not have his own country. And a «man of the world» is the same as a homeless person.
Recall the gospel parable of the prodigal son. The young man left home, and then returned, and his father forgave him, accepted him with love. Usually in this parable they pay attention to how the father acted when he received the prodigal son. But we must not forget that the son, having wandered around the world, returned to his home, because it is impossible for a person to live without his foundations and roots.
It seems to me that the feeling of love for one’s own people is as natural to a person as the feeling of love for God. It can be distorted. And humanity throughout its history has more than once distorted the feeling invested by God. But it is.
And here is another very important thing. The feeling of patriotism should in no case be confused with a feeling of hostility towards other peoples. Patriotism in this sense is consonant with Orthodoxy. One of the most important commandments of Christianity: do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you. Or, as it sounds in the Orthodox doctrine in the words of Seraphim of Sarov: save yourself, acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved. The same patriotism. Do not destroy in others, but build in yourself. Then others will treat you with respect. I think that today this is the main task of patriots in our country: the creation of our own country.
Other theologians are more cautious about the idea of patriotism.
According to the Orthodox theologian Abbot Peter (Meshcherinov), love for the earthly homeland is not something that expresses the essence of Christian teaching and is mandatory for a Christian. However, the Church, at the same time, finding its historical existence on earth, is not an opponent of patriotism, as a healthy and natural feeling of love. At the same time, however, she “does not perceive any natural feeling as a moral given, for a person is a fallen being, and a feeling, even such as love left to itself, does not emerge from a state of fall, but in a religious aspect leads to paganism.” Therefore, “patriotism has dignity from a Christian point of view and receives an ecclesiastical meaning when and only when love for the motherland is an active realization of the commandments of God in relation to it.
Contemporary Christian publicist Dmitry Talantsev considers patriotism an anti-Christian heresy. In his opinion, patriotism puts the motherland in the place of God, while «the Christian worldview implies the fight against evil, upholding the truth completely regardless of where, in which country this evil occurs and the departure from the truth»
Ideas of synthesis of patriotism and cosmopolitanism
The opposite of patriotism is usually considered cosmopolitanism, as the ideology of global citizenship and «homeland-world», in which «attachment to one’s people and fatherland seems to lose all interest from the point of view of universal ideas.» In particular, such opposition in the USSR during Stalin’s time led to a struggle against «rootless cosmopolitans». On the other hand, there are ideas of synthesis of cosmopolitanism and patriotism, in which the interests of the motherland and the world, one’s people and humanity are understood as subordinate, as the interests of the part and the whole, with the unconditional priority of universal human interests. Thus, the English writer and Christian thinker Clive Staples Lewis wrote:
“Patriotism — good quality, much better than the selfishness of the individualist, but universal brotherly love — higher than patriotism, and if they come into conflict with each other, then brotherly love should be preferred.
M. Riedel finds such an approach of the modern German philosophers already in Immanuel Kant. Contrary to the neo-Kantians, who focus on the universalist content of Kant’s ethics and his idea of creating a world republic and a universal legal and political order, M. Riedel believes that Kant’s patriotism and cosmopolitanism are not opposed to each other, but mutually agreed, and Kant sees both in patriotism, so is the manifestation of love in cosmopolitanism. According to M. Riedel, Kant, in contrast to the universalist cosmopolitanism of the Enlightenment, emphasizes that a person, in accordance with the idea of world citizenship, is involved in both the fatherland and the world, believing that a person, as a citizen of the world and the earth, is a true «cosmopolitan» in order to «promote the good of the whole world , must have an inclination in affection for his country.»
In pre-revolutionary Russia, this idea was defended by Vladimir Solovyov, arguing with the neo-Slavophile theory of self-sufficient «cultural-historical types». In an article on cosmopolitanism in the ESBE, Solovyov argued:
“just as love for the fatherland does not necessarily contradict attachment to closer social groups, for example, to one’s family, so devotion to universal interests does not exclude patriotism. The question is only in the final or highest standard for evaluating this or that moral interest; and, no doubt, the decisive advantage here must belong to the good of the whole of mankind, as including the true good of each part..
On the other hand, Solovyov saw the prospects for patriotism as follows:
Idolatry in relation to one’s own people, being associated with actual enmity towards strangers, is thereby doomed to inevitable death. (…) Everywhere, consciousness and life are preparing for the assimilation of a new, true idea of patriotism, derived from the essence of the Christian principle: “by virtue of natural love and moral duties to his fatherland to consider its interest and dignity mainly in those higher blessings that do not divide, but unite people and peoples ”.