Blah, Blah, Patriotism, Blah, Blah, Global Society, Blah, Blah

For this week’s blog we were asked to reflect on three articles that we have read, Is Patriotism Good For Democracy? by Joseph Kahne and Ellen Middaugh, On Defense of the Nation by Brenda Trofanenko, and I Pledge Allegiance To... Flexible Citizenship and Shifting Scales of Belonging by Katharyne Mitchell and Walter Parker. Each of these articles tackle what it means to be a patriot. At first glance, this seems to be a rather simple question, with a simple answer: a patriot is someone who believes in and is concerned about his/her country. But in today’s more polarized climate, in which the currant national administration has openly told the nation states of the world that either they are with us or against us, in which said administration will go down in history as one of the most unpopular presidencies in our country’s memory, in which we are involved in two wars, and in which the newest trend in academia is to discuss and speculate the loss of American hegemony, this question of patriotism becomes inherently much more complex.

Kahne and Middaugh’s piece explores the definition of being a patriot. They divide this definition into three subsets: those that are “Blind Patriots,” those that are “Critical Patriots,” and those who are “Active Patriots.” As their names suggests, “Blind Patriots” are those who unswervingly love their country, while “Critical Patriots” are those who love their country, but also admit that their country has certain short comings. “Active Patriots” can come from either group, but are involved in civic engagement. My questions for Kahne and Middaugh is why do they place such a pejorative term on people who express total loyalty to the nation? Furthermore, why is being critical and having an deep love for America mutually exclusive? Personally, I would never think of immigrating, but I would be among the first to admit that the United States needs to undergo some radical changes.

Trofanenko’s article delves into the question of how do we study the concept of nation, within the context of globalization, inside the social studies classroom. She argues that we must move past the “warm and fuzzy” view of a global society, as well as a the myths that have been used and abused in order to teach our children about the history of our country, and start to focus on teaching how American history plays on the world stage. This is a position that I wholeheartedly support, although I would like to add one addendum; in many of our readings, the term myth has been bandied about, and it is usually cast in a bad light. Myths are stories that explain how things came to be, and try to impart a moral to their audiences. By studying myths with a critical distance, students can learn what a culture values, and how a particular people see themselves within the world and universe. In other words, the teaching of myths is not the problem, the fault lays in how we teach our students those myths.

I’m not sure what Mitchell and Parker’s central point is. Although they claim to be arguing against Nussbaum, and what they perceive as her “either/ or” mentality when comes to teaching children about global citizenship, their description of Nussbaum’s views, with it’s concentric interlocking circles of identity, which starts at the local level and ascends into the cosmos, seems to be within their ultimate line of thinking. Although many of their ideas are exciting to me, including the view that today’s children see themselves as simultaneously part of the nation and the world, I think they are arguing for the sake of arguing. I might have missed something (it wouldn’t be the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last), but I think they might have been better served writing a defense or an addendum to Nussbaum’s article, as opposed to a critique.