By Susan Dieleman, University of Lethbridge, The Conversation
Amid a trade war between Canada and the United States, there’s been a surge in Canadian patriotism over the past few weeks.
A recent poll shows that, across the country, the number of Canadians who consider themselves “proud” or “very proud” has increased — including in Québec, where these numbers have increased from 45 to 58 per cent.
Canadians have been showing their national pride in a variety of ways. Sports fans have been singing “O Canada” at the top of their lungs and booing the U.S. national anthem. Consumers have adjusted their purchasing priorities, buying more Canadian products and avoiding American ones where possible. Vacationers have even changed their travel plans, opting to stay in Canada rather than travel south of the border.
Political leaders, too, have practically draped themselves in the Canadian flag to show their national pride. For example, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been dubbed “Captain Canada” by the media for his response to the tariffs. Federal and provincial leaders have also adopted a so-called “Team Canada” approach — committing to presenting a united front in their response to tariff threats from the U.S.
Former political leaders have penned opinion pieces proclaiming Canada to be the best country in the world — or, at least, a once-serious and proud country.
But what does it mean to be patriotic — and are there good and bad ways of being patriotic? As an expert in the political thought of American philosopher Richard Rorty, I have found his reflections provide useful guidance for understanding the line between being a good patriot — and either taking things too far or not far enough.
The virtuous response
Rorty’s prophetic claims in his 1998 book Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America about the likelihood that a “strongman” would be elected went viral after Donald Trump’s 2016 election. His insights can help us understand patriotism and why it might be important in the present moment.
Rorty opens that book by providing an analogy:
“National pride is to countries what self-respect is to individuals: a necessary condition for self-improvement. Too much national pride can produce bellicosity and imperialism, just as excessive self-respect can produce arrogance. But just as too little self-respect makes it difficult for a person to display moral courage, so insufficient national pride makes energetic and effective debate about national policy unlikely. Emotional involvement with one’s country […] is necessary if political deliberation is to be imaginative and productive. Such deliberation will probably not occur unless pride outweighs shame.”
In this passage, Rorty invokes Aristotle’s notion of a “golden mean” — moderation between the excessive and deficient expression of a particular disposition. Very roughly put, to be virtuous is to feel and respond appropriately to any given situation. To exceed or fall short of the appropriate feeling and response is to be vicious.
For example, to be courageous is to fear appropriately and to respond to that fear appropriately. The courageous person is not a person without fear. Rather, they fear what’s worthy of fear and don’t fear that which isn’t.
The courageous person also responds appropriately to fear. What this response looks like will vary according to situation. Sometimes, courage calls one to stand and fight — while at other times, it calls one to turn and run. An inappropriate response is when one is reckless because they’re overly unafraid — or when one is cowardly because they’re overly afraid. As the wise fool character of Falstaff notes in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, the better part of valour is discretion.
Virtuous patriotism
Applying the same approach, we can understand patriotism as feeling and responding appropriately in a situation that calls for national shame. The person who takes pride in their country is not a person who never feels shame. Rather, they’re ashamed when something their country has done is worthy of shame — and not ashamed when there’s no reason to be.
As a result, patriotism sometimes calls one to criticize their country. At other times, patriotism calls us to celebrate our country. The person who exhibits patriotism virtuously will know when criticism and celebration are appropriate. To respond inappropriately, according to Rorty, is to be either quarrelsome and imperialistic when one is overly unashamed, or to be apathetic and uninvolved when one is overly ashamed.
Pride in one’s country is only a virtue when it’s well-deserved. But when it is well-deserved, pride is the virtuous response.
In Achieving Our Country, Rorty was primarily concerned with the fracturing and consequent direction of the political left, worrying that it was veering off the virtuous track in the direction of vicious apathy. The political left, he said, emphasized the ways their country fell short — and of which they were rightly ashamed. But they didn’t look at the way the country had lived up to its promise, which should have made them proud.
However, as I’ve written about previously, the political left wasn’t wrong to identify those aspects of a country’s history that are indeed shameful. And for Rorty, the left has played a vital role throughout history in helping countries become kinder, less shameful places than they otherwise might have been.
In the current political climate, Rorty’s lesson for us is to make sure we don’t veer too far in the opposite direction, becoming quarrelsome or imperialistic. What true patriot love calls for is a more moderate stance — where we’re shameful of that which is worthy of shame, but also proud of that which is worthy of pride. Without a balance of shame and pride, efforts to continue improving what we stand on guard for is likely to falter and fall.
As we Canadians wave our flags and support our Canadian producers, we would be well-served to remember the value of imaginative and productive deliberation — and to steer well clear of both bellicosity and apathy.
Susan Dieleman, Jarislowsky Chair in Trust and Political Leadership and Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
