CITIZENSHIP AND PATRIOTISM

PATRIOTISM, INSTINCTIVE AND INTELLIGENT1 IRA WOODS HOWERTH

[Ira Woods Howerth (1860- -) was born in Brown County, Indiana. After attending the Northern Indiana Normal College, he engaged for a time in teaching. He then spent several years in advanced study at Harvard and at the University of Chicago. For several years he was connected as professor with the latter institution, but in 1912 he became professor of education and director of university extension work in the University of California. This essay is a clear presentation of two differing types of patriotism that ought to be well understood by all persons.]

Patriotism cannot be really understood without knowing something of the manner of its development. Primarily it is an identification of the individual with the group to which he belongs-family, tribe, state, or nation. The patriot proudly speaks of "my family," "my tribe," "my state," "my people." This identification is based upon a certain feeling which is the product of group association, and this feeling is instinctive.

Sociology ascribes the origin of patriotism to the family life, the family being the first social group. That this is correct is indicated by the origin of the word patriotism. It is derived from the Greek word Taтpios, which means of or belonging to one's father. The Indo-Germanic root of the word is pa, from which we have the Latin pater and the English words father, paternal, patriarch, patriotism, and many others. Perhaps the root-word itself is but the natural infantile utterance reduplicated in the word papa. At all events the word patriotism has plainly a family origin. The papa, the father, being the providing, protecting, and governing element in the 1From Educational Review, vol. xliv, p. 13 (June, 1912). Reprinted by nermission.

210

family group, his authority supreme, dignity, protection, and support being personified in him, he was naturally the object of reverence and devotion. Loyalty to the pater, the father, the patriarch, was therefore the earliest form of patriotism.

In the course of social evolution the family enlarged into the clan, the gens, or the tribe. The interests of single families were then more or less submerged in the interests of a group of families of which each was a component element. The chief representative of these larger interests was the head man, the chieftain, including later the council. Loyalty to the father and family exclusively was inconsistent with clan or tribal life. Hence patriotism extended itself to the interests of the larger group and their tribal representatives. There was, so to speak, an expansion of patriotism. This new form was represented in the clannishness of the early Scot, "owning no tie but to his clan," the tribal instincts of the American Indian and other primitive peoples, and the partisanship of the early Greeks and Romans. With the formation of the tribe, patriotism passed from fatherism to tribalism.

In the amalgamation of tribes into states and nations the expansion of the feeling now known as patriotism continued. Loyalty to the tribe passed over into loyalty to the state or nation, and the feeling of patriotism became what we ordinarily express as love of country, the feeling which incites the individual to identify his interests more or less with those of his country, and to speak and act in a manner which he supposes will illustrate this identification.

Of course, the feeling of patriotism is not confined alone to the personal group of which the individual is a member. It attaches itself also to the natural surroundings of the group. "I love thy rocks and rills, thy woods and templed hills" is the expression of a truly patriotic sentiment. But we may include in our conception of a social group the natural conditions which surround it, and no misunderstanding need arise from defining patriotism as primarily an instinctive group feeling.

Patriotism, then, like all other things in the universe, like

the mind and all its manifestations, has had its origin and its development. It originated in association, and association has been the main factor in its growth. Now the fact of the evolution of patriotism, and the manner in which it has taken place, are the basis of a safe prophecy with respect to what patriotism is to become, if political and social organization and amalgamation continue. The affiliation and federation of countries will enlarge the feeling of patriotism. The "Parliament of man and federation of the world" would as certainly conduce to cosmopolitanism or political humanism as tribal associations conduced to tribalism, and the consolidation of tribes into states and states into nations conduced to the modern patriotic feeling. Love of country must gradually give place to love of kind.

Although patriotism expands with the enlarging composition of the group, it does not necessarily sever itself from any point of attachment. The family feeling may still be strong in the tribe, as with the Montagues and Capulets in Rome, for instance, and devotion to the state may be powerful in the citizens of the nation, as was conspicuously shown in the secession of the Southern States of America. So also the cosmopolitan may retain his love of country. He is not necessarily "a traitor," as some seem to suppose. Neither does this larger patriotism imply a lack of family affection with a Mrs. Jellyby's sentimental interest in the inhabitants of Borrioboola-Gha. In pure cosmopolitanism, however, the spirit of national or racial antagonism must necessarily vanish, and loyalty to one country or race as against another country or race must be controlled and tempered by devotion to humanity. The narrower and selfish interests of the particular country to which the citizen belongs must be held inferior to the interests of mankind. Of course, all these interests may coincide, but the world patriot cannot stand with his country "against the world," unless his country is right and "the world" is wrong. True loyalty and humanity can mean only devotion to the principles upon which the well-being of humanity rests. The world patriot must be loyal to right everywhere against wrong anywhere. He must

stand for justice to all against injustice to any. When the action or demands of his country conflict with the rights of humanity he must stand for humanity. Hence he may be called by his compatriots unpatriotic, but he is so only as viewed from the interests of the smaller group. The "politicals" of Russia, for instance, are unpatriotic in the eyes of the Russian Bureaucracy and its supporters. Though they be faithful to universal principles of liberty and equality, they are unfaithful to the principles of Russian despotism; hence, from a certain Russian standpoint, they are unpatriotic.

George Kennan, in the Outlook for March 30, 1907, gives an interesting and pathetic account of the attempt of some of these politicals to manifest their devotion to the larger principles of freedom embodied in our own Declaration of Independence. He says: "On the morning of the Fourth of July, 1876, hours before the first daylight cannon announced the beginning of the great celebration in Philadelphia, hundreds of small, rude American flags or strips of red, white, and blue cloth fluttered from the grated windows of the politicals around the whole quadrangle of the great St. Petersburg prison, while the prisoners were faintly hurrahing, singing patriotic songs, or exchanging greetings with one another through the iron pipes which united their cells. The celebration, of course, was soon over. The prison guard, although they had never heard of the Declaration of Independence and did not understand the significance of this extraordinary demonstration, promptly seized and removed the flags and tri-colored streamers. Some of the prisoners, however, had more material of the same kind in reserve, and at intervals throughout the whole day scraps and tatters of red, white, and blue were furtively hung out here and there from cell windows or tied around the bars of the gratings. Late in the evening, at a preconcerted hour, the politicals lighted their bits of tallow candles and placed them in their windows, and the celebration ended with a faint but perceptible illumination of the great prison.

This mournful and touching endeavor to celebrate our Fourth of July did not necessarily indicate a greater love of our country

than of Russia, but it did imply a devotion to political principles of universal application. We may conceive that the aspiration and ideal of these politicals were merely that these principles should prevail in their own fatherland. They loved not Russia less, but freedom more. They at least approximated a "higher patriotism."

Thus far we have spoken of patriotism as an instinctive feeling or sentiment. Now, it is characteristic of an instinct that it acts without reflection. Though originally purposive in action, and serving as an agent in individual or group preservation, an instinct takes no consideration of objective circumstances. It is a blind impulse. When the stimulus is provided it operates; and its operation has often led, in the course of biological and social evolution, to the extinction of individuals and of groups. Patriotism, therefore, so far as it is instinctive, is impulsive, blind, unreasoning, and irreflective. It thrills, it hurrahs, it boasts, it fights and dies without calmly considering what it is all about. It resents a fancied insult without stopping to ascertain whether it is real. It flies to the defense of the supposed interests of its group without inquiring whether the interests are worthy or the danger is actual. It is blind patriotism and springs from the emotional side of the mind. It differs in no essential respect from the impulse of the tiger to defend its young, or from that of the wild cattle of the prairie to defend the herd. It is easily aroused and easily "stampeded."

On the other hand, there is a patriotism which may be distinguished from instinctive patriotism by the word intelligent. The emotions are subject to the control of the intellect. It is the function and power of the intellect to inhibit, restrain, sometimes to eliminate, an instinct. Even the instinct of self-preservation, strong as it is, has sometimes been wholly inhibited by a duly informed and reflective mind. The proper intelligence may therefore modify, even reverse, the actions springing from instinctive feeling. Patriotic sentiment may be held subject to a thorough knowledge of political and social conditions and a sense of justice. When so held it becomes intelligent patriotism. Intelligent patriotism, then, is patriotic