Patriotism and Place: A Repetition

Patriotism, as “love for and devotion to one’s country,” has (re)emerged with extensive vigor in the post-9/11 American way-of-life. This (re)emergence is perhaps most evident in the “patriotic” display of bumper stickers, car magnets, the flag, passionate reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance and singing of the National Anthem, and the unquestioning allegiance to the nation, including governmental actions and national ideals. In light of this newfound patriotic fervor, the question must be posed: Is this authentic patriotism?

Etymologically, “patriotism" comes from the Greek word pater, meaning “father.” Patrios and patris are the root words of “patriotism”; patrios is the “love of one’s fathers” and patris is the Greek word for “fatherland.” Therefore, etymologically, “patriotism” is the “love of the land of one’s father.”

Praxiologically, people could be considered patriotic by definition, generally, up until the 19th and 20th century, because they tended to remain “bound to one place for the entirety of their lives.”[1] In the Old World, patriotism was the loyalty to and love for a particular soil and a particular way-of-life which was distinct ethnically, religiously, politically, linguistically, culturally, etc. In other words, patriotism was the ethical connection to a particular place.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, philosophical developments dating back as far as Aristotle coupled with new technology such as the airplane, automobile, radio, television, the internet, etc. began to affect Western praxis. People no longer remained bound to one place. They instead moved around for a change of scenery, occupational prestige, financial progress, and a multitude of other reasons. At this point patriotism ceased to be the love for a particular land and a particular way of life and instead dissolved into an abstract, nationalistic "love of and devotion to one's country."

"Love of and devotion to one's country" devoid of an ethical connection with a particular place necessarily leads to abuse and exploitation of the land, people, and local communities. This love of country is an abstract "love." Love, however, is never abstract. It is impossible to love a country the size of America, because one lacks the intimate knowledge necessary for love and good care. Therefore, we can only love America in as much as we love our particular place. We can only live responsibly as Americans by living responsibly in some small part of it, or else this abstract "love" will only lead to further destruction of the land, people, and local communities existing in particular places.

This (re)vision or (re)appropriation is a repetition of patriotism as the “love of one’s father’s land” but understands that an ethical connection with particular land necessarily works its way through the interconnection of place and includes all other aspects that affect the land; quantitative, spatial, kinematic, physical, organic, psychic, analytical, cultural/historical/formative, lingual, social, economic, aesthetic, juridical, ethical, and pistic. “True patriotism” as Wendell Berry calls it, is the “love for one’s land” [2], but it is more complex and necessarily includes all other aspects of a place. Therefore, patriotism can be (re)defined as the “love for one’s place.”

I am writing my senior thesis on Patriotism and Place. It is tentatively entitled "A (Re)Vision of Patriotism: The Necessity of Ethical Connection with a Particular Place. Any insights are welcome and would be of great assistance.

[1] John Inge, A Christian Theology of Place, 6.
[2] Wendell Berry, “A Citizen’s Response to ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’”, Citizenship Papers, 5.

Salva Side Note Segue

Jeff has asked me to answer these questions: "What is salvation? How does it relate to sin and the concepts of heaven/hell? Addititionally, how does it effect our concrete suffering currently?"

Well, let me start by trying to answer the first part: Salvation is a saving force that frees one from the consequences of sin and evil. I would say that "the force" would be from God, since we are talking about a biblical view on salvation. I would also call the force "grace." I don't think it is something we can achieve, but rather receive. Receiving is only possible through the belief in Jesus.

Second part: I don't believe that if one recieves salvation, they are no longer going to commit sins. Just that the eternal consequences of those sins has been abolished. That would lead to the heaven/hell aspect. If one has received God's salvation, I believe that when their physical body dies their spirit will be accepted into heaven as a result of Jesus' sacrifice and the following salvation. If one goes to hell, it is evidence that they did not "accept" this salvation.

As it pertains to our current state, salvation in the eternal sense does not eliminate any consequences of sin on earth. One could not argue that because they are "saved," that they can steal and they will not be punished.

Salvation is not simply a word to describe eternal matters, it is just the most common biblical usage.

Jeff, I'm not sure if this is my views on salvation or just the answers to your questions. But if I think of more, I'll include them in the comments. Feel free to interact