Loyalty to your country can take different forms. It interests me when people say that our grandparents fought the war and lost their lives in service in order to achieve x. This x is variously reckoned to be some notion of freedom (e.g. civil liberties, or freedom of speech), British Values (generally undefined), or the overthrow of fascism. Alternatively, of course, this kind of argument might even be used to argue that the x our grandparents would really have wanted was a world of equality and smiling happy faces.
I think we can most of us agree that political freedom is mostly a very good thing, fascism is mostly a very bad thing, and that equality and joyous smiles are definitely worth digging a trench for. I do not think these arguments are entirely invalid, and I am sure that a good number of those who enlisted to fight against Hitler and Mussolini found their political style highly distasteful. I do wonder, though, whether some of those people fought for less fashionable reasons. Simple social peer pressure, perhaps? Xenophobia, peut-etre? Powerful political propaganda that convinced them that the enemy was immoral and irreligious and that their wives and daughters and cultural values would be at risk, maybe? Possibly an inspiring image of an idyllic green and pleasant land, the land of Keats and Wordsworth and charming country villages and rolling hills. Perhaps many men fought with a sense of pride or even arrogance, confidently striding out to defend what was formerly the largest empire in history and the land of the world leaders of 19th century innovation and progress. The land of Brunel, Watt and Darby.
Inculcating a sense of pride in one's own country is seen as an important part of education all over the world. Western liberals, however, have increasingly questioned the traditional narratives of our own history, and those on the left, in particular, have sought to expose the evils within, rather than uniting the country against an external enemy. Nowadays, our children are allowed to learn that actually, you know, maybe the empire wasn't entirely a wonderful idea from the perspective of those millions and millions of people who were subjugated, sold into slavery, or whose resources were commandeered for the emerging global market. The industrial revolution can be evaluated by students, and their teachers are allowed to suggest that perhaps it wasn't so wonderful for the children upon whose labour it (perhaps) depended. They can read sources and discuss whether the 'Tolpuddle Martyrs' were terrorists, or heroes, and perhaps they might learn of the terrible conditions for those who faced 'transportation' to Australia for 'political crimes' such as trade unionism.
There are some who feel that this kind of liberal claptrap is doing us no good. It's undermining the national spirit, by jove! They may not wish to defend these particular aspects of our past, I suppose, but they will perhaps argue that there is too much focus on these things, or that the history has become skewed the other way - all too ready to put ourselves down, we British have allowed the curriculum to work against us. The vital gel of patriotism has been lost, and our communities no longer will grow up with the determination to be strong, to be great, to be the best, to be happy. It was much better when everyone agreed that we were brilliant, and that people born elsewhere weren't as good. If we can all agree that German Nazis, or the spread of Soviet communism, or Islamic fundamentalists or secretive international financiers pose us a most immediate threat, then there is a certain sense of purpose and meaning gained in working together to destroy the threat. Nationalism thrives in such a context and along with it a tendency towards a distorted idea of those humans defined as opposed to us, and a willing ignorance about our own flaws.
The key here is that it was the threat that provided the path to a simplistic ideology of a purposeful and driven people. An analogy can be drawn with the effects of adrenaline on the human body: the hormone shuts down unnecessary processes and becomes an efficient machine for a fight or flight response - primed to deal with aggression, and to respond with aggression.
The thing about this kind of patriotism, is that as a system of thought, it doesn't easily tolerate criticism. As a matter of pragmatism, once the fear's adrenaline-like effects are established, the truth of the claims become unimportant. Maintaining the narrative becomes imperative. If people show that they don't wholeheartedly believe in our country, they are a threat. Once the balloon of national pride is inflated, dissenting voices become needles that need to be blunted for the sake of the hot air.
Governments, of course, have appropriated this mechanism for their ends. The USA, most obviously, with its flag-waving, fireworks on independence day, pledge of allegiance, and gun-toting survivalists. Manifest destiny, McCarthyism, reactions to 9/11 ... the religious right packages it all up nicely with your duty to God to boot.
The UK has done so, though perhaps in a more tempered way: our love of the underdog is at odds with it. Even if some faults in our past are accepted, the wonderful traits we have, and our ability to produce Shakespeare, the NHS and Tim Berners-Lee is held to outweigh the apparent genius we possessed for sailing big boats into new harbours and then trading on the misery of other tribes who we patronised and indentured.
In cases such as Watergate, Profumo, Enron, etc., leaks have widely been seen as good. The free press are feted for exposing corruption. In the internet age, we can openly dissent and find a wealth of resources promoting counter-cultural or anarchistic ideas, breaking taboos, and challenging established 'truths' in science and religion.
But we also now live in an age where our governments have tolerated the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. Where we allow these governments to track our every move. Furthermore Assange, Manning, and Snowden, are treated as enemies and traitors, not honourable and brave servants of their country. This, I believe, is a mistake caused by the nationalistic reflex reaction against anything which is said to go against our country's interest. Yet, I wish to argue, what is truly in our country's interest is to maintain the freedom to publish information which challenges the ills within our political and economic system. If you really want to be loyal to your country, you should fight corruption, injustice and dishonesty within it, and not just engage in wars against the perceived evils of other lands.
No comments:
Post a Comment