|
August 29, 2004
Gaita's argument now shifts away from the decay of political language to defending the idea of politics as a vocation based on love of country. He does so by mentioning an objection:
"The idea of politics as a realm sui generis - a realm whose distinctive concerns are not merely the satisfaction of our pre-political interests (security, economic wellbeing and so on and nor merely a combination of these and moral concerns) - has its dangers. Its potential slide into romanticism is obvious enough."
He makes no mention of the obvious danger of romanticism. This is a gap because he makes much of the romantic category of the nation as a spirit of the people. Is the danger of romanticism this?
Gaita responds to the above objection by saying that idea of politics as a realm sui generis merely elaborates the:
"...implications of what it means to have that identity-forming attachment to a country that we call patriotism and distinguish it from its false semblance, jingoism."
Gaita says that the aftermath of war the fear is that patriotism (love of country) will degenerate into jingoism and, in response, we should link responsible citizenship with internationalism or cosmopolitianism. He says that it would be a mistake to yield to this internationalism:
"It is just a fact of human life that many, perhaps most people, develop identity-forming attachments to places and to institutions. Not all of them, it is true. Trees have roots whereas human beings have legs, author George Steiner reminded us. But most people don't like to wander all their lives, especially not at the beginning of their lives nor at the end. The human soul needs warmth, and for most people that comes from belonging, from being in surroundings that are familiar and to which they have affectionate attachments.For most people, their deepest attachments are local, to a particular part of a country, perhaps a farm or a town, sometimes a city."
He makes no mention of the environment (ecology) that we are a part of, identify with, and care for its natural heritage. There is no connection to a dwelling ethics or needing to live differently on the land.
Gaita says that often this love of country comes into awareness when we have lost our country in the sense that:
"....and live under foreign occupation, denied the right to speak their language, to honour their national institutions, to fully remember their past and to pass on its treasure to future generations. In such terrible circumstances people realise that responsible love of country will seek protection for what is loved and is owed to future generations. In modern times, the means of protection is almost always the nation state, for it alone has the necessary military power, of itself, or more commonly, in alliance with other nation states. Protection is sought not just for the institutions of citizenship - the rule of law, democracy and so on, as these might be relatively interchangeable between different countries - but also for those institutions as they are infused by the spirit of a particular people."
We can also say that love of country comes into awarness when we have realised that we have trashed the country and laid waste to the environment in the name of economic development.
The above paragraph can be interpreted as a response to Chris Sheil's objection that he has no idea of what Gaita is talking about. Chris says:
"....the essay slips and slides its way along, completely discombobulating me about two-thirds of the way through by conflating 'love of country' and my own idea of 'belonging', which again presses on my reject button. All in all, as I can't really tell what he's talking about, or as I can't accept his emotional and personal premises, I've no idea if he makes his case."
Why the emotional rejection button on love of country?
What is the problem here? Love of country has been distinguished from jingoism and internationalism and identified with attachments to place (locality and region), to the country (both landscape and institutions) and to a responsible love (care and concern) that seeks to protect what is loved (valued) and owed to future generations (eg., healthy rivers and good universities). It is about both democratic institutions and the Australian development and understanding of these ---eg., the welfare state.
Do we citizens not want to use politics to protect our universal health care ssytem and our wilderness areas? Protect them because they enable us to live a flourishing life, well lived?
|
|
