The definitions of patriotism tend to include the love of, devotion to, and defense of one’s country. The idea of patriotism seems, in its most common uses, to have a prescriptive connotation. George W. Bush’s comment, “you’re either with us or against us” seems the most base use of the idea of patriotism, but I think this example is illustrative of the idea (and not just the American idea) of patriotism and its risks.
Nick Tate’s observations (as cited in Brighouse, 2006, p.99) that discussions of national identity and patriotism can be associated with nationalism, xenophobia, and racism highlight the risks facing educators who grapple with whether and how to teach patriotism in the classroom. That is, within the context described thus far, patriotism in the classroom tends to relate historical events as artifacts in furtherance of the national mythology. Nash (as cited in Brighouse, 2006) describes this in the American context as the idea that patriotism will flow from the belief in America’s superiority and her occasional falls from grace as detours from the ongoing flowering of freedom, capitalism, and opportunity. In this context, when history is viewed and presented through a more objective and truthful lens, it is by definition unpatriotic. Similarly, when current events are described and debated through this same lens, it is viewed as descent. Descent is, according to George W. Bush’s definition above, “against us” and therefore unpatriotic.
Patriotism is a social construct who’s aim seems to be to bind a nation’s people through a set of touchstones who’s purpose is to communicate the national heritage. Through these touchstones, the people of a nation, who have chosen to participate in a community governed by a set of laws, administered under a common political structure, and participating in a common economy, define their shared experience. This shared experience contributes to the definition of the culture and provides a sense of common identity, notwithstanding ancestry.
The philosophical problem associated with teaching patriotism in public schools has to do with the nature of patriotism, as described above, and the proper role of the state and its agents – in this case the public school.
As part of a just society, the state itself must be just. In order for the state to be just it must come at its role from a position of legitimacy. That is, as Brighouse (2006) puts it, in order for the state to receive the consent of the governed to be governed, that consent must not have been manipulated. By enlisting public schools to teach patriotism the state is arguably manufacturing consent among the governed. Again, George W. Bush’s administration provides an extreme example. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush’s “for us or against us” ultimatum, coupled with the patriotic requirement to “support the troops”, the characterization of America as liberators (read superior) of Iraq, all conspired to silence any descent within the nation. This manufactured consent lasted for years as the invasion of Iraq continued to be wrapped in patriotic messages.
The idea of teaching patriotism in the classroom and the concept of manufactured consent presents a further philosophical problem for public schools as it relates to its proper role of protecting a child’s right to an open future. That is, the idea of teaching patriotism in the classroom equates to proffering one view of what it is to be a citizen. In its extreme form, one can draw parallels between teaching patriotism and teaching one religious view; one philosophical view; one view of the good life. This runs counter to the state’s role to protect the future autonomy rights of each child. As examined in my home schooling reflection, in order for a child to exercise future autonomy rights, he/she must be properly prepared to do so. Part of that preparation occurs in the classroom where a multiplicity of views should be examined. Children must be exposed to a variety of views in order that they may choose between them at some future point in time. The teaching of patriotism in this context is akin to indoctrination of the child and undermines the state’s role.
The public school, as an agent of the state, is obliged to attempt, through its curriculum, to teach, as much as is possible, a balanced view within the social sciences generally, and the nation’s history in particular. As part of that view, the polemic of why and how events transpired should be explored in a balanced and objective manner. The public school is obliged to prepare each child to participate as a citizen in the affairs of the nation. This is achieved by fostering an understanding of the institutions and mechanisms which operate within the society and an ability to think critically about how and why they operate the way they do. I would suggest that meeting these obligations and teaching patriotism in the classroom are mutually exclusive.
The ethos of a nation is properly made up of the collective views of its citizens. The ability to challenge the status quo is fundamental to the development of a nation. Again using America as the pre-eminent example, descent, public discourse, and the principles of democracy have been fundamental to the nation from its inception. These ideas, I would suggest, have been the major drivers of the multi-faceted success and dominance America has achieved. This achievement has come exactly because of the exercise of autonomy in the thoughts and beliefs of its citizens. In fact, the failures of America (i.e., McCarthy, Vietnam, Iraq), I would suggest, have come as a result of the invocation of patriotic sentiment to the exclusion or silencing of critical thought and discussion.
In order to answer the philosophical problems associated with teaching patriotism in the classroom I think it is instructive to examine the result of patriotism. As described above, the invocation of patriotic sentiment manufactures consent which undermines the legitimacy of the state and alters the character of the nation. Real patriotism can not be taught. Love of, devotion to, and defense of one’s country is a choice made by each citizen; a choice made by the exercise of autonomy.
I would suggest that the answer to the question of whether patriotism should be taught in the classroom is, no. What should be taught in the classroom is the manner through which one develops autonomy; the manner through which one develops critical thought; the manner through which a citizen chooses to become a patriot.
