The Nature of Political Theory

196 The Nature of Political Theory

The idea of republicanism, in the way it has been developed by a number of recent
writers, has often tried to incorporate a specific understanding of patriotism. In fact,
it usually claims some form of quite exclusive and specific insight into patriotism,
as distinct from other political doctrines. This republican argument usually entails a
fairly vigorous repudiation of the idea of nationalism. There are a number of basic
claims within this perspective. Republicanism is seen as a rational doctrine, which is
freely adopted, whereas nationalism is something the agent is thrown into through
the accidents of ethnicity or birth. The republican patriotic mentality is seen to
be more civilized and premised on values such as liberty, whereas nationalism is
considered more exclusive, narrow, and basically indifferent to liberty. The concerns
ofnationalismareseentobelargelyparochial, inward-lookingandaggressive, whereas
republican patriotism is seen as universalistic, outward-looking, if defensive of the
values of the regime. Consequent upon these general considerations, patriotism is
usually kept rigidly distinct from nationalism.
One of the more eloquent recent defenders of this thesis is Maurizio Viroli, although
it is worth noting that Arendt also vigorously opposed nationalism in her various
republican writings. For Viroli, the language of patriotism ‘has been used over the
centuries to strengthen or invoke love of the political institutions and the way of life
that sustains the common liberty of a people, that is love of the republic, [whereas]
the language of nationalism was forged in late eighteenth century Europe to defend
or reinforce the cultural, linguistic and ethnic oneness and homogeneity of a people’
(Viroli 1995: 1). Patriotism is intrinsically antagonistic to tyranny, despotism, and
oppression. It focuses on the issue of liberty under law. For Viroli, both nationalism
and patriotism have fluctuating meanings, nonetheless, he still contends that ‘the
language of modern nationalism came about as a transformation or adaptation of
the language of patriotism, by which words like “country” and expressions like “love
of country” were given new meanings, while a number of themes like cultural or
ethnic unity and purity that republican patriots did not address at all or treated as
minor compared to the main question of common liberty, assumed a central role’.
He therefore contends that ‘to understand nationalism, we must then begin with
patriotism and think in terms of two languages, not a single language unfolding and
changing over centuries’ (Viroli 1995: 8). Nationalism implies excessive interest in
consensus, which tends, in turn, to suffocate a community, in effect, promoting
narrow-mindedness (Viroli 1995: 13). Consequently, he is insistent that we should
not confound patriotism and nationalism. Yet, like Pettit, Skinner, and other recent
republicans, Viroli thinks that republican patriotism had been pushed to the margin
of political theory during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, usually by doctrines
such as liberalism and socialism (Viroli 1995: 161). However, it is questionable as to
whether patriotism was actually lost in this period. It was rather employed quite
widely, although not in a republican format.
As indicated the distinctive signature for republican writers of genuine patriotism
is the spirited defence of political liberty and love of country. To love a country is not
necessarily to love its culture or ethnicity, it is rather to be deeply focused on the idea
and practice of civic or political liberty. Having no specific cultural tie, such liberty