The Paradox of Patriotism: Understanding Ones Love of Country

By Seth Davin Norrholm, Ph.D. and David M. Reiss, M.D.

In this article, the authors discuss the psychology of patriotism and how it relates to the current sociopolitical climate and ones sense of being patriotic

What is Patriotism and Its Relation to Interpretation of the United States Constitution?

For most of us living in the United States in a relatively free society, we have a general sense of what it means to be a patriot. Patriotism includes acknowledging, and of course striving to correct, our significant failures in certain areas such as equal rights, civil rights, gender equality, and access to resources.

Merriam-Webster simply defines patriotism as love for or devotion to ones country. Dictionary.com takes this definition a bit further and defines being patriotic as seeking to love, support, and defend ones country or having a sense of national loyalty. In everyday practical terms, patriotism is equated with the sense of pride that comes with activities such as saluting the flag, reciting the pledge of allegiance, applauding a recently returning deployed military service member, or cheering on the red, white, and blue during international competitions such as the Olympic Games or the soccer World Cup.

The U.S. Constitution was signed into law on September 17, 1787 and later ratified on June 21, 1788. The Constitution opens with its Preamble, an introductory section written by the Constitutional Convention, which was included in order to demonstrate the spirit under which it was written and the hopes of the Founding Fathers to improve the existing system of government (Articles of Confederation). The Preamble text reads as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Following the Preamble, the first three Articles of the Constitution describe the tripartite (three-part) system of government to be established as including the Congress (Legislative Branch), the President (Executive Branch), and the Courts (Judicial Branch), respectively.

Article Six, in particular, pronounces the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, to be respected by all individual state governments and all that falls within their authority. The sixth Article also explicitly states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." We will discuss the latter section of this Article later in our commentary.

At the time of its ratification, the Founding Founders very explicitly linked Patriotism to respect for and defense of the Constitution. However, at the same time, by its very inception and structure, the contents of the Constitution are not implied to be infallible (without fault) the amendment process is written into Article Five of the document itself.

Logically, this sets up what is known as a self-reflexive paradox in itself. As described by Douglas Hofstadter in the book Gdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, this is essentially a loop that is created when ideas, people, or objects refer back to themselves (an illustration of this is the image of two hands drawing each other by M.C. Escher ).

At the same time, the content of the Constitution is open to interpretation by lawyers, politicians, religious thought leaders, as well as the general public. For example, in legal circles, there is ongoing debate as to whether Constitutional interpretation:

is permanently wedded to the thoughts of the Founders (its original intent) or

can and must reflect modifying those interpretations based upon current knowledge and ethical philosophy (it is a living document)

Given that the interpretation of the Constitution creates a number of potential conundrums for those who wish to review, interpret, or amend its contents, there is the essential question of how to defend the Constitution especially if its very words are being misinterpreted, misunderstood or misused intentionally or with malignant intent.

Patriotism and Defense of the Constitution

Patriotism, in a general sense, has been consistently interwoven within our governmental and military institutions as evident in such declarations such as the oaths of Office for leaders within our tripartite system or the creeds, mottos, and slogans of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. For example, lets take a look at the Presidential Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

What do you notice here? The words ring similar to the patriotic definitions included in this articles introduction (e.g., defend), however, a central (some would say binding) document has been included into the Oath: the aforementioned Constitution. It is not difficult to argue that protecting and defending this document inherently, or by nature, includes the (patriotic?) protection and defense of the citizens of this country and its foundations as a whole.

In reciting these 35 words with his hands placed on a Bible, the President affirms his commitment to safeguarding the Constitution and all that it entails.

Now, as we further examine the notion of patriotism, lets review the Oath of Office taken by members of the United States Congress:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Wow! That is quite a duty to uphold indeed. In addition to the patriotic ideals included in the Presidential Oath, a Congressman/woman has an even higher bar to clear in the execution of their duties and responsibilities. The men and women of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate must also not only defend the contents of the Constitution and swear allegiance to the United States, in general, but specifically against ALL enemies be they foreign or home grown. On top of that, Congressmembers are not just beholden to the citizens of our Nation but to God as well!

It should be noted here that numerous Presidents have added the phrase So help me God after reciting the official Oath of Office but is not required by law as it is with many other federal oaths.

For comparisons sake, here is the oath required by all officers of the seven uniformed services of the United States:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

In other words, it is virtually identical to the oath taken by members of Congress (there are some nuanced differences for National Guardsmen and women as they full under the auspices of the individual State from which they are deployed).

If one were to define the Presidential, Congressional, and Uniformed Services oaths of service as patriotic given their inclusion of culturally accepted terms associated with patriotism (i.e., support and defense of the Constitution against various forms of threat), then the American definition of patriotism inherently includes a binding agreement to a ratified (arguably unifying) agreement in writing (the Constitution) and that this binding agreement is sanctified by its reverence to God.

Patriotism and Defense of the Constitutional Defenders

By having the highest officials in government as well as those who serve our military forces swear to defend the Constitution, this may be illogically assumed to imply the inverse patriotic commitment to the Constitution can be or should be transferred to include a specific commitment to those persons sworn to allegiance to and defense of the Constitution.

This begs the question, must an American citizen (i.e., self-defined patriot) transfer to any person the President, Congressmembers, military leaders the same allegiance and defense that is specified to be attached to the Constitution itself?

If so, how does one criticize the interpretation and use of the Constitution:

by a leader who has sworn allegiance to and defense of the Constitution, and

who defends his/her beliefs or actions by references to specific interpretations of the Constitution

without rendering the Constitution so flexible as to lose meaning and purpose?

The Paradox of Patriotism

Thus, the definition of true Patriotism cannot reject these paradoxes and cannot solve these paradoxes, but must embrace, as in fact the core of Patriotism:

the paradox of addressing errors discovered inherently within the Constitution

identifying errors in the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution while

still acting within allegiance to and defense of the Constitution

The embrace of the paradox of Patriotism, unable to be described or conceptualized in simple, linear, logical terms, involves complex psychological factors that are actually common to all loving relationships. These factors can include, but are certainly not limited to:

Bonding

Loyalty

Mutuality

Ambivalence

Spirituality, Faith, and Belief Systems

Desire to Give and Receive Unconditional Love (vs. the need to avoid pathological and destructive co-dependency

Lets take a deeper look at some of these factors) as they relate to the paradox of patriotism.

Bonding

Ones personal attachment to members of a shared group (e.g., country, family, military unit, team) and the strong values often associated with this attachment is, in part, due to the evolutionary benefits of group membership for survival, procreation, and protection. There is an underlying neurobiology to attachment and these mechanisms recruit hormonal systems including that of the peptide oxytocin (often dubbed the love hormone).

Oxytocin plays an integral role in the act of childbirth, lactation, and the bonding that forms between parents and their children. In addition, this hormone has been linked to the human factors including trust, empathy, and the management of stress and anxiety. In short, the hormone allows people to feel emotionally close to other people. Psychologists and neuroscientists have suggested that oxytocin helps people to identify who falls within the circle of us and who falls into a different circle of them. You can see how this hormone can play a critical role in how a person defines their patriotism.

Military service members and veterans, who are almost universally referred to as patriots among Americans from all walks of sociopolitical life, form bonds as part of their life as a Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman. In fact, many individuals who experience post-deployment psychological problems report that some of their symptoms are related to losing their sense of attachment or bonding (in addition to the common reactions to trauma captured by PTSD diagnoses).

There is ongoing neuroscience research that aims to assess oxytocin levels in emotionally detached returning service members and to rescue deficiencies to a level that will facilitate the re-emergence of emotional ties this may be achieved through the direct administration of oxytocin or through drugs shown to increase emotional bonding such as 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy).

Even if modulated by biochemical reactions, the psychological impact of bonding is a devotion and attachment to an other that is cemented by emotions, at times despite or to the exclusion of purely rational or logical thought and considerations. Hence, the offering of and search for unconditional love love and bonding that transcends logic, rationality and other practical conditions.

Ambivalence

Ambivalence refers to the state of having uncertain, fluctuating, mixed, or contradictory ideas about something or someone. Patriotic symbols (e.g., bald eagle; stars and stripes) and mottos (e.g., Dont Tread on Me; God Bless the U.S.A.) have assumed or regained their revered status at times when patriotism, love or country, or national pride was high such as at the conclusion of a military conflict (think ticker tape parades and sailors kissing their loved ones) or in the wake of a terrorist act perceived to be aimed at all Americans (9/11/2001).

However, what about at times when national pride is low, morale is significantly reduced, and criticism of the Constitution or its Defenders is high? At those times , the expression and influence of ambivalence may be increased and as such, affect ones sense of patriotism. Angry feelings or impulses, or logic arguments and philosophical points of view, may transcend emotional bonding and engender questioning, doubt, or even rejection of certain interpretations of the Constitution. Ambivalence does not necessarily reflect a rejection of the Constitution but rather, a patriotic attempt to make more perfect the seminal documents. Yet, attempts to debate or question the contents of the Constitution or its defenders may be described by critics or upholders of the status quo as unpatriotic.

Just recently, U.S. Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) and three other people were shot while participating in a Congressional Baseball Game practice. Scalise is the House Majority Whip and has served in Congress since 2014. Politically, Representative Scalise has spoken to a reported white Supremacist group (though he denied knowing the groups dogma at the time), promoted legislation seen as anti-LGBTQ (including opposing same sex marriage), supported the Presidential Executive Order calling for a temporary ban on entry into the U.S. by citizens from (seven then six) Muslim-majority nations, and, ironically, and actively sought to expand access to firearms under the Second Amendment.

In other words, there was ample justification for a significant number of American citizens to view this legislator negatively, to hold him in low regard, and to dub him as unpatriotic.

But then he was shot.

At the risk of speaking ill of the injured, Scalise was visited by the current President who, following the visit, tweeted that the fallen representative was a true Patriot. Is he? By what criteria? Does taking a bullet on American soil make one a patriot? Were those who viewed this member of Congress as unpatriotic previously, because of specific implicit interpretations of the Constitution that he promulgated, now meant to contradict their previous thoughts and feelings and reassess their assessments?

Is Scalises patriotism a function of his intent to defend the Constitution even if many (or a majority) find his reasoning and interpretations contrary to the intent of the Founders and the logical meaning of the philosophical basis of the Constitution? Was Scalises patriotism in any manner increased or decreased by his victimization? In fact, why would Trump even call attention to Scalises true patriotism which one would expect of every Member of Congress as a prerequisite.

Was Trumps comment just a superficial nicety; an implicit comparison of Scalises patriotism to members of Congress who do not support Trump; or somehow, an implication that the most unfortunate criminal act conferred some special status upon Scalise?

Spirituality, Faith, and Belief Systems

As a document crafted by man with direct reference to a higher power (presumably the Judeo-Christian God), the meaning of the Articles and text within the Constitution and the holy auspices under which it rests are open to human interpretation and the influence of an individual patriots spirituality, faith, or belief systems.

Historically, the actions of elected (and unelected officials for that matter) have been carried out in the name of God and for the greater good of We the People. The inclusion of God in this discussion may not have been as emotionally charged in our earlier history as it appears to be today.

Heres what we mean by that:

On one level, patriotism can be conceptualized in terms of us versus them and, at the national level, the us is obviously the United States and the them is a defined enemy during a particular conflict. Over the course of our 241-year history, the them has included enemies such as the Germans (WWI), the Axis powers of World War II (Germany, Italy, and Japan), Communist North Korea (Korean War), the North Vietnamese and their allies, the Viet Cong (Vietnam War), and more recently the regimes believed to lie at the center of the Global War on Terror (Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom).

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, there was a clear consensus of the us in that situation which included those with, to use a recent term from the Supreme Court, bona fide ties to the United States. The latter also included many of our closest allies and those nations with allegiance to NATO and its Article 5 principles (an attack on one nation is an attack on all NATO member nations).

The them at the time of and since 9/11 has become somewhat murky but would generally include radical groups with their own violent and extreme interpretations of Islamic beliefs and ideology. At the risk of stating the obvious, in 2017, we are not a country made up mostly of white male Christians, as was the case at the time of our Founding (at least in terms of who was recognized as a citizen), but rather, we are a heterogeneous population with diverse national, ethnic, racial, and religious origins and backgrounds.

As stated in Article Six of the Constitution, there is (should be?) no religious Test by which ones eligibility for the rights and Offices described within the Constitutional text is based. It logically follows that Patriotism is independent of any specific religious belief or dogma. That was easy to say during the times of the Founding (especially because the intent was aimed at the protestant reasons for leaving England) but the issue is open to wide misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and misuse with todays religiously diverse populace.

Thus, the individual faith of self-described patriots serves to further confound the existing paradox that exists simply by claiming to be a defender of the Constitution. Specifically, the oaths to defend the Constitution so help me God are taken by public officials while the Constitution itself declares that the belief in God of itself is independent of and irrelevant to the acceptance and implementation of the Constitution as the rule of law, i.e., Patriotism. That is quite a paradox indeed!

Concluding Remarks

A sentimental view of patriotism remains exceedingly evident in our culture and is exemplified by our nationwide celebration of Independence Day on the 4th of July each year.

Important questions to ask yourself over this 4th of July weekend, within the current sociopolitical climate, and under the current Administration are:

1. What institution, what bonding of peoples, are we celebrating?

2. What principles are the service members in our Armed Forces defending?

3. What allegiance do we owe to governmental officials elected to represent us or legally appointed to interpret and implement the Constitution?

4. What duty do we have to confront those officials when we believe they have strayed from Constitutional principles, due to differences of opinion or due to malignant intent?

5. How do we respect the Office and the Constitutional mandate without dysfunctionally becoming a sycophant or co-dependent to a specific individual or party?

6. How do we identify and honor freedom, and in particular, the freedom to patriotically challenge and question the meaning, interpretation and implementation of the Constitution while staying with the parameter of the allegiance to and the defense of the Constitution

For many reasons, July 4, 2017 is not an ordinary Independence Day. For the same reasons, we believe that as a Country, we are particularly called upon this July 4th to look beyond the hot dogs and the parades and to seriously ask ourselves:

How can I best show allegiance to and support the defense of the Constitution, at a time when certain interpretations and uses of the Constitution may actually represent a threat to the core philosophies of the Founders, as applied to The United States of American in the 21st Century?