But the term individuality is an elastic one. It is necessary that it should be so. It has to be able to cover a great deal as a concept defining patriotism, for the manifestations of patriotism are various. Patriotism is so manifold that the limits of the definition cannot be drawn too closely. Individuality is a comprehensive term. It is, however, comprehensible. What does it mean? What are the main forms that the will to national individuality takes? And are the main forms of patriotism discovered in the answer to that question? Does a knowledge of the characteristics of an individual furnish the material for the understanding of the tendencies of patriotism?
The first characteristic of an individual is that it is unique. This proposition is agreed upon by practically all philosophers whatever may be the school of metaphysics to which they belong. All would agree with Royce, for instance, in saying that, “An individual is unique. There is no other of its individual kind. If Socrates is an individual, then there is only one Socrates in the universe. If you are an individual, then in reality there is no other precisely capable of taking your place. If God is an individual, then, as ethical monotheism began by saying, There is no Other.”[145] “Taken individually” means taken separately. Individuality means, in some sense, separateness. An individual case is a distinct or isolated case. When, therefore, one demands that he be allowed to be an individual, he means that he demands the right to be and remain himself.
And just this is a fundamental demand in patriotism. It is of no use to tell a country, even though it seems to others an insignificant one, that it will be better off in another country; that its citizens could enjoy to a greater extent the physical satisfactions of life; and that they will be able to share in a greater kultur. They will not listen. They do not wish to live more comfortably as animals; they do not wish to live under the ægis of some one else’s greatness, no matter how great that may be. An individual will hardly consent to unself himself. The citizens of any country wish to be themselves, and retain their own national individuality. Veblen[146] suggests that so far as creature comforts are concerned, we might all be fairly well off if we voluntarily surrendered to Germany. Art might also be furthered. And in view of the high cost of resistance, so Veblen says, it might be well to accept the German imperial rule. But Veblen also knows that no nation will listen to his proposal. And why? It is simply because we do not live primarily for creature comforts, or that a classical science and philosophy should be developed. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. We want to exist, and exist as separate and unique. We want to be ourselves, and have an individuality that has a continuous history of its own. At its lowest terms, the will to individuality is a will to live. France will not listen to a counsel to negate that will; neither will Belgium; neither will Britain; neither will America; and neither will Germany. Patriotism seeks to make the country unique; that very will itself becomes a factor making for the uniqueness of the country. The country is what the patriot wills; it is his; he cherishes it; and in its place he will accept no other. The will to uniqueness, which is a form of the will to individuality, does in fact turn out to be one of the important forms of patriotism.
In the second place, an individual is a unitary being. It is one whole, an individuum. In comparison with others, it is separate; in its own inner constitution, it is a unity. It is one in both its external and internal relations. Unity is of two grades, simple and complex. The simple unity means solidarity and that in the last analysis the individual cannot be further subdivided. An atom would be an individual of this kind. But in our actual experience we do not meet with such individuals. What we ordinarily mean by an individual is not that which is such by virtue of its indivisibility. Taken just as a physical fact, it is divisible. It is when we take it as a fact of meaning that we see what we ordinarily have in mind as an individual. An individual is such because nothing can be subtracted from it without destroying its distinctive character. It is a unity not because of physical indivisibility, not because it is a simple unit, but because, even in complexity, it has in it a principle of unity. The richness of variety in it only contributes to the richness of its individuality. Bosanquet has made the distinction between the two kinds of individuals. “Individuality, it has been said, has prima facie two extremes. An ‘atom’ may claim it, on the ground that it is less than can be divided; a world may claim it, on the ground that its positive nature is ruined if anything is added or taken away.”[147] In another place he says that an individuality is “a world self-complete.”[148] The principle that individuality means unity and the distinction between the two kinds of unity are well summed up in the following quotation: “That individuality always involves some sort of unity will hardly be denied. That which is in no sense one is in no sense an individual; and the more truly a thing can be called one, the more truly can it be called an individual. We must distinguish, however, between two aspects of unity,—the quantitative aspect or numerical unity, and the qualitative aspect or inner coherence.”[149] The atom was an example of numerical individuality; the qualitative individual would be exemplified in the life of a man. A human being can of course be rent limb from limb, but so far as bodily life is concerned he ceases then to be a man; his identity as a human individual has been destroyed.
Now a country is an individual by virtue of being a qualitative unity. It is a unity in difference. Aristotle says: “A state is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men; for similars do not constitute a state.”[150] The unity of a country is not a simple but a complex unity. It is often quite rudimentary, but its essentials are there, if there is any country at all. And those essentials may be developed. They at least exist as the material for an ideal unity. National individuality, to be sure, is often an ideal rather than a present fact. But the patriot holds just this unity of his country in ideal, and strives towards it. His is a will to national unity, national individuality. There were in the revolutionary period two movements developing side by side,—the movements towards independence and unity. Washington was a patriot not only because he sought for separation from England, but because he consistently counselled unity as among the colonies. Lincoln was a patriot not in the sense that he stood for the separation of his country from other countries (there was no call for that), but in that he stood for the preservation of the unity of the United States. He preserved the Union. The nationalistic movements of the nineteenth century in Europe were directed in large part towards unity. The Germans and Italians strove to the end that all their people might be united. Those movements were struggles for national unity, and hence struggles for national individuality.
The stimulus of war brings out in supreme degree the demand of the patriot for national unity. The present war has compelled unity within each individual nation to an unparalleled extent. The whole population in each country has had to be organized for the war. The civil and military populations are not now as distinct as they once were. “The war is waged not only by the soldier but by the baker, the manufacturer, the engineer, the farmer, the small investor, the women. Unless, therefore, the emotions of the entire country can be keyed up to volunteer pitch and maintained at the point of fighting efficiency, the war machine loses momentum.”[151] The patriot sees the necessities of the times, and insists upon absolute unity. It is the form that his will to national individuality then takes.
The patriot ought, however, to remember that unity does not mean solidarity, and that a true individual is not one which has to be maintained by the suppression of all differences. The patriot insists so strongly upon unity, no doubt, because he believes that to act as one is the only way in which the national individuality can be preserved. But he should remember, as some one has remarked, that “a solid front does not necessitate a solid head.” The unity of patriotism is one of will, and moreover is one of good will. There cannot be national unity on any basis that ignores that fact. The honest pacifist should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, there is no reason why the pacifist should be made the recipient of peculiar honors or the object of special solicitude. He has thrown his opinion into the arena of human affairs, and will have to take his chances. And he in his turn should remember that the patriot is fighting for priceless possessions, more valuable than any material possessions, his own individuality and the individuality of his country. If the pacifist has a right to insist upon his opinion, he must accord the patriot the same right to insist upon his. What will take place if the patriot happens to have a large majority, and deems it most fair to enact a selective draft law? The pacifist can do no other than insist upon his inmost convictions. But neither can the patriot. There is inevitably a clash, and the problem is to be solved not only as a question of right, but also of expediency. It may easily be most expedient, it usually is so, for the patriot to grant easy terms to the pacifist. And the latter’s right to free speech and agitation, as long as he does not actually break or incite to the breaking of a law, is really indisputable. But the danger to national individuality may be great. It is conceivable that an aggressive enemy may be at the very doors. In that case, the nonconformist will have to become in some sense a martyr. If his country needs him, he ought either to serve or pay the penalty. He might have to suffer imprisonment. Or he might find it wisest and most effective to martyr his convictions to the extent of performing some patriotic service, even to bearing arms. The fact that the majority differs from him might well be an indication that he is wrong, and that he should revise his opinions or at least not insist upon them too strongly; and moreover, if one martyrs his convictions to the extent of helping win the war, he may expect then to get a more ready hearing for his opinions. One is always listened to more respectfully when he has identified himself with the group than when he has cut himself off from it. Conformity for the present might prove the best method of making his ideals effective in the long run. It is often easier to work from the inside than from the outside. The chick within the shell is in the very best position in the world for breaking through it.
But the essential point is that patriotism insists on unity within the nation. There is no nation engaged in the war which is not insisting upon the utmost unity of action and even of thought. And this rests back upon the unity that had already really been developed. If each country had not developed and marshaled its resources to such an extent in peace time, they could not be so mobilized in war time, and indeed there would be no need for it; the enemy would not be bringing such resources to bear. It is just the very complexity and unity in complexity in modern nations that makes war so drastic, and makes it so necessary that neither side should neglect the bringing of any of its resources to bear upon the waging of the war. The will to unity, a form of the will to individuality, is quite characteristic of patriotism.
A characteristic of individuality in human beings and their institutions is that an individual is self-directing; its destiny is worked out from within. The following quotation sums up what is meant: “We pass on to the third factor in individuality. We have spoken of it as completeness or self-sufficiency; but in its higher degrees it may also be called self-direction. That some measure of independence is essential to our notion of individuality will hardly be questioned.”[152] The phrase “have some individuality” means, in part at least, that one make his actions the expression of his own true self. It means to think and act for oneself. If one does not do that, we say that he is not a real individual. If one is not self-directing, and is subject to the will of another, his individuality is, in so far, taken from him, and he becomes a part of the individuality of that other. If he is integrated in the other’s will, he really in a true sense ceases to be even unique. Fite says: “As a spiritual individual I am found in every action that expresses my meaning, whether it be that of my hand, my typewriter, my servant, or my political party; and any object that refuses to express my meaning, though it be a member of my own body, is so far not truly myself.”[153] It follows that one has to be free and independent to be an individual. And this is the reason that freedom is so precious; not because the free man will live in better material circumstances, but because he wants to be an individual. He wants to be himself, and have his chance of working out his life in his own way.
And patriotism involves just this demand for liberty. The patriot wants his country to be free. It must, to satisfy him, be not only a recognizable separate unit as among the peoples of the world, but must run its own affairs. He wants it to be self-directing and autonomous. He cannot bear to have his country used as a thing, or a mere piece of mechanism at the mercy of another’s will. Any one who is patriotic in China will not be satisfied with a situation where any foreign power has concessions over parts of his country’s soil. Weak governments frequently find it necessary to guard their neutrality, and they do it jealously because the patriotic spirit will not permit them to allow others to put them in subjection as a means to the furtherance of alien designs. Belgium is an instance. Belgium does not want to be a roadway or the battlefield of Europe. She does not want to be a pawn in a game. She wants her territory to be the expression of her own free life. To stand for her neutrality is to stand for her sovereignty, and to assert herself. Belgium might utterly perish, but in doing so, she would have asserted herself, and she would rather die in that magnificent self-assertion than to be the tool of another. It is not often that a supposedly sovereign power will, like Luxemburg, allow its neutrality to be disregarded without a struggle. President Wilson understood the sensitiveness of patriots when he insisted that no foreign troops should be landed in Russia without her consent. Patriotism is often thought of altogether as the fight for freedom. The patriot insists upon the freedom, the autonomy, the sovereignty of his country; the will to self-direction is one of the moving forces of patriotism.