Acknowledgement is hereby made to the members of the faculty of the department of philosophy in Yale University for many helpful criticisms. Especially is a debt owed to Professor Charles A. Bennett, who suggested the field of patriotism as a fruitful one for investigation, under whose direction the work was done, and whose criticisms and suggestions have made more definite than would otherwise have been the case, the problems involved. Thanks are due to Professor Luther A. Weigle, who read the manuscript, and helped to clarify and make accurate the expression of the ideas. And my gratitude is given to my wife, whose assistance in the final preparation of the manuscript was invaluable, and who by her constant helpfulness and loyalty made it possible for the whole work to be brought to completion.
Indianapolis, January, 1920.
PART I
THE IMPULSES OF PATRIOTISM
CHAPTER I
The Impulses of Attachment
When in 1914 the great war broke out, the world was astounded. There were forces at work which men were confident would make another war between first-class powers impossible. International relations and groupings, such as those of commerce, labor, art, science, and learning, had increased in strength and number. The terribleness and waste of war were deemed to be so fully realized that modern nations would have no taste for armed conflict. But the war came on, and there must have been mighty causes to be able to produce so gigantic a result. What were they? What could be the nature of such tremendous causes, that yet remained concealed and in their issuance so took men by surprise? The factors were various, and some, of course, had been noted, but one factor which was unnoticed by the general public and yet which is one of fundamental importance is the rôle taken in patriotism by men’s unreasoned dispositions of character. If the phenomenon of patriotism is to be fully understood, it must be analyzed with a view of discovering what are these deeply ingrained sets of mind and character which are its raw material and which make it so powerful.[1]
Patriotism is a complex sentiment. There is, in other words, no single instinctive response in all human beings to the stimulus, country. What, then, are some of the dispositions of which patriotism is composed? There are impulses which make primarily for attachment, and there are those that make primarily for antipathy. One of the most important of the impulses of attachment is the disposition of gregariousness. Hobbes, indeed, and others after him, built their theories of the state upon the doctrine that man would have been able to live alone had not the company of others been forced upon him, but that there is an impulse of gregariousness seems indisputable. It is simply an observable fact that there are species of animals that not only live in herds, packs, or flocks, but which also show uneasiness and distress at being separated from their fellows. James cites the observation of Galton on the gregariousness of the South African cattle.[2] If an individual of this species were separated from the herd it would direct its whole activity towards getting back once more, and when its object was attained, would plunge into the heart of the herd as if to bathe its very body in contact with its fellows. Now man, as well as other animals, lives a group life, and it seems almost inevitable that he should develop an impulse parallel to the outward facts of his existence, even were it not probable that he has inherited gregariousness as a psychical disposition from his animal ancestors. That the impulse is actually present in the human species is shown by the fact that there is in man a strong abhorrence of prolonged solitude. Professor James’ words on this point have come to be almost classical: “To be alone is one of the greatest evils for him [the normal man]. Solitary confinement is by many regarded as a mode of torture too cruel and unnatural for civilized countries to adopt. To one long pent up on a desert island the sight of a human footprint or a human form in the distance would be the most tumultuously exciting of experiences.”[3] But the impulse is also apparent in more normal experiences. So much do men desire the company of others that it is not only an element of recreation usually, but the more serious tasks of life often derive their value not more because of the ostensible end sought after than because of the human association which is involved.
Wilfred Trotter[4] has made gregariousness central in his study of society. He begins by approving of the method of those who have come at the study from the standpoint of the instincts, but expresses dissatisfaction with the limits of their results, that is, dissatisfaction with the kind of analysis that would explain man by referring the whole of his conduct to the instincts of self-preservation, nutrition, and sex. Such an explanation, he finds, has been historically attempted, but after it has gone as far as it could, there has always been left over an unexplained X. Trotter accepts self-preservation, nutrition, and sex as fundamental instincts, but completes the list by bringing forward the instinct of the herd which he offers as the explanation of all human activity which was left unexplained by the other three instincts mentioned above. To Trotter there have been two great epoch-making forward steps in the evolution of life. The first came with the change from unicellular to multicellular organisms, the great advantage of which was to make the group of cells the unit of selection, thus to some extent relieving the single cell of the burden of the struggle for existence, and permitting it a greater chance for variability without running a greater risk of extinction. This arrangement, says Trotter, had important influences upon all the cells comprised in the organism. The second great evolutionary advance came with the change from solitary to gregarious animals, and was attended by modifications just as profound as had accompanied the advance from unicellular to multicellular organisms. Here again the power of natural evolution operated upon the group as a unit, thus permitting once more greater variability on the part of the individual. Association in the herd became increasingly valuable in the struggle for existence, and tended to become more and more strongly fixed as a disposition of animal nature, a fact which had fundamental influence upon the mental characteristics of the individual. There are psychological traits which would not exist but for the fact of gregariousness. Shyness, embarrassment, fear, anger, love, sympathy, sorrow, and gratitude would be devoid of meaning apart from their connection with social relations.
The first important result of the instinct of gregariousness is that it makes for homogeneity. That is, it is an impulse making primarily for attachment. Each individual tends to become thoroughly assimilated in the life of the group; the group’s ways have a vital meaning to him. Sensitiveness to the behavior of his fellows is heightened, and resistiveness to the suggestions of the herd is lowered. A suggestion from outside is likely to be rejected, and direct experience tends to have little meaning, if its teachings are at variance with the beliefs of the group. Altruism arises; it is a natural product of the situation where the conditions of life are such that each individual is of necessity constantly in the habit of regarding the welfare of others as well as that of himself. Danger from the outside stimulates each individual, and spreads fear through the whole group. The herd huddles together, and each shares in the panic of all. Loneliness at such a time is unbearable.
Now man is a social creature, and has the characteristics that result from herd instinct. He tends to become solidified with those of his own kind, and feel uncomfortable when out of touch with them; to be suggestible to the influences of his group, and resistive to the influences of other groups; to feel altruism towards those of his own herd and aversion towards those of other herds; to be aroused when the nation is threatened, and huddle in the group in the face of danger. All these characteristics under the proper stimuli are manifested by patriotism. A definition of patriotism from the standpoint of attachment to the group is that of Sumner: “Patriotism is loyalty to the civic group to which one belongs by birth or other group bond. It is a sentiment of fellowship and coöperation in all the hopes, work, and sufferings of the group.[5]
The herd is not tolerant of the nonconformist. The nonconformist has in a way become a stranger. He has put himself out of touch with the group. The group knows him and his ways, but he has not permitted himself to be thoroughly assimilated by it. And the very thing that the herd desires and insists upon is homogeneity. In the words of one writer, “The crowd not only needs to make adherents and thus maintain its existence and increase in volume and power; it needs no less to assimilate, to digest, the individuals which it swallows up.”[6] The individual, then, cannot be too insistent upon the expression of his own personality. His life, even his inner life, must conform to that of the group. His emotions will not be a matter merely of his own concern. “Herd-union does not intensify all emotions. It intensifies those which are felt in common, but it actually deadens and shuts down those which are only felt by the individual.”[7] And independent thought is even more taboo. “Thought ... is markedly individual and personal.... Thought is critical, and the Herd wants unanimity, not criticism. Consequently Herd-union deadens thought.”[8] Hence the nonconformist gets himself disliked, and the outcome of the situation has usually been to submerge the individual, and assimilate him to the group. The moral of the tale is that patriotism acts in that way. “Patriotism, which is the crowd-emotion of a Nation, makes at times supreme claims on every citizen and enforces them by public opinion so powerful that few can or desire to evade them.”[9]