Articulations of superiority of any nationality might be assumed to have their source in a sense of pride. Pride in one’s country, or “patriotism”, elevates a deadly sin to a much-lauded virtue under the right circumstances. Distinguishing between “nationalism” and “patriotism” has implications for the potential exclusion or derogation of those seen as not belonging to the nation. It is therefore an important consideration when dealing with the relationship between experiences of education and the formation of national identities. It raises questions over if and how to inculcate “patriotic values”, and whether doing so necessarily leads to the development of exclusionary “nationalistic” sentiments in the population.
Much like the concept of a nation, the idea of “nationalism” can be nebulous, but when considered in relation to the almost synonymous term “patriotism”, it is clear that the former carries more negative connotations of out-group exclusion and association with violent acts (Billig, 1995, p. 5), whereas the latter is more commonly associated in “common parlance” with pride in one's country which does not necessitate the exclusion of “outsiders” (Hechter, 2001, p17). Although accepting that there may be some merit to nationalist sentiments that have no apparent bias toward any particular in- group and preach the right of all nations to self-determination, Gellner acknowledges that humans are prone to making “exceptions on one's own behalf” (1983, p. 2). Pointing out that “the political effectiveness of national sentiment would be much impaired if nationalists had as fine a sensibility to the wrongs committed by their nation as the wrongs committed against it” (ibid.), he underscores the difficulty of separating pride in belonging and denigration of those on the outside.
Billig notes that words like “patriotism” and “loyalty” are preferred when describing “our” (the national or cultural “in-group's”) beliefs, whereas “Nationalists can be identified as extremists, who, impelled by a violent
emotional psychology seek irrational ends” (1995, p. 15). Either that or they can be cast “as heroic figures who, in particular can be found overseas battling against repressive colonialists” (ibid.). He goes on to argue that such differentiation is misleading and that “our”10 attachments and national
identifications must also be located within the age of nationalism, therefore using the term “nationalism” only to describe the behaviour of other nationalities carries heavy ideological implications.
Rather than view nationalism and patriotism as the “bad” and “good” sides of the same coin, Gellner sees patriotism as a description of the perennial loyalty men hold towards their own social groups, however these groups are defined. To him, nationalism is a divergent “sub-species” of patriotism, of which “Homogeneity, literacy, anonymity are the key traits” (1983, pp. 137-8). Nationalism so defined is what allows for the politicisation of these feelings of loyalty, which when mobilised can lead to the type of collective action that Gellner terms “nationalist movements”, which can have far reaching, and sometimes bloody, consequences. The distinction between nationalism and patriotism is also rejected by Hechter, who argues that behaviours and expressions that commonly attributed to patriotism in fact implicitly support the interests of one national group over others and can therefore more accurately be described as state-building nationalism (2000, p. 17). If true, this it means that even seemingly benign patriotism can be harmful – directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally – to the interests of national minority groups.
The necessity of out-group exclusion for positive identification with an in-group is sometimes tackled with claims to reject exclusive nationalism in favour of “civic nationalism”. “Civic nationalism” conceives the nation as constituted of all of its citizens, irrespective of ethnic, racial, or other identities, as opposed to determining belonging by birth or ethnicity (Kearney, 2004, p. 230). These different approaches to nationhood and belonging are explored by Brubaker (1992), who describes two distinct European models: the (nominally inclusive) French model, based on citizenship, and the (exclusive) German model, based on heritage. The former model does not require heritage for belonging but can lead to assimilationism; the latter echoes the “blood and soil” nationalism that links a particular people to a particular
territory. Both are problematic, and even proponents of “civic nationalism” acknowledge exceptions and contradictions inherent in attempts at taxonomizing nationalities in this way (Hopkins, 2001). Even the example cited by Hopkins as an example of civic nationalism as a credible force in UK politics is not without undertones of out-group denigration. He quotes a 1995 speech by the then Scottish National Party [SNP] leader Alex Salmond in which Salmond states “there will be no cricket tests in an independent Scotland”. This refers to an infamous remark by English Conservative Member of Parliament Norman Tebbit in which he said that immigrants to the UK who failed to support England at cricket were not sufficiently integrated into UK society. However, the subtext of Salmond’s remark could be read as “Us Scots are not racist like those English”.
Empirical research in the field of social psychology lends an interesting perspective to the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. Mummendey et. al. (2001) examined the relationship between people's natural desire “to think positively about themselves and the groups to which they belong” and how this relates to hostility and rejection of outsiders. In the study, nationalism was associated with the latter, whereas patriotism was connected to the former. One of the key findings of the study was that inter-group comparisons were not the only means of promoting positive evaluations of participants’ in-group. Positive feelings could also be generated through temporal comparisons, but out-group derogation had a more pronounced effect where participants were initially asked to compare between groups rather than across time, or under control conditions. These results may have implications for considering the role of education systems in identity formation and attitudes towards perceived “out-groups”, as it could be argued that it is these systems that “prime” citizens for their future interactions with other social actors. This is especially critical when we consider the potential for disparity between elite and popular ideas about belonging, as mass education is one of the forums in which these ideas jostle for precedence (Brubaker, 1992, p. 163).
The difficulty of disentangling the positive values of civic responsibility that are associated with “patriotism” from the more negatively connotated “nationalism” may be consequential. Gellner (1983) suggests that the application of the terms “nationalism” and “patriotism” might, be a matter of perspective – one man's responsible patriotism may be another's aggressive
nationalism. School systems are considered an important vehicle for teaching patriotic values (Hechter, 2000, p. 66), and whilst it may not be possible for education to be value-free, the findings of Mummendy et. al. suggest caution should be employed when attempting to inculcate values of civic responsibility in the context of mass public education. As this is what “primes” citizens for adult life and their future encounters with others, it should be done with great care that a positive view of belonging does not concur with a negative view of Others.