In the immediate post 9-11 period, Patriotism was defined in "For us, against us" discourse. The perpetuation of this chimera of opposites defined the debate by establishing polarities, i.e. as a great patriot you will accept our explanations and theories; or, as a traitor/coward who challenges the discourse we present, you are isolated as an enemy to your own land and people.
Patriotism became securitized in the Ole Weaver tradition of securitization, with war-mongering and retaliatory attacks emerging as the ONLY considered response to the terror attacks on the United States. The reality of the post 9-11 discourse is that the US population was scared and subdued into accepting mistruth and fabrication as fact; into supporting the indefensible- the invasion and 'shock and awe' devastation of a sovereign nation.
The purpose of this blog is not to rehash or seriously examine at this time the lies, distortions and contrived ambiguities that led the US into war with Iraq. No, this blog is an attempt to really understand what realities can be created through powerful discourse. And while the US led Iraq invasion is a most cynical example, that we never want to see replicated, it is also the most potent illustration of what the masterful use language can do. For good or bad.
The success of a discourse is largely dependent on power structures- those with power, influence and the resources, control the narrative. Within the power structures, the components themselves may clash with each other- as we currently see in the White House-Fox News head to head. Is the power of the White House enough to curtail and contain the resources of Murdoch and Fox News? While that remains to be seen, it is comforting to know that the White House understands that 'he who frames the debate, wins the situation.'
So, this brings me to my argument about Patriotism and how we can carry the US population on a journey of progressive reform that in effect reverses the woeful political, economic and social effects of Reaganomics.
So, is Patriotism limited to National Security matters, or can we reframe the debate and redefine Patriotism? Can we realign the general understanding of what exactly patriotism entails?
For myself personally, there is a great tension created between the American obsession with Individualism and what I consider Patriotism to be. As a citizen of Ireland, the concept of individualism, while not completely meritless, clashes with the well-being of a society.
My definition of patriotism does not exclude National Security and securitization, that would be entirely naive. However, patriotism being defined as the well-being and security of a people, must surely then include the provision of healthcare, education, nourishment and a multitude of other societal expectations.
Why do you think?
