The logic of love for the Fatherland

Why is patriotism clearly experienced, but poorly amenable to rational comprehension?

The very concept of patriotism defies logic, and when you try to define it, you get a vicious circle. Patriotism is love for one's country. But what is home? This is not the territory of the country, which can change dramatically (Russians consider Kievan Rus to be their historical homeland, and today it is in another state), not the population, which is changing even more. Even her name is changeable: Rus' - Muscovy - Russian Empire - Soviet Union

Sergei ZENKIN , Doctor of Philology

There is an irreverent expression "patriotic frenzy" - like a drunken frenzy. Indeed, patriotism is somewhat like alcohol. It inspires, evokes joyful ecstasy, encourages militant deeds, even real feats (front-line "one hundred grams" and calls "For the motherland, for Stalin!" served the same goal); but it also suppresses common sense in a person, inspires him with absurd ideas, up to aggressive delirium. These different functions are often distributed depending on the character of people - some drink to have fun, others to fight, some patriots out of love for their own, others out of spite of strangers - but they can also be combined, alternate in one and the same individual. It is useless to convince such an individual, seized with patriotic enthusiasm or indignation, in something - you have to wait until he sobers up.

The very concept of patriotism defies logic, and when you try to define it, you get a vicious circle. Patriotism is love for one's country. But what is home? This is not the territory of the country, which can change dramatically (Russians consider Kievan Rus to be their historical homeland, and today it is in another state), not the population, which is changing even more. Even her name is changeable: Rus' - the Moscow kingdom - the Russian Empire - the Soviet Union ... They say that the motherland is a kind of spiritual unity, traditions, values; what, for example, are the traditional values ​​of the Russian people? The first answer certainly turns out to be “love for the motherland”: where we started, we arrived at that.

Of course, patriotism is not a fiction, not an empty illusion, but it is one of the facts of our experience that everyone clearly experiences, but is difficult to rationalize. As Augustine wrote about another such fact - time: if no one asks me about it, I know what it is; If I try to explain to the questioner, then I don't know. One has to somehow artificially schematize it in order to introduce it into the space of meaning.

Politicians and propagandists sometimes try to associate patriotism with a slightly more specific concept: "our SOVIET homeland", "our SOCIALIST fatherland". It turns out it doesn't matter - the added concept can be enclosed in brackets, it is easily forgotten, but patriotism remains. The homeland is loved not because it is such or such, but because it is OURS - however, the pronoun "our", like all pronouns, does not have an objective meaning, and the multitude of "us" cannot be accurately described. Who are “we” – does this “imaginary community” include emigrants who have left the country? Or guest workers who came in large numbers?

When dealing with such shaky sets and vague concepts, our consciousness usually resorts to the so-called "good examples": instead of the whole, an element is taken that is reliably identified by everyone as its part. This is how patriotism is personified, love for the motherland is projected onto the figures of specific people - they definitely embody our fatherland. As such people-symbols, a patriot needs leaders, heroes, artists, athletes.

But the saints are ill-suited to the role of a "good example." There are national, patriotic religions, and Russian Orthodoxy is certainly one of them, it has national saints, but no one says that they are the best in the world. It is easy to be proud of Dmitry Donskoy - ours was a prince, he beat the horde - but with Sergius of Radonezh, who blessed him for this, it is already more difficult. Patriotically appropriating him - "our saint" - would be impious familiarity: after all, he is, first of all, not "ours", but God's. Holiness always does not satisfy a patriot in some way: why did Boris and Gleb let themselves be killed? We had to cut them all...

On the other hand, it turns out that not all artists are equally suitable for creating patriotic symbols. A poet, an artist, a musician are good, but, say, an actor is worse. He can be passionately loved, but still they are not included in the national list of canonical figures: the poet is Pushkin, the composer is Tchaikovsky, the painter is Repin, and who is the actor? The place is not occupied.

So are circus performers. No offense to tell them, but in our minds, the circus is a low, street art (“what a circus!” - we say about something with displeasure), in it real feats of strength and dexterity coexist with tricks of illusionists and antics of clowns. In the old days, circus wrestlers were famous for their "fixed" fights; today they have generally bred, giving way to wrestling - it is considered to be more honest. In general, although some sports have direct relatives in the circus arena, sports are immeasurably more patriotic than the circus: firstly, sports are competitive, in it you need to root for someone, that is, to single out “ours”; and secondly, the circus too clearly demonstrates its artificial, illusory-spectacular nature, while sport, with all its conventional rules, seems more authentic.

So, the logical problem of patriotism is actually ontological, existential. He is not up to the too lofty, too unconditional existence of holiness, his leaders and heroes do not stand comparison with a mystical-otherworldly, super-patriotic authority. But, on the other hand, he does not trust artistic conventions either (hence the jealous attitude towards patriotic monuments: these are not images of art, but the direct embodiment of “our heroes” and “our values”, do not dare to blaspheme them!); he more willingly seeks support in the tragic reality of fallen heroes and victims, in the bodily visualization of competing athletes.

With all the intensity of the feelings associated with it, patriotism is internally unstable, not self-confident. He vaguely remembers that his imaginary communities are fragile and not eternal - this is how the "Soviet people" broke up overnight into different nations, not always friendly to each other. It is impossible to live in patriotic enthusiasm all the time, usually we are proud not of our homeland, but of something more specific - our own successes, our friends and relatives - and we are offended not by attacks on national symbols, but by violations of our rights. The self-intoxication of the nation is inevitably followed by the sober responsibility of the individual.