Nationalism In The Baltics And The Politics

Of Recognition Essay, Research Paper

` ? The best political agreement is comparative to the history and civilization

of the people whose lives it will set up? ?

Michael Walzer. ? ? Although we live in a peculiar universe, we

can still take toward a juridical moral principle that would work as a critical authorization against the history

which determines us so profoundly? Andre Van de Putte. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? A common perceptual experience is that

patriotism is in decline world-wide. ?

It is really easy to name factors that contribute to such an apparent

diminution, or as some would hold it, lead inexorably to it. ? For case, we recognize the big function

that international corporations play in the universe of finance and concern ; we

acknowledge the mutuality of economic systems, and a practical free market in

certain basic commodities. ? The effects

of the Internationals are felt non merely in the economic kingdom but besides bleed

into the cultural sphere? civilization follows money or pursuits money. ? These effects may be seen in? how local endowments, whether they are Latvian

opera prima donna or? Russian hockey participants

or Lithuanian hoops stars, follow the dictates of the international market

topographic point. In other words, they end up where the money is. ? Furthermore, ? cultural creative activities such as movies, recorded music and popular

novels are themselves trade goods promoted by a global civilization industry

mostly dominated by the United States. ( I understand that Latvia used to

green goods every bit many as seven or eight movies a twelvemonth and now the industry is on the

brink of extinction. ) ? Such factors

internationalize civilization and endanger the really land on which national

individuality may be based. ? It may besides be

idea that national cultural individualities are to some extent compromised by

being capable to international human rights as promoted by the United States,

and as embodied in UN philosophies, demands for rank in the EEC and

elsewhere. ? Issues such as gender

dealingss or sexual mutilation in fundamentalist Moslem provinces are criticized

as are civil autonomies and democratic rights misdemeanors in China and in Cuba,

cultural relationships in East Timor and in the Balkans, and perchance, human

rights issues covering with linguistic communication rights in Latvia. The national individualities

we forged over the past centuries with so much forfeit are in many ways

stealing off from us. Is nationalism a deceasing phenomenon, or worse, is it,

where it rears its caput, a force for immorality, an alibi for vengefulness? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? When we turn on the telecasting intelligence or

expression at the political page of our newspapers we are invariably reminded that

patriotism is? the safety of a villain? , that its entreaties are? basically

sub-human or primitive in character, a malformation that no civilised individual would

hold anything to make with? . [ 1 ]

Such a sentiment was expressed by Albert Einstein. The recent events in the

Balkan mountainss attest to this? Serbian? cultural cleaning? in Kosovo is but the latest

event in a troubled world. ? Who can state

that the nucleus of the job, i.e. , that which drives such events lies in

patriotism instead than in spiritual struggles, or merely in vengefulness

pulling upon a long memory of sensed wrongs inflicted on the people ; possibly

a societal memory widening back over centuries. But whatever value attaches to

being a member of a dominant cultural community which patterns marginalisation

and demeaning of cultural minorities, such value is clearly overridden by the

enduring inflicted upon the minorities. ? However, patriotism represents a scope or

household of positions and need non take such utmost form. ? Nationalism, if it is to derive credence within broad

democratic communities, must acknowledge human diverseness in a figure of

parametric quantities? spiritual, cultural, racial, cultural, and in a more qualified signifier,

lingual diversity. ? Such a version of

patriotism is defendable within the parametric quantities alluded to above. Indeed, in

qualified signifier, it has found concrete look in the universe today, non in the

Balkan mountainss, as I think we can surmise, but, to a big extent in Canada and in a

more qualified manner in the Baltics? Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. ? ? ? ? ? ? Let me get down? my presentation of a defendable version of patriotism by

supplying an history of the? three? chief signifiers that patriotism may take. Of the

three signifiers, two are normally recognized, and the 3rd has late been

advanced in modern-day Hagiographas on the topic. I shall discourse, in brief,

the two signifiers and so continue to a more systematic word picture and

rating of the third. ? The three

signifiers are labelled cultural, civic, and cultural patriotism. We might get down by

inquiring what is it about the three constructs of patriotism that binds them

together, that unifies them as one general type of human societal

phenomenon. ? Do they all portion common

features, or is at that place, in a sense, a household resemblance ; do they reply

or reference for a people the same deeply felt demand? Is nationalism a response to

? some sort of deep elemental force outside human control? [ 2 ]

, or is it a phenomenon which we can determine to our intents? ? ? ? Let us maintain such inquiries in the dorsum of

our heads as we study the three constructs. ? In essays by Van de Putte, De Wachter, and

Schnapper [ 3 ]

we find a sustained challenge to the two traditionally recognized signifiers of

patriotism based on the? cultural? and? civic? constructs of the state after

Han dynasties Kohn et al. ? The former is

characterized as the? kulturnation? , identified with Eastern patriotism. The

latter, based on broad ideals of a brotherhood under a philosophy of human rights and

the ideals of the enlightenment, is identified with Western nationalism. ? Cultural patriotism is normally identified

with German patriotism which arose in the period of German Romanticism with

people like Herder and Goethe, and is? mostly based upon linguistic communication, civilization,

and tradition. ? [ 4 ] ? A state, harmonizing to the cultural

construct, has an individuality apart from single volitions ; it is an entity that

exists as an nonsubjective world through history. ? One belongs to the state when one portions the same linguistic communication,

civilization, and history. ? But more so, the

inclination has been to see cultural patriotism as concentrating on racial individuality, on

biological lineage or in a word, ? on blood? as in, we are the same people, we

portion the same blood-line. While the cultural construct? of patriotism is based on a shared history

and linguistic communication, cultural patriotism has normally been identified with racial

homogeneousness? with racism. ? Civic

patriotism, on the other manus, grows out of the doctrine of Jean Jacque

Rousseau with his accent on the sovereignty of the people, and is supported

by the ideals of the Gallic Revolution with its? Declaration of the Rights of

Man and the Citizen? . ? The civic

construct of the state has been conveyed to us through its able advocate,

Ernest Renan. ? As Renan wrote in What is State: it is? le plebicite de

tous lupus erythematosuss jours? ( a daily plebiscite ) [ 5 ] .

The civic construct of a state is, in the words of Van de Putte,

? constructivistic ( an artefact ) , individualistic, and voluntaristic? [ 6 ] . ? Civic patriotism, so, is a political

creative activity through the volitions of the people, incarnating a legal codification and by and large

a measure of rights. ? It is, in the Lockean

sense, a state ruled and defined by the? the consent of the people? .

Interestingly, the two major historical manifestations of civic patriotism,

Revolutionary France and the United States, saw themselves as missional provinces

with the authorization to convey their peculiar sort of enlightenment to the universe. The

cultural construct of patriotism arises as a consequence of certain jobs that

prevarication at the very bosom of both the cultural and the civic constructs of the

nation. ? The cultural construct is merely

non acceptable since it may go against basic human rights and? has led to extreme repression of minorities. ? The civic signifier of the state, nevertheless

welcome? it may look at first sight,

does non by itself create trueness to the nation-state, a willingness to

forfeit oneself for the state and its fellow citizens, sufficient to procure

societal stability. ? In this connexion,

we are all familiar with the communitarian unfavorable judgment of pure ( Rawlsean ) constitutional

liberalism ( Michael Sandel, Alisdair McIntyre, Michael Walzer et al. ) . ? Loyalty is non felt to an abstract set of

rules. The civic province is an ideal in hunt of a concrete reading.

It is non any existent existing province. ?

For case, the constitutional democratic province is non a mere

aggregation of persons subscribing to democratic rules and a

fundamental law ; it exists, where it exists, as a? democratic civilization? . The ideals

of democracy are ever culturally interpreted. ? Consequently, we have a ground now for

situating a new construct of patriotism which does non merely take spots and

pieces from civic and cultural patriotism, but forms a new synthesis in which

the ideals of a civic province are integrated in a concrete cultural sphere. De

Wachter? s preferable conceptualisation of patriotism as? ? the political orientation which

pursues congruousness between both the political and the pre-political? [ 7 ]

avoids the two stools of the cultural and civic constructs. It opens the door to

a certain sort of cultural/multicultural patriotism, which recognizes a populace

sphere in which exists? ? & # 8230 ; the

possibility of all signifiers of fond regard by all kinds of people in a

multicoloured life-world? [ 8 ]

to one state province. Civic patriotism may be seen as exceeding itself, giving

birth to a? civilization of democracy? , viz. , to? cultural patriotism? . Such subjects

are farther developed in both Tamir? s [ 9 ]

and Miller? s work, who both argue for revamping the old conceptual geographics. Should we

purchase into this new conceptualisation of cultural patriotism? ? It is alluring to reply in the affirmative,

but there are inquiries that we may raise. First, is cultural patriotism,

loosely conceived, truly different from civic patriotism? ? In the instance of the United States ( which,

arguably, is a paradigm of civic patriotism ) we find a strong sense of? trueness among its citizens, which involves,

what is? described as, a

? quasi-religious worship of the Constitution? ( reminiscent of Jurgen Habermas?

? constitutional nationalism? ) . This suggests that it is non the civilization of

democracy? which promotes trueness to the

civic province, but instead, trueness is secured through a sort of? constitutional

political orientation? . On the other manus, we may happen that? constitutional nationalism? is

non an apprehensible impression apart from some cultural look of it, some

pattern of democracy at work or, so, a assortment of patterns relative both

to geography and clip. Second,

Martha Nussbaum, in her short but much discussed essay, ? Patriotism and

Cosmopolitanism? , [ 10 ] raises some

issues which may sabotage cultural nationalism. ? Her statements for cosmopolitanism and? universe citizenship? lead us

to oppugn whether the ideal of cultural patriotism is internally consistent.

Citizens of modern constitutional democratic provinces which adopt philosophies of

human rights based on some construct of natural human rights, find themselves

inquiring Nussbaum? s inquiry: ? ? ? are?

( we ) above all citizens of a universe of human existences? ? ? The political philosophy here, by its really nature, viz. , by its

committedness to human rights, makes a cosmopolitan appeal. ? The broad multicultural democratic province exercisings sovereignty

over a geographical part ( this after all, is the sine qua non of its really existence as a province ) , but its committedness

to a philosophy of human rights pulls it towards, what Martha Nussbaum calls,

? the substantial cosmopolitan values of justness and right? , in a word, towards

? universe citizenship? . But what, so, keeps the political province in continued

being ; where does the sense of the unity ( integrity ) semen from? As De Wachter

has pointed out, trueness to the province ( the entirety ) must be stronger than that

to its? intermediate constructions? & # 8211 ; its faiths, professions, and in the

context of the multicultural province, to the linguist of its cultural minorities. ? How does the broad democratic

multi-cultural province ( in this context, we may acknowledge a multiplicity of

democratic civilizations ) , which takes earnestly its political and societal philosophies,

continue its stableness and continuity, given its committedness to universal

values? ? What stops it? from going the planetary community? ? For an reply, we need to turn to David

Miller? s On Nationality. ? Miller believes that a stable state can non

follow what he calls, ? extremist multiculturalism? . A national individuality must unify

the linguist of minorities under one consolidative construct of the nation. ? Miller accepts the conservative dogma? that

a well-functioning province remainders upon? a

pre-established political sense of common nationality? [ 11 ] ,

but he does non believe that nationality should be viewed as something

inactive? to be protected and preserved by

all means. ? Rather, he allows that the

sense of national individuality will be an evolving phenomenon. All that needs to be

? asked of immigrants is a willingness to accept current political constructions

and to prosecute in duologue with the host community so that a new common individuality

can be forged? [ 12 ] . The position

that Miller characterizes as extremist multiculturalism reaches far beyond common

tolerance and the belief that each individual should hold equal chances

irrespective of minority position and that the intent of political relations is to confirm

group differences. Extremist multiculturalism, in fact, comes really close to

Nussbaum? s? universe citizenship? , a position which would take to the rejection

of all signifiers of patriotism. [ 13 ]

Therefore, cultural patriotism when freed from extremist multiculturalism is non

topic to the above unfavorable judgment. It seems

to me that cultural patriotism differs in kernel from cultural patriotism,

with which it portions a minimum connection, in that we find an ideal of

inclusion and acceptance of minority civilizations in cultural patriotism which is

ostensively absent in cultural patriotism. Cultural patriotism implicitly

recognizes the ideals of broad democratic society and preserves a philosophy of

human rights. ? Yet within this broader

ideal of acceptance, it besides recognizes a basic demand of? humanity for a sense of? individuality which is shared and communal. ? Cultural patriotism is a government of

toleration. ? But, we must non believe that

acceptance follows a expression, a fixed form harmonizing to put principles. ? Toleration has to be interpreted in a

historical context with due mention to clip, topographic point and history. ? This is the penetration that Michael Walzer

gives us in his recent valuable book, On

Toleration. ? Walzer writes: ? ? ?

there are no rules that govern all

governments of acceptance or necessitate us to move in all fortunes, in all times

and topographic points, on behalf of a peculiar set of political or constitutional

arrangements. ? Proceduralist statements

habit aid us here exactly because they are non differentiated by clip and

topographic point ; they are non decently circumstantial? . [ 14 ] Charles

Taylor? s defense mechanism of? ? multiculturalism

and the political relations of acknowledgment? allows us to ground our preferable sense of

patriotism in a basic human demand viz. , the demand to be recognized. Possibly the

most basic thing Taylor tells us is that there is a cardinal human demand to

be recognized, that the kernel of ego individuality is a communal/cultural matter.

My individuality is non something I work out in isolation, in a vacuity as it were,

but something that I negotiate in dialogical dealingss with others. [ 15 ]

? Who am I? ? can non be adequately answered within the political orientation of the civic

construct unless it is enriched in ways that go beyond the strictly

political. ? That is, my individuality is non

to the full defined within the single kingdom but needfully invokes a societal

dimension. ? My worth as a human being is

found here, within my civilization, and is reflected by the arrangement of my civilization

within the political domain as a whole. ?

Cultural patriotism does exactly this by leting persons from

diverse cultural and cultural backgrounds to happen their worth. Let us

see how the state of affairs in the Baltics exemplifies the sort of patriotism I am

back uping. ? The elements we observe in

the Baltic seas are first of all that there is an autochthonal bulk civilization, a

literature and national linguistic communication, in each of the Baltic countries. ? The three Baltic states have undergone a

disruptive history, and have been capable to business and domination by major

powers including at one clip or another in their histories by Poland, Germany,

Sweden and Russia. All of these periods of business with patterns of

race murder under the Nazis, monolithic expatriates of the native populations and Russian

colonisation during the Soviet period?

hold left an unerasable imprint on these nations. ? Autochthonal civilizations that have survived or

preserved an individuality have done so basically?

as peasant civilizations, really much distinct from the civilizations of the

Masterss. In a funny manner, the Masterss or governing categories in the Baltic seas have

ever been aliens who preserved their ain traditions and linguistic communication over

centuries. In the present station Soviet?

period with the re-assertion of sovereignty and the rise of patriotism,

the inquiry arises for the Baltic seas: ? How far can we asseverate our national

individualities without go againsting basic rights of our? immigrant? minority ethnic

groups? ? ? David Miller for one has

argued for restricting rights our immigrant groups which threaten national

stability. ? He writes: ( In? the ) circumstance where the immigrant group

is strong and cohesive plenty to? ? ? ? ?

represent itself as an independent state.. ( possibly as a consequence of )

holding been expelled from some other topographic point? the having state may hold good

ground to guard itself against being turned into bi-national society,

particularily where it forces deep struggles between the two people. [ 16 ] ? In

supporting cultural patriotism, we are non reasoning against in-migration, nor are

we reasoning for a inactive cultural sense of national individuality into which the

immigrant must be assimilated with a entire loss of his/her old cultural or

national individuality. We are reasoning for a gradual integrating? harmonizing to the

absorbent capacities of the state in inquiry? . The procedure of incorporating

the immigrant is non a one-way street where the immigrant merely acquires a new

cultural individuality, but a procedure where the national individuality itself is in

changeless but gradual flux. ? ? ? ? Patriotism

in a multicultural scene should show itself under icons or national

symbols that are non violative to minorities and can be comprehensively adopted

by all members of the society. ? National

individuality must be defined every bit far as possible? independent of group-specific

values? . Although complete cultural neutrality is non executable in pattern

since? a national linguistic communication is the carrier of the civilization of the people whose

linguistic communication it originally was? [ 17 ] ,

the state should show itself in a manner which is culturally innocuous to the

minorities. ? Remove the bias? which is built-in in an cultural construct of

the state, and? guarantee that each group is shown? equal regard and the reluctance to portion in a common civilization

will vaporize? [ 18 ] suggests

Miller. Let me

supply an history of the state of affairs in?

Canada, which like the Baltics, has besides encountered lingual and

cultural barriers to organizing a strong brotherhood. In Canada differences exist among

the initiation peoples, the Gallic and the English, the autochthonal people and the

more recent immigrant communities. Canada in the recent yesteryear has striven to

present itself and its symbolic image of itself in culturally impersonal footings,

incorporating or admiting the divergent cultural or cultural entities that

constitute it. It acknowledges the roots of its initiation people? & # 8211 ; ?

the Gallic, the English, and of class, the Indigenous Peoples in the

phrase, ? the founding states of Canada? . ?

One measure in making an image of Canada around which nationhood or

nationality may be defined is in footings of its open public symbols. Symbols

which may hold stood for colonialism and repression in the yesteryear have been

replaced ; e.g. , the old Canadian flag ( a version of the Union Jack ) has been

replaced by the Maple Leaf flag which is impersonal to all parties, the old national

anthem? God Save the King/Queen? by the uniting anthem? O Canada? . ? Our history, another factor on which a

state can split, in the yesteryear was presented in a visible radiation that saw the dominant

national group, the English, as the masters in a merely battle and the

minorities, the Native Peoples or the Gallic Canadians were presented as the

vanquished peoples. It is unfortunate that in the yesteryear in Canada we operated

with at least two different histories, history?

as taught in Gallic schools in the state of Quebec, and history as it

was taught in English Canada. Events in the 18thcentury such as the

conquerings of Quebec and Louisbourg, the Ejection of the Acadians etc. , were

given their ain peculiar slants. ? John

Ralston Saul in Reflections of a Thai Twin

has made a really valuable rectification to?

such a dissentious history of?

Canadian history. The image of the?

Gallic Canadians as a vanquished or conquered people, a minority which

has been forced to yield to the will of the Masterss has stood as a barrier to

the full credence of Canadians as one nation. ? We recognize that much has been done to rectify the symbols that

specify our state in a manner that emphasizes our shared individualities ; we have

go aggressive in our undertaking of state constructing harmonizing to rules which

can suit our complex history and its diverse civilizations and linguistic communications. I

believe it is, in portion from such considerations that our past premier curate,

Pierre Trudeau introduced policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism to

provide for a state in which? ? both

the Gallic and English talkers to the full belong and with which members of diverse

cultural backgrounds can to the full place. The

official Canadian policy of multiculturalism, although seen by many to be

destructive of an internal coherence, a sense of shared individuality,

however can besides be seen as an component in organizing a uniquely Canadian

consciousness. I think the Canadian experience, with some makings,

should be a theoretical account for state edifice in the Baltics and elsewhere. ? . The

open symbols of a state such as the national flag, the anthem, the functionary

or public history, linguistic communication, civilization that apply to states with linguistically

and culturally diverse populations should non use specifically to any 1

cultural group. It may seen that Latvia has failed to detect the demand for

neutrality of the symbolic elements on which, in portion, national solidarity may

be built. Can one

candidly argue that Latvia represents in a qualified manner an acceptable signifier of

patriotism? ? I must get down by squealing

that Latvian policy has non been wise in all its enterprise of state edifice.

The fosterage of a sense of? national

individuality? with which the Russian and

other minorities can readily place apparently has non been done. However,

viewed against the historical background of mass exiles and an aggressive

policy of Russification during the business period? there is, I think, some apprehension and even justification of? the cultural and lingual policies

followed by the authorities of Latvia, particularly when these policies are seen

as originating through a democratic procedure, and continuing in general person

human rights and basic freedoms including a free imperativeness and hence? supplying the

conditions under which argument can continue. ? [ 19 ]

The Russian imperativeness in Latvia is really vocal in showing its grudges in a

public forum, and argument is lively in both formal and informal scenes. There

remain, nevertheless, divergent readings of past history, peculiarly as it applies

to WW II. ? Latvia does non, and can non,

subscribe to the Russian position that the forceful incorporation of Latvia into

the Soviet Union was an act of release?

since in the instance of Latvia and the other Baltic states the war did non

terminal in release but in replacing one type of captivity ( that of the Nazis )

by that of another ( that of the Soviets ) . ?

However, Latvia is really clear in its policy of disassociating itself from

any? purposes of the antecedently busying? powers. ? Another facet that should be borne in head

is that in the instance of Latvia it is the Latvian bulk which is, in a sense,

the vanquished people who have suffered residents for 800 old ages and whose

civilization and linguistic communication are really much under menace of disappearing. Latvian

talkers total merely some 0.5 % about overwhelmed by its Russia speech production

neighbors. Latvia is continuing a civilization which is really much under menace,

whereas the Russians in Latvia have no such frights. They can pull, and so do

draw, upon the immense cultural wealth of Russia in the signifier of newspapers, diaries,

books, Television, wireless, all of which is available to Russian talkers in Latvia. ? Russian is spoken by virtually all occupants

of Latvia, in pattern, but non in jurisprudence. ?

Latvia is to the full bilingual? and

the Russian talker can be at place any where in the country. ? Wherever I have travelled in Latvia I have

non found one incidence where Latvians refused to talk Russian when addressed

by Russian talkers. Indeed, anecdotally, when Russians have approached me and

spoken to me in Russian and I have replied in Latvian ( as I do non talk

Russian ) , they have been really much mystified and slightly enraged by my

response. ? I have attempted to demo that there is a

defendable version of patriotism which?

occupies the land between the cultural and civic constructs of the state.

Our in-between land lies between the one manus, a national individuality based on a

( presumed ) common ethnicity, civilization or? blood? , and on the other manus, a

national individuality based on? the day-to-day plebiscite? , i. e. , on the voluntary

pick of single work forces and adult females to organize a brotherhood under some philosophy of homo

rights and constitutional process. ? We

hold suggested that there is a basic human demand to hold an individuality within a

cultural surroundings, to be identified with a civilization and a tradition in which the

sense of ego emerges and is reinforced. ?

Cultural patriotism represents a societal ideal which is consistent with

basic democratic political establishments and a philosophy of human rights. When we

confront an existent historical state of affairs of a peculiar province, it becomes

manifest that its history will bear upon the signifier of patriotism which is

appropriate to it and whatever bounds need to be imposed on the appropriate

model. ? In the instance of Canada, the signifier

of patriotism that we find recognizes the historical world of its? initiation

states? , the Autochthonal Peoples, the Gallic, and the English, every bit good as the

diverse groups of immigrants which make up the country. ? I have suggested that this signifier of

patriotism is, and could be, a theoretical account for other states. ? In the Baltics the state of affairs has been

slightly different. ? They have suffered

through a disruptive history in the twentieth century affecting periods

of military business, big graduated table exiles, forced colonisation etc. ? The signifier of patriotism that is found at that place reflects

those historical eventualities. It is with regard to such historical

eventualities that Latvia and the other Baltic provinces represent in a qualified

organize the ideal of cultural patriotism. ?

Nootens [ 20 ] , pulling

upon the work of Will Kymlicka and others, helps us see that jobs such as

those that face the Baltics require over and above a strictly philosophical

analysis besides a disinterested historical context. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Cornelius Kampe? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Acadia University ( The paper appears in Social

Doctrine Today, Vol. 16, ?

pp.66-81 ) [ 1 ] ? David Miller, On Nationality ( Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1995 ) , 5. [ 2 ] ? Ibid. , 4. [ 3 ] Jocelyne Couture, Kai Nielsen and Michel Seymour, Rethinking Nationalism ( Calgary,

University of Calgary Press, 1998 ) [ 4 ] Ibid. , 7 [ 5 ] Andre Van de Putte, ? Democracy and Nationalism? in Rethinking Nationalism, eds. Jocelyne

Couture, Kai Nielsen and Michel Seymour, ( Calgary: University of Calgary Press,

1998 ) , 161-195. [ 6 ] Ibid. , 167. [ 7 ] Frans De Wachter, ? In Search of a Post-National Identity: Who are

my Peoples? ? Couture, Nielsen and?

Seymour, 197-217. [ 8 ] Ibid. , 214 [ 9 ] Yael Tamir, ? Theoretical Troubles in the Study of Nationalism?

in Couture, Nielsen and? Seymour, 65-92 [ 10 ] Martha Nussbaum, ? Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism? in erectile dysfunction. Joshua

Cohen, ? For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of? Patriotism? ? ( Boston:

Beacon Press, 1996 ) . [ 11 ] Miller, 129 [ 12 ] Ibid. , 129-30. [ 13 ] Ibid. , 132. [ 14 ] Michael Walzer, On Toleration

( New Haven, Yale University Press, 1997 ) , 2-3. [ 15 ] Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism

and the? Politicss of Recognition? ?

erectile dysfunction. Amy Gutmann ( Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992 ) , 34. [ 16 ] Miller, 129. [ 17 ] Ibid. , 137. [ 18 ] Ibid. , 138. [ 19 ] Ibid. , 128. [ 20 ] Genevieve Nootens, ? Broad Restrictions on Public Arguments: Can

Patriot Claims be Moral Reasons

in Liberal Discourse? ? in Couture, Nielsen and?

Seymour, 237-260. ?

37b