Patriotism or Cosmopolitanism?

Is the concept of homeland a subjective and individual notion or an objective and collective one? Is patriotism a value? What is the difference between loving one's land and patriotism? Where do patriotism and nationalism converge or become indistinguishable? Can a person's birthplace transcend a geographical-cultural fragment of the world to become something sacred? This week on Taboo, we host both sides of this debate; Reza Ghasemi, a former Iranian diplomat, who defends patriotism and claims cosmopolitanism is a fantasy, and Mohammad Heydari, a journalist who argues that patriotism can be a dangerous idea. Let’s start the program with Mr. Ghasemi and pose the main question of this episode: Mr. Ghasemi, do you consider patriotism a value? Reza Ghasemi: I think it is a value. Worship is specific to the essence of the Almighty. However, it is a term that is prevalent, and I believe it is a value. If we do not consider it a value, the counter-argument would be that it is valueless, which rational logic cannot accept. The homeland of a person has value. Rational logic does not accept that we were born, grew, and matured in a certain area and benefited from its advantages and say it is valueless. This value led many countries to independence after World War II. We saw that many thinkers and leaders of nationalism and great figures of the Third World, like Ahmed Ben Bella, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, and Gamal Abdel Nasser, who were founders of non-aligned countries, were able to lead independent nations. Very well, let’s see what our other guest, Mr. Heydari, thinks about this topic. Mr. Heydari, Mr. Ghasemi mentioned prominent figures globally who we know and who have played roles in the independence of various nations and referred to what we call patriotism as a value. What is your view on this, Mr. Heydari? Mohammad Heydari: I think we should separate patriotism from love for the homeland. If we make such a distinction, I believe patriotism is not a value and is not defensible. If we take patriotism as a collective ideology, I think it is indefensible. In fact, if it becomes a collective ideology, it is nationalism. Now let’s call it patriotism. In that case, just as religion can become dangerous when it turns into a collective ideology, this can also be dangerous, so it is indefensible and has characteristics that can make it dangerous. What characteristics make you say that patriotism is dangerous and indefensible? Heydari: Nationalism and patriotism seek to create identity for a group. If we pay attention to this collective identity formation, it does not matter; whether it is national identity of a nationalist kind or religious identity formation, it has characteristics including the desire for uniformity. It wants to place all people under a single ideology uniformly, and among other things, it wants that ideology to be understood uniformly, meaning you cannot even have diverse understandings of that ideology under it. Furthermore, there is a sense of superiority in it, which you can also see in religion. For instance, suppose someone believes in Shia Islam. When Shia is transformed from an individual religion and personal choice into a collective ideology, you see a sense of superiority in it. In fact, it considers itself the true religion. The same happens with nationalism. When you transform it from an individual feeling into a collective feeling, it becomes a collective hysteria and becomes dangerous. Its third characteristic is that it creates enemies, and in fact, it cannot survive without defining another against itself, and its very survival is based on enemy creation, and ultimately it becomes an aggressive tool. These four characteristics... Very well, let’s return to Mr. Ghasemi with these four characteristics. Mr. Ghasemi, you said that the fact that we grow up in a part of the world, in a geography, and benefit from it necessitates having a feeling like patriotism, and this is a value; however, Mr. Heydari says this can turn into selfishness or I want to say it can create a negative identity-seeking. What is your response? Ghasemi: I would say that when we served in the Foreign Ministry, we had a boss who said whenever you want to look up the meaning of a word, translate it into English or French and see what it means. We are not talking about nationalism here at all. Nationalism and patriotism are two separate issues. Nationalism and patriotism are separate matters. In my opinion, this feeling is a natural one. You see, Rumi once said, 'Though the heart hardens like stone, my soul yearns for Bukhara; it is the abode of my beloved and my king's city; before the lover, this was love of the homeland.' Mr. Heydari spoke of dangers. I do not understand how loving and being fond of one’s land, as all or perhaps we could say most Iranians who are away from their homeland, meaning those displaced, wish to return to their homeland; this is nothing but affection, love, and friendship, and we cannot deny the value of this feeling. This is a feeling that I always compare a person to a tree. Our roots are in the past, and these roots are inseparable. This issue is, firstly, separate from nationalism because nationalism has both extreme and non-extreme forms; sometimes extreme nationalism has brought our country to the brink of the abyss... I apologize, Mr. Ghasemi, but nationalism, in any case, approaches patriotism, and there is a very close connection between nationalism and patriotism. Ghasemi: Yes, it may be close, but it is not the same. Because nationalism, as I mentioned, has extreme nationalism, moderate nationalism, and these are another issue. My question here would be for you, Mr. Heydari, that we have all heard the saying, 'If Iran does not exist, my body should not exist.' Some may ask what the value of a person's life is against such a statement. That is, does a person's body, a person's life, have value in itself, or is this value necessarily dependent on soil, geography, and maps that are, of course, man-made? Heydari: What I said is indefensible and dangerous, which was patriotism. As you mentioned, we have often heard that a person and the value of a person are considered worthless under mental concepts like nationalism or religion; it does not matter, it is considered valueless, just as you said, for example, this poem that 'If Iran does not exist, my body should not exist,' well, naturally, how each individual faces this, I do not care, but in its collective sense, undoubtedly, I believe that if it means that Iranians' bodies should not exist if Iran does not exist, this is a nonsensical statement, and fundamentally, Iran finds meaning only with its Iranians. Therefore, Iran without its people is fundamentally not Iran. When we enter this meaning, it wants to emerge from within a collective identity, and in fact, it devalues the concrete and actual humans living there—whether in Iran or any other homeland, it does not matter—they are devalued in front of something mental or a mental phenomenon that can change in a hundred years, two hundred years, or not at all. Now, I do not know how you even take Iran here, whether you take it in its cultural sense or its political sense, as a political geographical fragment within a specific border, and any meaning you take, it is a mental meaning, and therefore, humans are prioritized over this. I think this thing, the poem you mentioned, is essentially a summary of the idea of the superiority of the mind over humans, and I think this statement is not correct and creates danger. Otherwise, an individual can, for instance, have affection and love for their mother, father, and home. There is nothing wrong with that. When it becomes a collective identity and comes with these dangers, then I think it is indefensible. Let me see what Mr. Ghasemi thinks about this. Mr. Ghasemi, with the perspective you defend and consider a value; what will you say about 'If Iran does not exist, my body should not exist'? Ghasemi: Firstly, some researchers attribute this verse to Ferdowsi, although it may not entirely belong to Ferdowsi. I do not defend extreme patriotism because it leads to chauvinism. As I mentioned, love, now that I have been away from Iran for forty years, I mentally fly towards that side, to my soil and water with the same customs, the same habits, and the same cultural components, of which religion is one, music, history, and geography of my country. Therefore, nothing extreme is defensible just as chauvinism is not defensible, and still... Mr. Ghasemi, I apologize, but I want you to answer my question. See, my question is directly this: 'If Iran does not exist, my body should not exist' has a point that... Ghasemi: I do not believe that this poem belongs to Ferdowsi, but its meaning... My question is not whether this poem belongs to Ferdowsi or not! My question is that patriotism or love for the homeland that you also mentioned, to the extent that a human being wants to give their life for their homeland, how much value does it have, and how much do you reject and accept it? My question is this. Ghasemi: If someone stands in the middle of the street and sets themselves on fire and says, 'Sir, Iran is in danger, I will set myself on fire,' of course, this is not right; rational logic does not endorse it, but the affection and attachment to that soil and water cannot be denied. Is it possible for a person to forget where they were born; with what customs and habits they grew up; what language they learned? One cannot draw a red line over this issue and say that no, patriotism is also, I would say, dangerous and creates problems and may be so. No! Of course, it is true that every soil and water is dependent on its people, its nation. For this reason, the nation-state itself is a concept in international law. This root cannot be separated, and I cannot accept with any logic that we say that love for the homeland or its extreme interpretation, which would be patriotism, does not exist and has no value and is valueless. I return to Mr. Heydari with your permission. Mr. Heydari, you pointed to a point about the dangers of such ideas. Overall, if we look at it, what is the difference, in your opinion, between sanctifying soil and homeland and sanctifying an ideology or a religion or other matters that we witness in the world under the title of insulting our sanctities? What is the difference between wars over religious sanctities and wars and killings over homeland and geography, in your opinion? Heydari: To summarize, in my opinion, there is no difference, but if I want to elaborate and explain more; I think that the reason these do not differ is that both, when they become the collective characteristic of a society, then they become a crisis. Religion, as long as it is a personal choice and a personal lifestyle of each individual, poses no danger, but as soon as it becomes a collective identity and in fact, some want to turn it into a collective identity, they want everyone's understanding of religion to be uniform; then it becomes dangerous, and a crisis arises from within it. The same situation exists with nationalism. I placed nationalism in this discussion against patriotism. In my opinion, there is no difference in which ideology people kill each other over. Mr. Ghasemi, Mr. Heydari emphasizes that patriotism is dangerous when it turns into a collective identity, but homeland is fundamentally a collective concept. The homeland is not an individual issue, a concept, or a phenomenon; do you have an explanation regarding this? Can patriotism, when it is a collective concept, be dangerous? Ghasemi: I completely agree with this part of Mr. Heydari's remarks that anything imposed can create a collective identity and can cause problems. The reason that religious disputes grow and escalate is that those who are the advocates of this issue want to impose these views on the people. Well, just as we did now during Nowruz, all Iranians placed greens and set the Haft-Seen table; these are traditions that preserve traditions.