Shadows of Allegiance: Nationalism, Patriotism, and the Fading Civic-Ethnic Divide

Introduction

Nationalism and patriotism are two terms that are frequently invoked in political discourse, often to distinguish between what is seen as a negative, aggressive form of national pride (nationalism) and a positive, virtuous form of the same sentiment (patriotism). Nationalism is typically associated with a strong attachment to one’s ethnic or cultural identity, often accompanied by the belief that a nation should be defined by shared heritage or bloodline. Patriotism, in contrast, is frequently framed as a more inclusive attachment to the values and ideals of a nation, such as its political system or democratic principles. This distinction, however, may not be as straightforward as it seems. Just as Bernard Yack critiques the differentiation between civic nationalism and ethno-nationalism as misleading, we can question the supposed divide between nationalism and patriotism. Both terms, after all, capture different expressions of attachment to a nation, and in many ways, they are not fundamentally different but are instead perceptions of the same underlying sentiment. What is labeled as “nationalism” in one context might be what others regard as patriotism but in a more negative light.

In this essay, we will explore the argument that nationalism is essentially patriotism misliked and patriotism is nationalism liked by connecting this viewpoint to Yack’s critique of the civic versus ethno-nationalist dichotomy. Yack argues that the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism, which is often presented as a clear-cut divide between inclusive and exclusive forms of national identity, is an oversimplification that ignores the shared roots of both forms. Similarly, the conventional separation between nationalism and patriotism can obscure the ways in which both are grounded in similar emotional and cultural attachments to the nation. Nationalism, like patriotism, is a sentiment that binds individuals to a collective identity. In many cases, the difference between the two labels comes down to perspective: what some see as aggressive or exclusionary nationalism, others view as a deep love for the homeland.

By examining the cultural underpinnings of both nationalism and patriotism, we can better understand how these ideas mirror the debate over civic and ethnic forms of nationalism. In a society that often favors the inclusive, legalistic model of civic nationalism, the idea of ethnic or cultural nationalism is viewed with suspicion and framed as exclusionary or dangerous. However, it is important to note that many forms of civic nationalism also rely on shared cultural practices and values, which are just as potent in forging national identity as ethnic or ancestral ties. The lines between these categories are often blurred, especially when one considers the lived experience of those who participate in national life: whether they are born into a particular culture or adopt its values, they are part of the nation in a meaningful way. Thus, both nationalism and patriotism draw on a similar reservoir of cultural symbols, rituals, and shared experiences, whether those experiences are based on ethnicity, history, or civic ideals.

To deepen this analysis, we can turn to Jürgen Habermas’ concept of Verfassungspatriotismus, or constitutional patriotism, which attempts to reconcile the tension between ethnic and civic nationalism by focusing on allegiance to a nation’s constitution and democratic principles. For Habermas, the ideal of national identity should be rooted not in ethnic homogeneity but in a shared commitment to the rule of law, individual rights, and democratic governance. This civic nationalism, while perhaps more inclusive in theory, still raises questions about the cultural foundations of national identity: can a nation exist purely based on shared political values, or is there an underlying cultural fabric that binds citizens together in a more profound sense? Yack’s critique of the civic-ethnic divide would suggest that constitutional patriotism, while a noble attempt to include all citizens regardless of their ethnic or cultural backgrounds, still implicitly relies on cultural attachments that cannot easily be separated from the broader nationalism it seeks to counter.

Finally, we can consider the views of other thinkers like Jan-Werner Müller, who, aligning with Habermas, emphasize the importance of liberal democratic values as the foundation of modern national identity. Müller’s work critiques the rise of populist nationalism in Europe, arguing that it distorts the principles of constitutional patriotism by prioritizing ethnic or cultural identity over democratic values. Yet, Yack’s critique would likely argue that both forms of nationalism—whether ethnic, civic, or constitutional—are tied to similar affective attachments to national identity. This insight invites us to rethink the ongoing debates over nationalism and patriotism not as a clash between distinct ideologies but as a matter of degree and emphasis. Whether we are talking about civic or ethnic nationalism or about nationalism versus patriotism, the emotional and cultural forces at play are often the same, and the divide between them is more a matter of framing than fundamental differences in substance.

Patriotism as “Liked” Nationalism

At their core, both nationalism and patriotism involve a sense of loyalty, pride, and dedication to one’s country. Both sentiments express love for the nation, a desire to see it prosper, and a willingness to defend its interests. While they are often framed as distinct, with nationalism viewed as more aggressive and patriotism as more virtuous, the reality is that they originate from the same fundamental attachment to one’s homeland. The difference lies less in substance and how they are perceived and expressed.

Nationalism is often regarded negatively because it can carry connotations of exclusivity, superiority, or even hostility toward outsiders. It is frequently associated with an “us versus them” mentality, where national pride justifies policies or attitudes prioritizing one group over others. In contrast, patriotism is typically framed as a more measured and inclusive form of national loyalty that does not require diminishing others to affirm one’s own country’s worth. However, both sentiments stem from the same deep emotional connection to the nation, differing only in their framing and reception.

When individuals or political movements emphasize national pride, they may choose to call it patriotism to highlight its positive qualities. Critics might label the same expression as nationalism to underscore its potential dangers. This suggests that the distinction between the two is often a matter of perspective rather than a clear-cut ideological divide. The way national pride is interpreted depends on who is observing it, the historical and political context, and how it is articulated by those expressing it.

Typically, patriotism is associated with a virtuous, civic-minded form of national pride. It reflects an inclusive sense of identity, where individuals celebrate their nation’s achievements, values, and history while remaining committed to democratic principles and mutual respect. In this sense, patriotism is seen as constructive—it encourages unity and a shared commitment to the common good without alienating others or fostering division.

On the other hand, nationalism is often perceived as a more intense and uncompromising form of patriotism. It may involve an unapologetic defense of national interests, sometimes at the expense of cooperation or inclusivity. This intensity can lead to nationalism being viewed as aggressive or dangerous, particularly when linked to exclusionary policies or rhetoric. Yet, the difference between patriotism and nationalism is not always clear-cut—what one group sees as rightful national pride, another may see as nationalism taken too far.

Thus, nationalism can be understood as patriotism misliked or misunderstood, while patriotism is nationalism framed in a more favorable light. The distinction between the two is shaped by perception, context, and intent rather than by any fundamental difference in the underlying sentiment. What is considered patriotism in one era or political climate might be labeled nationalism in another, illustrating how these concepts are fluid and contingent on the values and priorities of the moment.

Constitutional Patriotism: Habermas and the Consensus Elite View

Jürgen Habermas’ concept of Verfassungspatriotismus, or constitutional patriotism, offers a framework for national identity that transcends ethnic and cultural divisions, instead rooting allegiance in democratic values and constitutional principles. This idea emerged as a response to the historical dangers of nationalism, particularly in post-war Germany, where national identity had to be reimagined to prevent the resurgence of exclusionary or authoritarian ideologies. Habermas argues that constitutional patriotism allows for a collective identity that is both inclusive and rational, fostering a sense of belonging based not on historical myths or shared heritage but on a common commitment to human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law.

This vision aligns with what some scholars term the “consensus elite” perspective on patriotism—a form of national attachment that prioritizes democratic legitimacy over cultural or historical continuity. By emphasizing the primacy of constitutional values, Habermas’ theory seeks to create a civic identity that is accessible to all members of a political community, regardless of their ethnic, linguistic, or religious background. Unlike nationalism, which often draws lines between insiders and outsiders based on heritage, constitutional patriotism defines belonging through a shared commitment to liberal democratic principles, thus providing a potential remedy for the fractures that ethnic and cultural nationalism can create.

Jan-Werner Müller, a prominent supporter of Habermas’ theory, further develops the idea by arguing that constitutional patriotism offers a viable alternative to both traditional nationalism and the rootlessness of global cosmopolitanism. He contends that in diverse, pluralistic societies, national unity cannot be sustained through appeals to a common culture but must instead be built on shared political values. In this sense, constitutional patriotism does not reject national identity outright but redefines it in a way that aligns with modern liberal democracy. Müller and others suggest that this model is particularly well suited for societies grappling with immigration, multiculturalism, and globalization, as it provides a flexible yet unifying identity framework.

However, critics argue that constitutional patriotism may be too abstract to foster deep emotional attachment among citizens. Unlike cultural nationalism, which draws on historical narratives and traditions to create a sense of belonging, constitutional patriotism relies on an intellectual commitment to legal and democratic principles, which some view as insufficient for sustaining civic loyalty. Additionally, in practice, constitutional patriotism may still be influenced by historical and cultural contexts, as seen in Germany, where the experience of World War II and the Holocaust played a significant role in shaping the country’s embrace of this model. Critics question whether constitutional patriotism can be entirely detached from national history or whether it inevitably carries implicit cultural assumptions.

Despite these challenges, Habermas’ concept remains influential in contemporary debates about national identity, particularly in the European Union, where the idea of a supranational political identity has been explored to foster solidarity among diverse member states. The European project, emphasizing human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, echoes many of the principles of constitutional patriotism, raising the question of whether such an identity can be successfully cultivated beyond the nation-state level. While the EU’s struggles with populism and nationalism demonstrate the difficulties of building a shared identity purely on constitutional values, the continued appeal of constitutional patriotism suggests that it remains a compelling alternative to exclusionary forms of nationalism.

Thus, constitutional patriotism offers a vision of national belonging that prioritizes universal democratic ideals over particularist cultural narratives. Whether it can fully replace traditional nationalism remains an open question, as emotional and historical attachments to national identity remain powerful political forces. Nevertheless, Habermas’ framework provides an important theoretical foundation for those seeking to reconcile national identity with liberal democracy in an era of increasing pluralism and globalization.

While Jürgen Habermas’ concept of constitutional patriotism seeks to transcend nationalism by rooting national identity in democratic values rather than ethnic or cultural heritage, in practice, it functions as a form of civic nationalism. Civic nationalism, unlike ethnic nationalism, is based on shared political principles and participation in a common political system rather than bloodline or cultural homogeneity. Constitutional patriotism, which emphasizes allegiance to democratic institutions and constitutional principles, operates within this framework by offering an inclusive model of national identity yet still tied to a specific political community. It does not reject the idea of national belonging altogether but instead redefines it in a way that aligns with liberal democratic ideals.

One of the strongest arguments for seeing constitutional patriotism as civic nationalism is that both concepts rely on a shared commitment to political principles as the foundation of national identity. While constitutional patriotism claims to be post-national, it still requires a defined political community—a state with a constitution—to which people pledge allegiance. This mirrors the core idea of civic nationalism, which maintains that a nation is not defined by ethnicity but by a voluntary association of citizens who uphold common democratic values. In this sense, constitutional patriotism does not eliminate national identity but rather reconstructs it in a civic form, making it a variation of nationalism rather than a complete departure from it.

Furthermore, constitutional patriotism implicitly assumes that specific historical experiences shape a nation’s commitment to democratic values. For example, constitutional patriotism emerged in Germany as a response to the country’s authoritarian past, making democratic commitment a central aspect of national identity. This reliance on historical context to shape political values is characteristic of civic nationalism, which often ties a nation’s democratic principles to its historical development. While constitutional patriotism tries to frame these principles as universally valid, how they are interpreted and institutionalized remains tied to national histories, showing that it is not entirely detached from the nation-state model.

Additionally, constitutional patriotism functions as a unifying force within a specific polity, much like civic nationalism does. Both theories aim to foster social cohesion by creating a shared identity among diverse citizens. While ethnic nationalism seeks unity through cultural homogeneity, civic nationalism—like constitutional patriotism—creates unity through common political ideals. However, just as civic nationalism can sometimes be exclusionary (e.g., by expecting immigrants to adopt a nation’s political culture), constitutional patriotism can also serve as a boundary marker differentiating insiders from outsiders based on their adherence to constitutional values. In this way, it retains a nationalist function, even if it is not based on ethnicity.

Ultimately, constitutional patriotism is best understood not as a break from nationalism but as a specific form of civic nationalism that aligns national identity with democratic values rather than cultural heritage. It still requires a shared national commitment, an emotional attachment to a political system, and a defined political community in which these values are enacted. By redefining rather than rejecting nationalism, constitutional patriotism offers a modernized, liberal version of civic nationalism rather than a truly post-national alternative.

This understanding of constitutional patriotism as a form of civic nationalism naturally leads to a deeper critique of civic nationalism itself—one central to Bernard Yack’s work. While civic nationalism presents itself as fundamentally different from ethnic nationalism by grounding national identity in shared political values rather than cultural or ancestral ties, Yack argues that, over time, the distinction between the two begins to blur. He contends that civic nations inevitably develop their own traditions, symbols, and historical narratives that foster a sense of collective belonging, making them functionally similar to ethnic nations. Even in societies that pride themselves on their commitment to universal democratic principles, the passage of time transforms these values into cultural markers, shaping a national identity that is as emotionally resonant as ethnic nationalism. This raises the question of whether constitutional patriotism, despite its aspirations to transcend nationalism, might ultimately become another iteration of the very thing it seeks to replace.

Bernard Yack’s Critique of Civic vs. Ethno-Nationalism

Bernard Yack is a political theorist whose work critically examines the foundations of nationalism, liberalism, and democratic identity. His approach to these issues is deeply influenced by the tradition of liberal political thought, particularly the skepticism and realism of thinkers like Judith Shklar. Unlike right-wing critics of liberal nationalism, who often reject civic nationalism in favor of a return to ethnic or cultural nationalism, Yack remains committed to liberal democratic principles while questioning the common assumption that civic nationalism is fundamentally distinct from ethnic nationalism. His argument is not driven by a reactionary desire to reassert national homogeneity but rather by a concern that liberal theorists have failed to fully grasp the nature of national identity and its deep historical and emotional roots.

Yack challenges the rationalist and universalist aspirations of thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, arguing that national identity cannot be purely constructed through political values. Instead, it is deeply embedded in historical experiences, shared symbols, and collective memory, all of which make civic nationalism functionally similar to ethnic nationalism over time.

Another important influence on Yack’s thought is the broader tradition of historical liberalism, which recognizes that abstract principles and inherited practices and traditions shape political communities. This perspective aligns him with figures like Michael Oakeshott, who emphasized the importance of historical continuity in political life, and Alasdair MacIntyre, who critiqued the Enlightenment’s attempt to sever morality from tradition. Yack does not argue that nationalism is necessarily oppressive or irrational, but he insists that its emotional and historical depth cannot be erased simply by rebranding it as civic rather than ethnic. In this way, his critique challenges the idea that constitutional patriotism or civic nationalism can fully detach itself from the cultural and historical contexts that give nationalism its power.

At the core of Yack’s argument is the claim that nationalism—whether civic or ethnic—derives its strength from the deep bonds of identity that develop over time. Even nations that define themselves in civic terms inevitably create narratives of shared struggle, historical milestones, and cultural touchstones that shape their collective identity.

The debate over nationalism and patriotism parallels Yack’s broader critique of the division between civic nationalism and ethno-nationalism, a theme he explores in depth in his 2012 book, Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community. In this work, Yack argues that the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism is not as clear-cut as it is often presented because both forms involve cultural elements that bind people together. While liberal thinkers such as Habermas portray civic nationalism as an inclusive and rational alternative to ethnic nationalism, Yack contends that all national identities, even those based on political values, inevitably develop cultural dimensions that make them functionally similar to ethnic nationalism over time.

Civic nationalism claims to unite people through shared political values and legal frameworks. It is seen as inclusive and based on a voluntary commitment to the nation’s democratic ideals. This is the model embraced by proponents of constitutional patriotism, who argue that a sense of national belonging should be rooted in adherence to democratic principles rather than ethnic or cultural heritage. However, Yack points out that even civic nationalism relies on cultural norms, historical narratives, and symbols that foster a collective identity. The ideals of a constitution do not exist in a vacuum; they are shaped by and embedded in a nation’s historical experience, political traditions, and cultural practices.

In contrast, ethno-nationalism is typically defined by a shared ethnicity, culture, or heritage, emphasizing unity based on common cultural characteristics. This form of nationalism is often viewed as exclusive and resistant to diversity, as it prioritizes ancestry and cultural homogeneity over civic participation. While many liberal theorists argue that civic nationalism offers a more inclusive and morally superior alternative, Yack challenges the idea that civic nationalism is inherently more virtuous than ethno-nationalism. He suggests that both are expressions of national identity that draw on cultural elements, whether they are overtly ethnic or more subtly ingrained in civic practices.

One of the key ways civic nationalism mirrors ethnic nationalism is in its reliance on national myths and historical narratives. Even nations that define themselves in civic terms, such as the United States or France, cultivate a shared memory of struggle, sacrifice, and triumph that binds their citizens together. For instance, the reverence for the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the civil rights movement serves as a unifying national story in the United States. While these narratives are rooted in political values, they also have an emotional and cultural significance that functions similarly to ethnic heritage in traditional nationalism.

Yack’s argument also highlights how symbols and rituals reinforce national identity in civic nations. Flags, national anthems, and public holidays all contribute to a sense of collective belonging, just as they do in ethnic nations. While a civic nation may claim that its identity is based solely on democratic principles, its citizens often feel an attachment to these symbols in a way that transcends mere political allegiance. The emotional power of such symbols suggests that civic nationalism is not purely rational or voluntary but deeply intertwined with cultural sentiment, much like ethnic nationalism.

Furthermore, civic nationalism can be just as exclusionary as ethnic nationalism, even if it operates through different mechanisms. While ethnic nationalism excludes individuals based on ancestry or cultural background, civic nationalism can marginalize those who do not conform to its dominant political culture. For example, nations that pride themselves on their commitment to liberal democracy may view certain religious or ideological groups as threats to national cohesion, leading to forms of exclusion that resemble ethnic nationalism in practice. This raises the question of whether constitutional patriotism, despite its claims of universal inclusivity, might also contain implicit boundaries that define who truly belongs to the nation.

Yack’s critique is particularly relevant in the context of globalization and immigration, where national identity is constantly being renegotiated. While proponents of constitutional patriotism argue that adherence to democratic principles can serve as a unifying force in diverse societies, Yack suggests that political values alone may not be enough to sustain a strong sense of national belonging. Over time, even nations founded on civic principles develop cultural traditions that shape their identity, making it difficult to draw a strict distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism. This complicates the idea that constitutional patriotism can exist as a purely post-national identity.

By grounding his critique in the liberal tradition rather than in reactionary nationalism, Yack offers a more nuanced challenge to the civic nationalist ideal. He does not advocate for the abandonment of civic nationalism but instead calls for a more honest recognition of its limits. If civic nationalism inevitably takes on cultural and historical dimensions, then constitutional patriotism may not be as distinct from traditional nationalism as Habermas and his followers claim. This raises important questions about whether liberal democracies can truly maintain a form of national identity based on political principles—or must they inevitably grapple with the enduring power of history, memory, and culture in shaping national belonging.

Ultimately, Yack’s argument forces us to reconsider the assumption that civic nationalism is an inherently superior or more ethical form of national identity. By demonstrating how civic and ethnic nationalism overlap, he highlights the complex nature of national belonging and the difficulties of constructing a purely rational, post-national identity. Suppose even the most civic-minded nations rely on historical narratives, cultural symbols, and emotional attachments to sustain their national identity. In that case, constitutional patriotism may not represent an actual break from nationalism but rather a refined version of it.

Cultural Foundations in Both Nationalism and Patriotism

Applying Bernard Yack’s insights, we can see that both nationalism and patriotism involve a deep sense of cultural belonging, even though they are often framed as distinct. Nationalism is commonly associated with exclusionary or aggressive tendencies, while patriotism is perceived as a more inclusive and civic-minded attachment to one’s country. However, Yack argues that nationalism is not merely about political identity—it is also deeply embedded in cultural expressions such as language, history, and traditions. Similarly, patriotism is not just about an abstract commitment to democratic values; it, too, invokes national symbols, historical events, and collective memories that reinforce a shared cultural identity. The key distinction between nationalism and patriotism may not lie in their fundamental nature but rather in how they are perceived and presented.

How nationalism and patriotism are perceived largely depends on historical and political contexts. Patriotism is often framed as a noble and unifying force, a healthy pride in one’s country and its achievements, while nationalism is frequently seen as a more dangerous, divisive ideology that prioritizes national superiority over inclusivity. However, this distinction is not always stable. In some contexts, patriotism can take on exclusionary elements, such as when political movements invoke national loyalty to marginalize dissenters or define certain groups as “unpatriotic.” Conversely, nationalism can sometimes be framed positively, particularly in post-colonial societies where it serves as a means of self-determination and resistance against external domination. The distinction between the two is often shaped by the political moment and the way national identity is framed in public discourse.

Similarly, how nationalism and patriotism are presented plays a crucial role in shaping their public perception. Leaders, institutions, and media narratives can emphasize national pride’s inclusive or exclusionary aspects. A patriotic speech celebrating democratic principles and civic engagement may be framed as a unifying force, while another emphasizing national heritage and historical continuity may be interpreted as veering toward nationalism. For example, in the United States, appeals to the Constitution and the ideals of the Founding Fathers are often presented as patriotic, reinforcing a sense of civic belonging. However, when historical narratives are used to exclude or diminish the contributions of minority groups, that same patriotic framing can take on a nationalistic tone. The malleability of these concepts suggests that the boundary between patriotism and nationalism is not as fixed as is often assumed.

Concrete examples further illustrate how nationalism and patriotism can blur together. In post-World War II Germany, patriotism was deliberately downplayed due to the country’s association with aggressive nationalism, and national pride was instead expressed through commitment to democratic values—a form of constitutional patriotism. Yet, even this model of national identity retained cultural and historical elements, such as the specific memory of Germany’s past and its responsibility to uphold democratic principles. Similarly, in the United States, the civil rights movement was framed both as an extension of American patriotism—fulfilling the democratic promises of the Constitution—and as a challenge to a dominant form of nationalism that had historically excluded Black Americans. The same national symbols, such as the American flag or references to the Declaration of Independence, could support both inclusionary and exclusionary political narratives, depending on how they were presented.

Therefore, just as there is no purely civic nationalism free from cultural underpinnings, there is no purely “good” patriotism that is entirely devoid of the emotional and cultural ties seen in nationalism. Both are intertwined with the nation’s cultural foundations and can be shaped in ways that either include or exclude, unify or divide. Yack’s critique suggests that rather than seeing nationalism and patriotism as inherently distinct, we should recognize them as different expressions of the same fundamental attachment to a national community. This attachment is always shaped by cultural memory, historical narratives, and how these identities are framed in public discourse.

National Identity: The Intertwining of Civic Values and Cultural Attachments

National identity is not merely a reflection of political values but rather a complex interplay of civic and cultural elements. While some nations emphasize civic principles such as democracy, liberty, and equality, these ideals do not exist in a vacuum. They are reinforced through shared cultural traditions, symbols, and historical narratives that provide a sense of belonging. For instance, even in a country like France, which prides itself on republican values of liberté, égalité, and fraternité, national identity is deeply intertwined with cultural elements such as the French language, cuisine, and historical memory of the French Revolution. This demonstrates that both civic principles and cultural heritage shape national identity.

Political theorist Rogers M. Smith argues that national identity is often formed through “multiple traditions” rather than a singular ideological foundation. Yack supports this perspective by highlighting that even civic-nationalist states, which claim to be founded on universal political values, inevitably incorporate cultural components into their national identity. This reality blurs the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism. While ethnic nationalism is often associated with ancestry and cultural homogeneity, civic nationalism also relies on shared myths, rituals, and symbols to unify diverse populations. For example, Canada presents itself as a civic nation embracing multiculturalism and inclusivity, yet its national identity is reinforced through cultural markers such as hockey, bilingualism, and Indigenous heritage.

The United States offers another compelling case study in this interplay between civic and cultural nationalism. While the country is often described as a nation founded on ideals of democracy and freedom, American identity is also constructed through cultural practices and historical narratives. National symbols such as the bald eagle, the Statue of Liberty, and the American flag serve as unifying images, while traditions like celebrating the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving reinforce a shared sense of belonging. These cultural elements do not merely support civic values; they actively shape how those values are understood and experienced by citizens. This reveals how civic nationalism, despite its emphasis on political ideals, is inseparable from cultural expression.

By acknowledging that civic and cultural attachments are intertwined, we can better understand why the boundary between nationalism and patriotism is often challenging to maintain. Both nationalism and patriotism involve expressions of loyalty to one’s nation, yet their framing depends on the inclusiveness of the cultural elements being celebrated. Patriotism, often seen as a more inclusive form of national pride, can still be exclusionary if it is tied to specific cultural traditions that marginalize certain groups. For example, debates over what constitutes “real” American values often hinge on cultural symbols, such as the English language or religious traditions, rather than purely civic principles. This suggests that even in civic nations, cultural narratives shape the contours of national identity.

Moreover, historical narratives play a crucial role in defining national identity, as they provide a collective memory that binds citizens together. In Germany, for instance, national identity has been shaped by the country’s reckoning with its past, particularly the lessons drawn from World War II and the Holocaust. The emphasis on democratic responsibility and human rights in modern German identity is not solely based on abstract political values; it is deeply influenced by the country’s historical experiences and cultural responses to them. This reinforces the idea that civic values are permanently embedded within cultural frameworks, making it impossible to separate the two completely.

Ultimately, national identity is not the product of political values alone but a fusion of civic and cultural elements that shape a people’s sense of belonging. Whether through historical memory, shared symbols, or communal traditions, cultural components reinforce and give meaning to civic ideals. This reality complicates the notion that civic and ethnic nationalism exist as distinct categories, revealing instead that all national identities are formed through a dynamic interaction between political principles and cultural heritage. Understanding this interconnectedness allows for a more nuanced discussion of nationalism, patriotism, and the diverse ways in which people define their belonging to a nation.

The Limits of Universalism in National Identity

The concept of universalism in national identity, particularly as it relates to constitutional patriotism, faces significant challenges when considering the cultural contexts in which constitutional principles are situated. The philosopher Jürgen Habermas advocates for constitutional patriotism as a form of loyalty based on universal democratic values such as liberty, equality, and justice. However, by emphasizing the cultural context of these principles, political theorist Yack would argue that constitutional patriotism, even if rooted in universal values, is still shaped by particular cultural and historical influences. For instance, the notion of freedom in the United States is closely tied to its foundational documents, such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and is steeped in historical experiences like the American Revolution and the Civil War. In contrast, European countries such as France and Germany understand freedom through different historical lenses, including the French Revolution and the aftermath of World War II. These cultural and historical differences reveal that even universal concepts like freedom are interpreted and practiced differently in different national contexts.

Furthermore, Yack would assert that constitutional patriotism, while offering an important intellectual framework for democratic societies, cannot replace the emotional and cultural attachments that form the core of national identity. National identity is not solely a product of rational, constitutional values; it is also deeply embedded in the cultural fabric of society. People do not simply identify with their nation because of abstract political principles but because of shared traditions, symbols, and collective memories. For example, in Canada, the cultural practice of celebrating Thanksgiving, the national bilingualism of English and French, and the historical narratives surrounding Indigenous peoples contribute to a unique national identity that transcends constitutional ideals. These cultural elements cannot be easily replaced or overshadowed by constitutional values, as they provide a sense of belonging that resonates on a much deeper emotional level.

Yack would likely argue that the push for a purely rational, constitution-based loyalty overlooks the role of emotional and cultural attachments in shaping national identity. While constitutional patriotism might be effective in fostering a sense of political unity or civic responsibility, it does not fully address the complex and varied ways in which people connect to their nation on a personal and emotional level. Take, for instance, the intense pride many individuals feel toward national symbols like the flag, the national anthem, or other cultural markers such as food, language, or sport. These symbols do not derive their meaning solely from legal or constitutional principles; instead, they are infused with centuries of shared history and experience. Such emotional and cultural connections play a vital role in how individuals perceive their national identity and cannot be easily replaced by the rationality of constitutional values alone.

In addition, the deep historical ties people have to their nation play an integral role in how national identity is experienced. National histories, whether centered on independence struggles, wars, or revolutions, shape a population’s collective memory and national pride. For example, in the United Kingdom, the legacy of the British Empire, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the Second World War form key historical narratives that shape British identity today. These stories are not simply political or constitutional facts; they are cultural touchstones that create emotional bonds between citizens and their nation. Similarly, in countries like Israel, the memory of the Holocaust and the founding of the Jewish state are crucial to the nation’s identity, intertwining both political values and cultural remembrance. Abstract universal values cannot replace such historical and cultural elements; they provide a sense of rootedness and continuity that is central to people’s understanding of who they are as citizens of their nation.

Ultimately, while universal democratic values can provide a framework for political loyalty, they cannot fully capture the complexities of national identity. As Yack would argue, national identity is not purely a matter of rational principles like those espoused by constitutional patriotism. It is also a deeply emotional and cultural phenomenon shaped by the symbols, traditions, and histories that bind people together. By recognizing the limits of universalism, we can better understand why national identity cannot be reduced to abstract political values. The cultural and emotional attachments to a nation’s past, present, and future form the heart of national identity, and these cannot be easily dismissed or replaced by universal ideals.

Conclusion

The effort to distinguish nationalism from patriotism, much like the attempt to separate civic nationalism from ethno-nationalism, often overlooks the shared cultural foundations that underpin both concepts. In reality, both nationalism and patriotism blend civic and cultural elements, with the primary difference lying not in any fundamental distinction but in how they are perceived, framed, and presented. Whether individuals express loyalty to their nation through national pride or allegiance to civic values, these feelings are invariably influenced by historical and cultural narratives that help define national identity.

Bernard Yack’s critique of the dichotomy between civic and ethno-nationalism and his likely response to the concept of constitutional patriotism reinforces the notion that national identity is inherently tied to cultural stories that unite people. Yack suggests that the distinction between civic, ethnic, or constitutional forms of national identity is often artificial, as each relies on shared cultural foundations. This idea applies equally to nationalism and patriotism, where the way national pride is framed—either as virtuous or problematic—shapes its social implications. For example, the celebration of national achievements can foster unity and pride, but the same sentiment, if framed as exclusive or ethnocentric, can lead to division and hostility.

By recognizing that the division between nationalism and patriotism is more about framing than substance, we gain a better understanding of how to express national pride in ways that are inclusive and unifying. This recognition calls for acknowledging the cultural roots embedded within even the most civic-oriented national identities and the need to make those cultural expressions accessible and welcoming to all members of society, regardless of their ethnic or historical background. When framed inclusively, national pride can serve as a powerful tool for social cohesion, building a sense of belonging that transcends narrow, exclusionary boundaries.

Understanding the overlap between civic, ethnic, and constitutional forms of national identity also provides valuable insights for crafting policies that promote social integration without resorting to exclusionary practices. Rather than trying to create a one-size-fits-all model of national identity, the focus should be on building frameworks that allow for diversity within unity—celebrating shared values and cultural expressions that unite rather than divide. Such an approach would ensure that national pride fosters a sense of collective responsibility and belonging rather than marginalizing certain groups or viewpoints.

The notion that nationalism is simply “patriotism misliked” and patriotism is “nationalism liked” provides a valuable lens through which to examine how the distinction between the two is more about perception than any inherent difference. National pride can take both positive and negative forms, depending on how it is framed—whether it emphasizes inclusivity or exclusivity. When expressed inclusively, national pride can strengthen the social fabric, while exclusivist forms of nationalism can lead to alienation and conflict. By focusing on the inclusivity of national pride and its potential to unite people across various backgrounds, we can foster a more nuanced and constructive understanding of national identity.

Ultimately, the goal should be to harness the positive aspects of all forms of national pride, promoting a sense of shared identity that celebrates both unity and diversity. By acknowledging the complex, blended nature of national identity—where culture, emotion, and democratic values intersect—we can navigate political discussions on national belonging in a way that encourages inclusiveness and cohesion. This perspective allows for a more vibrant and resilient national identity that respects cultural heritage while upholding the democratic principles that guide civic life.