爱国主义的变迁 Changes in the concept of nationalism

　　Nationalism in the old days did not just refer to loyalty to the country. It was closely tied up with loyalty to the emperor or sovereign king. Both were inseparable. Chinese general Yue Fei's undivided loyalty to the country and the Song emperor (who was misled by corrupt court officials) was what led to his tragic death years ago.

　　Empirical evidences also showed that early nationalism had its origin in regional and blood ties. Unless a grouping was assured that the interests of its own families and communities were met, it would be difficult for them to fulfil their duties and obligations to the country. This was why when a new emperor was enthroned, he would confer titles
and territories to his kinsmen. Such feudal practices were also common among regional government officials. The wider sense of patriotism to the emperor and country could only be
stimulated in turbulent times when a country was in danger of invasion by outside forces.

　　This form of early nationalism was suitable for old economies that were basically agrarian in nature, and interdependence and communication links among them were limited. Under these circumstances, rulers resorted to power politics to preserve their territories and their system of government. And power politics went hand in hand with nepotism and cronyism.

　　Actually, it is not difficult to understand why ancient rulers behaved in this manner. In primeval times, tribal chiefs and their members had to resort to power to ensure
the survival of their whole community.

　　Today, however, a different perspective of nationalism has been taken. People can now differentiate between loyalty to the individual ruler and loyalty to the country. They
would not rise to calls for nationalism unless the interests of the ruler and theirs are identical, that is, they truly reflect the interests of the country. To love the country is
to love its citizenry. This is fundamental. Loyalty to the nation and country must take precedence over blood ties and loyalty to an individual or to a community.

　　Unfortunately, social proGREss does not take place evenly. As a result, the new concept of nationalism also evolves at a different pace. In some societies, people still hold on to the narrow brand of nationalism --- one that is confined to their region. These people place high regard for their immediate families, then relatives, then clans and then regions or religious groups. 　　Examples of these are found in many developing countries, where many of their citizens unscrupulously sacrifice national interests for their own benefits or those of their groups. For these people, loyalty to the country is secondary. They would only npursue national interests or turn to diplomacy when their individual or their group's interests need to be protected.

　　So how do we reinforce the modern concept of nationalism? We need to understand that rights and responsibilities are paradoxes. On one hand, a person needs to be given some political rights before he is able to perform his civic duties. On the other hand, a civic
conscious person will demand rights that are due to him. In time to come, as a society modernises, people's rights and responsibilities should be balanced.

　　Once the majority in a society are able to exert their rights and fulfil their responsibilities, they will regard themselves as masters of their country and their own
destiny. Citizens whose nationalism is built on this foundation are likely to have acquired a high level of modern civic consciousness.

　　Governments of developing countries need to understand this simple principle if they want to conduct education and publicity programmes effectively to promote the new concept
of nationalism among their citizens.

　　Generally, governments find it effective to use the mass media to transmit nationalistic values as they are penetrating and far-reaching. At the same time, governments should, at appropriate times, respond with changes in civic laws and regulations in order to support the new concept of nationalism.

　　In a nutshell, national education should be accompanied by legal changes that would accord its people basic civil rights. Without this guarantee of basic civil and individual
rights, a country's citizens would not be able to say that they are masters of their destiny. Then there is no need to talk about setting up a law-abiding society or even creating a consciousness of the new concept of nationalism.

 

爱国主义内涵的变迁

　　爱国主义是千百年来形成的对自己民族国家的一种深厚的感情。但是，现代社会和传统社会对爱国主义有着不同的要求。

　　首先，传统意义上的爱国是与忠君联系在一起的，它把对君主个人的忠诚与对国家的忠诚混为一谈，不加区分。这是宋代名将岳飞悲剧发生的主要原因。

　　其次，在多数人的行为准则中，地方的和血缘的忠诚强于对国家的忠诚。只有在确保了自己家族和本地的利益之后，才谈得上行使对国家的义务。这是为什么君主登基之后都要大肆进行血缘分封，而地方官员也要任人唯亲，甚至封建割据盛行的主要原因。只是在面对异族入侵时，传统意义上的爱国情感才能被激发出来。

　　传统爱国主义的这种特征在当时的合理性在于，在自然经济的基础上，各地的经济联系以及与此相适应的交通能力都非常有限，因此强权政治是统治者维系国家统治的基本手段，而强权只能与任人唯亲相吻合。

　　这一点，我们还可以从原始氏族首领和其成员的首要任务和崇高义务，就是维护自己血缘氏族的生存利益中一目了然。现代意义上的爱国主义则明确的把对领袖个人的忠诚和对“国家”这一政治共同体
的忠诚区别开来，只有当领袖和政府的利益与全体人民的利益相一致时，当他们能够真正代表“国家”时，爱国主义才延及他们。

　　因此，爱国就是爱全体人民，这是爱国主义的根本所在。在社会关系中，它要求对民族国家的忠诚战胜人伦的、地方的和血缘的忠诚。

　　在转型中的社会，社会发展的不平衡和价值观念的冲突使人们的爱国主义观念有很大的不同。一方面，我们可以看到狭隘的地方忠诚在人们心目中仍然占据着重要的地位。很多人的首要义务是忠于他的
近亲，然后扩至家族、部族、地域的或宗教集团。正如我们在很多发展中国家所看到的，很多人对以牺牲国家利益为代价来增进个人或小集团的利益的行为并不感到内疚。

　　反之，却要受到冷落和歧视。血缘和地方的忠诚总是强于对民族国家的忠诚。他们只有在保护小集团利益的基础上或与外国人打交道时才愿意履行忠于国家的义务。

　　那么，如何才能确立现代爱国主义的价值观呢？我们知道，权利和义务是一对矛盾，人们只有享受到一定的权利，才会自觉地去尽义务；反之，尽了一定义务的人，必然会要求自己应该享受的权利。从
社会发展来看，一个社会越是具有现代性，它的公民的权利和义务就越是平衡。

　　在此基础上，当一个社会中大多数人的权利和义务都得到了基本实现的时候，他们就会把自己看成是国家和社会的主人。在这个基础上发展起来的爱国主义是一种自觉程度很高、现代性很强的思想意识。

　　反之，在一个缺乏民主意识和公民意识的国度里，或者说，在一个公民权利实现程度很低、只讲奉献的传统国度里，很难使人做到用国家的忠诚来取代个人的、血缘的和地方的忠诚。在很多发展中国家，爱国主义与其他的基本价值观一样，正处于价值转换阶段，还含有很多传统的因素，与现代国家的基本要求有很大的差距。

　　培育现代价值观是很多发展中国家文化建设和爱国主义教育中必不可少的重要内容。只有明确认识到这一点，我们才能主动地去培育和宣传这种现代意识。

　　具体来说，经常、普遍和有效的手段就是通过各种媒介进行传播。这种传播可能是无形的，但其影响力是深远的。在此基础上要适时的取消和制定相应的法规，以推动这种现代价值观的发展。只有在法治的条件下，现代价值观才能最终在全社会得到认同。没有法制保障人民主权和个人权利的实现，人民就不会有当家作主的意识，而没有当家作主的意识，法制社会的建立以及现代爱国主义和集体主义从何谈起？