For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism
This volume contains an essay by Nussbaum published originally in the Boston Review, along with 16 replies and a final word by the author. Nussbaum, a classics scholar, rejects calls by scholars Richard Rorty and Sheldon Hackney for a greater sense of shared American values, arguing instead for a commitment to overarching human values and a cosmopolitan identity as world citizens, which will be an antidote to ethnocentrism on matters like family values and will make Americans more aware of global problems like environmental pollution. There are substantial normative and practical problems with this point of view, as responses by Benjamin Barber, Nathan Glazer, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and others point out. Nussbaum's classification of national identity as just one of a whole series of smaller and larger identities misses the fact that nations continue to be the primary political embodiments of differing principles of justice. One cannot be concerned with "rights" as a universal value, whether of women, ethnic minorities, or individuals, without being aware that some regimes support while others systematically deny rights. And cosmopolitanism has no emotional appeal to anyone except a small group of intellectuals like the author herself, and perhaps a stratum of CEOs of multinationals for whom she presumably has little sympathy.
Related
To some degree, biology is destiny. The feminist school of international relations has a point: a truly matriarchal world would be less prone to conflict and more cooperative than the one we now inhabit. And world politics has been gradually feminizing over the past century. But the broader scene will still be populated by states led by men like Mobutu, Milosevic, or Saddam. If tomorrow's troublemakers are armed with nuclear weapons, we might be better off being led by women like Margaret Thatcher than, say, Gro Harlem Brundtland. Masculine policies will still be essential even in a feminized world.
Both in public and underground, Iranians are debating the legitimacy of the Islamic state that Khomeini built. Students challenge the notion that Islam has all the answers but evince pride in an Iran free of the shah and under no foreign master. The religious and secular elites are increasingly willing to contemplate pluralism and openness to the world, though most makers of the revolution remain obdurate and appeal to anti-Americanism to stir up the masses. Washington needs to listen to the new voices of Iran.
The British election on May 6 is not just business as usual. It will reconfigure British domestic politics and foreign policy.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.