What do you think?
Rate this book
For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism
For Love of Country is a rare forum - an exciting conversation among some of our most prominent intellectuals about where our basic loyalties should lie.
At the center of this lively, accessible book of debate is Martha Nussbaum's passionate argument for "cosmopolitanism." With our connections to the rest of the world growing stronger, she argues, we should distrust conventional patriotism as a parochial ideal, and instead see ourselves first of all as "citizens of the world."
Sixteen writers and thinkers respond to Nussbaum's piece in short, hard-hitting essays, acknowledging the power of her argument, but often defending patriotisms and other local commitments. We hear from an astonishing range of writers - philosophers and poets, literary scholars and historians. Nussbaum reaffirms the cosmopolitan ideal in a moving closing essay.
This is a book for all citizens. Representing American philosophy at its most relevant and readable, For Love of Country will shape the way we think about some of our most urgent public issues and deepest human obligations.
At the center of this lively, accessible book of debate is Martha Nussbaum's passionate argument for "cosmopolitanism." With our connections to the rest of the world growing stronger, she argues, we should distrust conventional patriotism as a parochial ideal, and instead see ourselves first of all as "citizens of the world."
Sixteen writers and thinkers respond to Nussbaum's piece in short, hard-hitting essays, acknowledging the power of her argument, but often defending patriotisms and other local commitments. We hear from an astonishing range of writers - philosophers and poets, literary scholars and historians. Nussbaum reaffirms the cosmopolitan ideal in a moving closing essay.
This is a book for all citizens. Representing American philosophy at its most relevant and readable, For Love of Country will shape the way we think about some of our most urgent public issues and deepest human obligations.
154 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
12 people are currently reading
408 people want to read
About the author
Martha C. Nussbaum
177 books1,369 followersMartha C. Nussbaum is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Law School and the Philosophy Department. Among her many awards are the 2018 Berggruen Prize, the 2017 Don M. Randel Award for Humanistic Studies from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the 2016 Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
October 10, 2016
I have had a hard time warming up to Nussbaum because the first thing I read by her was her rejection of Judith Butler's theories about gender performativity, and I dearly love Butler. But I am actually a big fan of Nussbaum's argument in favor of cosmopolitan educations. Essentially, Nussbaum argues that education (particularly in the context of the US, and I think this is more true post-9/11 than it was in 1994) should help form a moral commitment to humanity as a whole, rather than delimiting one's moral allegiance to the nation-state. I remember that when I was in high school, shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, it occurred to me that I should not stand for the pledge of allegiance. I didn't feel that the actions my country was taking represented my ethical values. Now, I look back with a more fully developed cosmopolitan ethical sense, and it strikes me that to begin everyday with the pledge of allegiance--which in many instances children are required through various disciplinary and social pressures to repeat--is perhaps the most striking example of the interpolation of children as principally citizens of the US, rather than owing a primary ethical loyalty to humanity.
This collection of essays includes a variety of responses to Nussbaum's essay, including overt rejections, overt agreement, and many caveats, nuances, and contestations. I do think some of the critiques misunderstand Nussbaum, sometimes in very understandable ways. But as a whole, this collection is a really good discussion of the difficult terrain of cosmopolitan education.
This collection of essays includes a variety of responses to Nussbaum's essay, including overt rejections, overt agreement, and many caveats, nuances, and contestations. I do think some of the critiques misunderstand Nussbaum, sometimes in very understandable ways. But as a whole, this collection is a really good discussion of the difficult terrain of cosmopolitan education.
Read
July 6, 2019Turkce bir degerlendirmesi icin: https://wanderlustpress.net/2018/08/2...
To be honest, I'm not impressed by this book. Though there are some good points here and there, the essays read just a little too flimsy to my liking.
To be honest, I'm not impressed by this book. Though there are some good points here and there, the essays read just a little too flimsy to my liking.
July 8, 2025
Eerily relevant for today.
July 11, 2019
Similar to the format of a Matter of Interpretation, the book starts with a long essay by Nussbaum, several responses and critiques to the essay, concluded with a reply by Nussbaum answering the critiques. The essays are all thoughtful and well reasoned, even essays that I disagreed with were eloquent summaries of their broader points.
Nussbaum's essay is in response to some public intellectuals calling for Americans to put aside their divisive identity politics to focus on the broader identity of being American. Those intellectuals argue that the traditional lines dividing Americans from each are actually arbitrary and indefensible as a philosophical matter. Nussbaum builds on that, arguing that nationality itself is an arbitrary and indefensible line, and that the true community that all people should have allegiance to is humanity. Drawing on Stoic principles, Nussbaum argues that it is wrong to give anyone less moral worth because they happen to be born across a national boundary, in her memorable words, while she loves her daughter, Nussbaum denies that the fact of their relations should make make her daughter more morally important to her than a stranger. Nussbaum goes on to argue that while cosmopolitanism may seem colorless and "boring" compared to the more sentimental patriotism, and that to be a cosmopolitain is to be somewhat an exile from any allegiance, since a cosmopolitan does not have the comfort of simply believing their country, right or wrong, cosmopolitan is the only defensible line. Nussbaum concedes that in practice, people may need to care about those closest to them, in order to effectuate caring for all. She also argues along the lines of Aristotle that one starts loving their family, and grows that love concentrically, until it covers all of mankind.
What follows in the book are a series of responses, some supporting, some strongly disagreeing while most qualify in their different ways. I think they're all worth reading, and at least for me I learned a lot from them. The strongest arguments in my opinion were that the state (and citizenship) is actually a morally coherent source of allegiance, because it's the instrument that people govern themselves through, and that cosmopolitanism fails in practice because it cannot sufficiently excite any real allegiance since it is so abstract. In this vein, the advocacy of cosmopolitanism may lead people to love people abstractly without actually loving anyone, a love of mankind but not of man. One particular essay discussed the difficulty of imagining others ina true sense, and how this difficulty would extend the demands of cosmopolitanism. A related argument is that identities are not chosen by individuals, to be put on and taken off at will but constitutive. Other essays discuss the challenge of so-called universal principles, and that of world citizenship without a world state. None of the essays were outrageous or unreasonable but they all made me think.
The reply essay by Nussbaum to all these critiques is really an illustration of the value of deliberation. Her reply is focused and passionate (wonderfully opening and ending the reply with a reference to the Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations, a memorial to non-Jews who risked their lives to rescue Jews during the holocaust, a powerful illustration of people looking beyond their local attachments for the needs of our fellow humans), and re-iterates her view on cosmopolitanism and expanding our circle of concern to humanity. The reply argues that one does not need a world state to be a good world citizen and to be concerned about our fellow humans. Nussbaum argues that cosmopolitanism is not a homogenizing force that ignores the traditions and the local. While the local has an important role in flourishing, we should not feel that our local attachments are superior to that of the broader cause of humanity. The reply (in my mind) brilliantly responds to the difficulty of loving humanity by arguing that a child loves their parents first, and then learns to love others in a broad sense because a child sees with the pain of others is similar to their own. Children do not start out loving their identities. Nussbaum argues that to be a cosmopolitan is not to aim for a superhuman characteristic, but to simply retain that child-like nature.
Regardless of personal positions on the controversial subject, a worthwhile read for anyone looking to see the problem from multiple angles, all in conversation with one another. Reading the book might not help one make up their mind, but it will help them think the problem through.
Nussbaum's essay is in response to some public intellectuals calling for Americans to put aside their divisive identity politics to focus on the broader identity of being American. Those intellectuals argue that the traditional lines dividing Americans from each are actually arbitrary and indefensible as a philosophical matter. Nussbaum builds on that, arguing that nationality itself is an arbitrary and indefensible line, and that the true community that all people should have allegiance to is humanity. Drawing on Stoic principles, Nussbaum argues that it is wrong to give anyone less moral worth because they happen to be born across a national boundary, in her memorable words, while she loves her daughter, Nussbaum denies that the fact of their relations should make make her daughter more morally important to her than a stranger. Nussbaum goes on to argue that while cosmopolitanism may seem colorless and "boring" compared to the more sentimental patriotism, and that to be a cosmopolitain is to be somewhat an exile from any allegiance, since a cosmopolitan does not have the comfort of simply believing their country, right or wrong, cosmopolitan is the only defensible line. Nussbaum concedes that in practice, people may need to care about those closest to them, in order to effectuate caring for all. She also argues along the lines of Aristotle that one starts loving their family, and grows that love concentrically, until it covers all of mankind.
What follows in the book are a series of responses, some supporting, some strongly disagreeing while most qualify in their different ways. I think they're all worth reading, and at least for me I learned a lot from them. The strongest arguments in my opinion were that the state (and citizenship) is actually a morally coherent source of allegiance, because it's the instrument that people govern themselves through, and that cosmopolitanism fails in practice because it cannot sufficiently excite any real allegiance since it is so abstract. In this vein, the advocacy of cosmopolitanism may lead people to love people abstractly without actually loving anyone, a love of mankind but not of man. One particular essay discussed the difficulty of imagining others ina true sense, and how this difficulty would extend the demands of cosmopolitanism. A related argument is that identities are not chosen by individuals, to be put on and taken off at will but constitutive. Other essays discuss the challenge of so-called universal principles, and that of world citizenship without a world state. None of the essays were outrageous or unreasonable but they all made me think.
The reply essay by Nussbaum to all these critiques is really an illustration of the value of deliberation. Her reply is focused and passionate (wonderfully opening and ending the reply with a reference to the Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations, a memorial to non-Jews who risked their lives to rescue Jews during the holocaust, a powerful illustration of people looking beyond their local attachments for the needs of our fellow humans), and re-iterates her view on cosmopolitanism and expanding our circle of concern to humanity. The reply argues that one does not need a world state to be a good world citizen and to be concerned about our fellow humans. Nussbaum argues that cosmopolitanism is not a homogenizing force that ignores the traditions and the local. While the local has an important role in flourishing, we should not feel that our local attachments are superior to that of the broader cause of humanity. The reply (in my mind) brilliantly responds to the difficulty of loving humanity by arguing that a child loves their parents first, and then learns to love others in a broad sense because a child sees with the pain of others is similar to their own. Children do not start out loving their identities. Nussbaum argues that to be a cosmopolitan is not to aim for a superhuman characteristic, but to simply retain that child-like nature.
Regardless of personal positions on the controversial subject, a worthwhile read for anyone looking to see the problem from multiple angles, all in conversation with one another. Reading the book might not help one make up their mind, but it will help them think the problem through.
June 30, 2019
A good well-rounded discussion on a particular perspective on cosmopolitanism. Although, the discussion is a tad overly semantic at times. Sometimes responses are toward the particular method of articulation instead of the idea conveyed.
August 2, 2025
This was a wonderful, if not at times frustrating, romp into discourse surrounding patriotism.
I thought that I rated this when I read it, but I guess maybe the edition, along with my review, was removed sadly.
I thought that I rated this when I read it, but I guess maybe the edition, along with my review, was removed sadly.
September 17, 2022
Excellent collection of responses, quick read with diverse perspectives on "global citizenship" and its perks/pitfalls/plausibility
April 7, 2012
Again, I only read the chapter required by my professor. From this snippits of info I can tell that Nussbaum is an extreme idealist, just like Tagore. The cosmopolitan university established by Tagore--Visvabharati--emphasizes on communication and sharing of ideas instead of disciplinary training. This logic is fundamental at odds with the capitalist logic of specialization and expertism ... and provides a different model of what the would could be. And I'm totally excited about it.
In this sense, I am an idealist, too.
4/6/2012, read a few more articles pertinent to my research. Overall, it's a good entry point for my article
In this sense, I am an idealist, too.
4/6/2012, read a few more articles pertinent to my research. Overall, it's a good entry point for my article
April 20, 2007
My introduction to "cosmopolitan" ethics. I don't know whether the essays in this book actually changed the way I thought about the world or articulated principles that I'd suspected all along, but in any event it certainly gave me new frames through which to talk about my ideas about political identities and how we conceptualize them. It sounds like a simple enough idea--think of yourself as a citizen of the world--but it raises all kinds of questions, and one of the nice things about this book is that a number of different writers weigh in on the idea.
October 8, 2010
Quite enjoyable. Personally, I thought it seemed a bit simple at first ("well, obviously patriotism is X, Y and Z...") but then I'd watch the news and remember why it's not obvious.
There wasn't a very intense, partisan debate in the book. Some major differences of opinion, but all in all I felt most of the authors had similar concepts but different ideas in how they should be articulated, which is really where I think the patriotism issue does lie.
There wasn't a very intense, partisan debate in the book. Some major differences of opinion, but all in all I felt most of the authors had similar concepts but different ideas in how they should be articulated, which is really where I think the patriotism issue does lie.
August 23, 2015
Nussbaum's initial essay raises an important question: cosmopolitanism or patriotism. She frames the choice in starter terms than needed. Responses by Elaine Scarry, Charles Taylor, Sissela Bok and Robert Pinsky were quite fine. The animating metaphor in Nussbaum's reply at the end gives a fine response to the claim that cosmopolitanism by nature will always be bloodless and wan. Intriguing book...Sen and Appiah's essays also good.
August 13, 2016
It is not that I have finished reading every word but I am finished reading such drivel. So much of it is smoke without substance. It is very hard to find the meat of any of their arguments among so much deflection tactic. It would have been better if the responses to her essay had been as concise and to the point as her essay had been.
October 6, 2013
This is a thought-provoking attempt to defend cosmopolitanism by Nussbaum together with critical responses by luminaries such as H. Putnam, E. Scarry K. Appiah and A. Sen.
June 7, 2014
The controversial opinion of Martha C. Nussbaum about Cosmopolitanism, and how could be achieved against the stances of nationalism or patriotism, and the reflections among scholars.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews