Kierkegaard's Critique of Christian Nationalism

Kierkegaard ’sCritiqueof

ChristianNationalism

STEPHENBACKHOUSE

Nationalism, ChristianityandKierkegaard

Itisbadbecauseitisa lie,anda liecanneverbeutteredwithoutdoing harm.1

1 . I NTRO D U C T I ON

Notoriouslydifficulttodefine, ‘nationalism’ isapowerful ideologywhich harnessesidealsofpersonal identity,history,raceand language,oftenin ordertopromotegoodcitizenshiporhuman flourishing,whosevaluesare affiliatedtotheprivilegingofaparticularcultural-ethnicidentity.Nationalism isbroaderthantheexplicitlyracistand/ormilitaristicmovementsaspopularly understood.Thesemoreobviouslymalevolentformsareofcoursephenomena ofnationalism,buttheideologyismoreextensiveandpervasivethanthe virulenttypeswouldsuggest.FollowingMichael Billig’sidentificationof ‘banal nationalism’,wecanseethatnationalismalsoincludesthoseelementsthat undergirdthe(usually subconscious) everydayexpressionsofidentityand affiliationconnectedtoaspecificpeoplegroup.2 Nationalismencompasses thatwhichestablishesa ‘senseofthecommon’ inasociety,includingreligious andgenerational wisdomthatisprivilegedforracial andethnicreasons. Nationalismcontributestomanyofthenarrativesbywhichpeople livetheir livesandbasetheirprejudices.Oneneednottalkonlyofitsextremeformsto talkofnationalism forthebanal versionsalsoholdswayineveryday life.So althoughnationalismcan(andoftendoes)eruptasajustificationforgenocide orapartheid,beforeitreachesthatstage,itcanremainanunconscioussetof ideological assumptionsthatgovernwhooneconsidersworthyoffriendship,

1 LeoTolstoy, ‘Christianityand Patriotism’ in TheKingdomofGodandPeaceEssays, trans. AylmerMaude(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1936),487.

2 ‘Banal nationalism’ refersto ‘ideological habits’ thatunderlienational identities. ‘Nationalism,farfrombeinganintermittentmoodinestablishednations,istheendemiccondition.’ Following HannahArendt,Billigstressesthat ‘banal’ shouldnotbeconfusedwith ‘benign’ Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London:Sage, 1995),6,7.

whattypeofpersonappearsappropriatetomarry,toeducate,toheal oron whomtospendpublicmoney.

I proposethatnationalismisultimatelymalignant,evenwhennotovertly antagonistictoothernational groups:thisthemewill beexploredindetail belowandexpandeduponthroughoutthebook. I arguethatevenapparently benignnationalismsrelyonquasi-historical myths,selectivecultural memoriesandsuspectracial theories,andassuch,theyunderminehuman flourishingbyprioritizingtheunstable,abstractnotionofthe ‘compatriot’ overthe concreterealityofthe ‘neighbour’ (theKierkegaardianunderstandingof which I discussindetail inthefollowingchapters).Furthermore, I maintain that ‘patriotism’ isnot,ultimately,distinctfromnationalism,andthuscannot providethesolutiontonationalism’sdeficienciesthatitsproponentsdesire. Whennationalismandpatriotismarecombinedwith Christian thoughtand practice, orwhen Christiansfail toseethewaysinwhichtheseideologiesmake rival overarchingclaimsestablishingidentityanddestiny,itbecomesnotonly apolitical andcultural problem,butalsoatheological problem.

I donotattemptheretoprovideanexhaustiveaccountofthepoliticalphilosophicalliteratureonnationalism. Instead, I aimtosketchsomeofthe main linesofinquiry, flaggingkeyissuesandthinkersinthe fieldwhose discourseparticularlyinvitesorbenefitsfromKierkegaardasaninterlocutor. Afterconsideringthepolitical-philosophical issueofnationalismandpatriotism,thechapterwill focusonspecificallychristianizedformsofthephenomenonanditsrelationtothespecificallytheological aspectsofKierkegaard’ s project.

2.NAT I ONSAN D NAT I ONAL I SM

Oneofthereasonsitisdifficulttodefinenationsandtheirattendantnationalismsisthehistoryoftheirdevelopment.3 However,onecommonconsensus isthatnationsasweknowthemtodayarerelativelymodernsocial phenomena,withtheirideologyanddiscourseonlybecomingprevalentinthe latterhalf oftheeighteenthcentury.Keydatesinthegrowthoftheideaofnationalism include 1775 (First Partitionof Poland), 1776(American Declarationof Independence), 1784(Herder’scultural-linguistichistorical theoriesin ReflectionsonthePhilosophyoftheHistoryofMankind), 1789and 1792(thetwo

3 Abriefscanofconfident,andoccasionallycontradictory,statementsonnationalism’ s sourceisrevealing: ‘Therewasnosuchthingasnationalismassuchbeforetheeighteenth century.’ (Conzemius, 1995); ‘NationalismisaproductofEuropeanthoughtfromthe last 150 years. ’ (Kedourie, 1960); ‘Theageofnationalismbeganin 1815 ’ (Featherstone, 1939); ‘Wecan sayquitepreciselywhen[nationalism] cameintotheworld,in 1789.’ (Schneider, 1995).

phasesoftheFrenchRevolution)and 1807(Fichte’ s AddresstotheGerman Nation).4 TheEnglishword ‘nationalism’ hasbeentracedbacktooccasional usein literaturein 1798andagainin 1830,anditdidnotappearin lexicographiesuntil the latenineteenthcentury.5 ‘Thenation’ isrelativelynew, therefore,andinconstant flux,itscontourscontinuingtodevelopwhilenew formsofnationalismspringup.6

Intheabsenceoftotal agreementaboutterms,sociologistAnthony D. Smithhasproposedsomegoodworkingdefinitionswhicharehelpful here. Nationalism,hewrites,is ‘anideological movementfortheattainmentand maintenanceofautonomy,unityandidentityofahumanpopulation,someof whosemembersconceiveittoconstituteanactual orpotential “nation” . ’ Furthermore, nation isdefinedas ‘anamedhumanpopulationsharingan historicterritory,commonmythsandmemories,amass,publicculture,a singleeconomyandcommonrightsanddutiesforall members.’7 These definitionstakeintoaccountthetwomainforcesatplayinanyincarnation ofnationalism,namelythe primordial and political. 8 Theprimordial forceis onethataffirmsthevaluesofheritage,bloodandculture.Nationsdonotarise frombordersandstates,butfrompre-rational (ora-rational) ‘givens’ ofkin, religion, languageandcustom.9 Thepolitical forcedescribesnationalism’ s drivetowardscivicautonomy,whichinturncreatesvariousmovements towardsdefinedborders,national independence,andtherelationsofnational groupssittingtogetherattheworld’stable.10

Asynthesisoftheprimordia l andthepo l itica l isevidentina ll forms ofnationa l ism.A ll nationa l ismsmaintainthat ‘ thepeop l e ’ mustbefreeto

4 John HutchinsonandAnthony D.Smith(eds), Nationalism (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1994), 5

5 Walker Conner, ‘ANationisanation,isastate,isanethnicgroup,isa ’ in Ethnicand Racial Studies Vol 1 No.4(October 1978):377–400at384.

6 Habermasreferstonationalismas ‘aspecificallymodernphenomenaofcultural integration’ thatemerges ‘atatimewhenpeopleareatoncebothmobilisedandisolatedasindividuals’ . ‘CitizenshipandNationalIdentity’ in PraxisInternational 12/1 (April1992): 1–19at3.

7 Anthony D.Smith, ‘TheNation:Real or Imagined?’ inEdwardMortimer(ed), People, Nation, State (London: I.B.Tauris, 1999),37.

8 See CliffordGeertz, ‘The IntegrativeRevolution’ in OldSocietiesandNewStates (London: Macmillan, 1963),and Conner, ‘Nation’

9 Geertz, ‘Revolution’ , 109.

10 Notehoweverthat ‘nations’ areoftenerroneouslyconflatedwith ‘states’.Astateisa territorial,juridical unit,whereasanationis ‘apsychological bond’ (Conner, ‘Nation’,379). Whilenationalismmaydisplayaffinitiestowardsthepolitical,territorial unit,itdoesnot ultimatelydemand loyaltyuponthe state,butthe nation.Nationsarefarmorenumerousthan states,andeverystatehasmorethanonenation livingwithinitsborders. ‘Withveryfew exceptions,thegreatestbarriertostateunityhasbeenthefactthatthestateseachcontain morethanonenation,andsometimeshundreds.’ (Conner, ‘Nation’,383–4).SeealsoAnthony D Smith, ‘Imagined?’,38; CharlesTilly, TheFormationofNationStatesinWesternEurope (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1975). Cf. ch. 2belowwhereMartensenoccasionally recognizesthedistinction.

pursuetheirowndestiny.Thisinvo l vesfraternity,unity,thedisso lvingofa ll interna l divisions,andbeinggatheredtogetherinasing lehistoricterritory andsharingasing lepub l iccu l ture. 11 I nnationa l ism,cu l tureandterritory aredeterminedbyhistoricrights,heritageandgenerationa l inheritance whicharetakentoconstitute ‘ authenticidentity’ 12 Thebe liefinb l oodties andheritage l eadsto,andisinturnprotectedby,thepo l itica l drivetowards boundaryidenti fi cationandcivi l autonomy.Nationa l ism’ smovementis historica ll yconditioned:rootedinthepast,ce l ebratedinthepresentand providinghopefortriumphandsuccessinthefuture.Eachperiod past, presentandfuture iscontinua ll yconstructedandre- imaginedaccordingto currentneed.Thusitisverydif fi cul ttoidentifytherootsof ‘ thenation’ . Nationa l ismrequiresanambiguousre l ationshiptohistoryinordertothrive, foritisaconstant l ydeve l opingconstruction,notsimp l yabrutefactof geographyand l aws.

Itisnotthethingswhicharesimply ‘there’ thatmatterinhuman life. Whatreally and finallymattersisthethingwhich isapprehendedasanidea, and, asanidea, is vestedwith emotionuntil itbecomesacauseandaspringofaction anation mustbeanideaaswell asafactbeforeitcanbecomeadynamicforce.13

2.1Imagined communities

The ‘nation’ isthereforeaninventedideaandconsequently ‘nationalism’ isan actofcollectiveimagination,aclaimwhichforsomearousesrighteous indignation.14 Yetnationsdidnotfall fullyformedfromthesky,andthey arenotnatural featuresofany landscape.15 All nationsarethepsychological/ cultural productionsofhumanbeingswhich,followingEric Hobsbawm,are merelysetsofinventedtraditionscomprisingnational symbols,mythology

11 Thereareformsofmainstreamcivicnationalism,suchastheScottishandWelshNationalistparties,thatdonotseemtosynthesizethepolitical withtheprimordial,ortakeastrong line onprimordiality.Assuchthesepartiesaremuchclosertoespousingconstitutional orcivic patriotismand,assuch,theyshareintheweaknessesattachedtothesemodelsofcitizenship participationandidentity(seebelow).

12 Nationalism, 4.

13 ErnestBarker, National CharacterandtheFactorsinitsFormation (Methuen:London, 1927), 173(emphasisadded).

14 Forexample,conservativecommentatorMelanie Phillipsquoteswithderisionathinktank reportwhichsuggeststhatthe ‘nation’ isanartificial construct,andthatthereisnota fixed conceptionofnational identityandculture.Sheclaimsthisasyetanotherexampleof ‘British societytryingtodenudeitselfofitsidentity’.Melanie Phillips, Londonistan (London:Gibson Square,2006), 111–12. Cf. TheFutureofMulti-EthnicBritain:Parekh Report (London: Profile Books,2001).

15 Cf.Mark Dooley, ‘The PoliticsofStatehoodvs.A PoliticsofExodus’ in SørenKierkegaard Newsletter (Issue40,August2000),6.

andsuitablytailoredhistory.16 Thequestionisthereforenotwhethernations are real,butrather inwhatway theyexist.Eventhoughtheymayexistonlyas inventedconstructions keptalivebysymbols,ethnicmemory,mythand commonconsent Smithemphasizesthattheyarestill actual enoughinthe waytheyoperate: ‘Nationsandnationalismarereal andpowerful sociological phenomena,eveniftheirrealityisquitedifferentfromthetaletoldaboutthem bynationaliststhemselves.’ 17 Whileitwouldbefoolishtosaythatnational identitiesdonotexist,oneisequallymistakenifonedoesnotrecognizethe humaningenuity,imaginationandnarrativeconstructionthatis essential to thoseidentities. 18

2.2Salvationdrama

Recognitionofthesymbolicandnarrativeselementsofnationalismbringsus totheheartofitsconstructednature.Thesecularrhetoricthataccompanies muchmodernnationalismisinfacta lateradditionmaskingafoundational premise.Theoriginal engineofnationsandnationalismsisinfacttheology. WhetherwriterssuchasMartensenorGrundtvig(discussedinthefollowing chapters)recognizeditornot,thepseudo-theologicallanguageofnationalism arisesfromanexplicitattemptonbehalfofEuropeannationalism’sfounding fatherstoprovideanalternativehomeforthepassionsandenergythatpeople usedtopourintothe Christian Church.

NationtalkoftenbetraysaMessianicenthusiasmthatdrawsheavilyfrom Judeo-Christianroots.AsMaxWebernotes,thereisinnationalism ‘afervour ofemotional influence ’ thatdoesnothave,inthemain,apolitical-economic origin.19 Instead,nationalismisbaseduponwhathecalls ‘sentimentsof prestige’ rooteddeepinnotionsofcommondescentandessential cultural/ ethnichomogeneity.20 Theprestigeofanationisdirectly linkedtothe foundational idea(albeitnotalwaysexplicitlyaddressed)ofthatnation’ s ‘mission’ intheworld,whichinturninvitesthenotionthataparticular nation’scultureandspiritissetapartfromothernations.A ‘culturemission’ totherestoftheworldcreatesandaffirmssentimentsofnational significance

16 Eric Hobsbawm, TheInventionofTradition (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983),ch.1;Smith, ‘Imagined?’,39.BenedictAndersondefinesanationasan ‘imaginedpolitical community’.BenedictAnderson, ImaginedCommunities (London:Verso, 1991),ch.3.

17 Smith, ‘Imagined?’,36–7.

18 Cf.Matuštík,whosaysofKierkegaardthathe ‘cutsbeneathtraditional conceptionsof humannatureassomethingalreadyformedandgivenonceandforall.Thereisnogivenessence. Humannatureitselfisshapedthroughourchoices.’ Matuštík, ‘Interview’,6.Thisofcourseisthe antecedentforSartre’sguidingmaxim, ‘existenceprecedesessence’ .

19 MaxWeber, ‘TheNation’ in EssaysinSociology (London:Routledge, 1948), 171

20 Ibid., 173, 176.

andsuperiority,orat leastirreplaceability.ForWeber,prestigeisdirectly linkedtoanation’sbeliefinitsown ‘legendofprovidential “mission” . ’21 Smithrefersoftentonationalismasa ‘salvationdrama’,which ‘specifies whatshall counttowardscollectivepurificationandregeneration.Briefly, everythingthatispopular,authenticandemancipatorycontributestothe renaissanceofthenation’ 22

TheMessianicardourofnationalismidentifiesandpreservesonepeopleas distinctfromanyotherpeople: ‘Oneofthegoalsofnationalismisthe attainmentandmaintenanceofcultural identity,thatis,asenseofadistinctive cultural heritageand “personality” foragivennamedpopulation.’23 Inorder toattainthehighestideal ofauthenticexistence,thenationalistmust ‘discover anddiscernthatwhichistruly “oneself ” andtopurgethecollectiveselfofany traceofthe “other” ’ . 24 Nationalismmustthereforehavean ‘authentic’ history, whichmarksoutandexcludestheinfluenceofanyotherculturesandmust notadmitanyopportunisticinventiononbehalfofthenationalistdogma.25 Asnationalisthistoryrediscovers,reconstructsandappropriatesthecommunal pastinordertobuildthebasisforavisionofcollectivedestiny,its collectivesalvationdramaoftenderivesfromreligiousmodels.26

Thatthenationposesasarival forindividuals’ ultimateallegianceisnot lost onsociologistsortheologians.Whathumansonceprojectedontotheirgods, theycanalsoentrusttothenation:

Nationalism ... substitutedthenationforthedeity,thecitizenbodyforthe churchandthepolitical kingdomforthekingdomofGod,butineveryother respectreplicatedtheformsandqualitiesoftraditional religions.27

21 Ibid., 176.The ‘culturemission’ motifrunsthroughoutMartensen ’sthought: ‘Itisonlyby meansof Christianitythatnationalitiescanattainthedevelopmenttowhichtheyarereally appointed.’ SE,93–4.Also SE,333,345; CD, 173,275. ItisevenstrongerinGrundtvig.Asthe ‘divineexperiment’ theNorsenationhasapre-eminentroleintheworld(US X,45)andithas assumedthemantleofhistory(N.F.S.Grundtvig, ‘ChristianSignsofLife’ in AGrundtvig Anthology trans.EdwardBroadbridgeandNielsLykneJensen(Cambridge:James Clarke& Co., 1984), 154).Seeespecially ‘The Pleiadesof Christendom’ VU VI,274–390;also ‘Introductionto Norse Mythology’ in AGrundtvigAnthology,35, ‘New YearsMorn’ VU VII,373.

22 Anthony D.Smith, NationalismandModernism (London:Routledge, 1998),4. Cf. Dooley, ‘Talkofthe “historical mission” ofastate,orofthe Geist ofworldhistory,wasboundtosend shiversup[Kierkegaard’s] stoopedspine.Forineitheritssecularorreligiousvariations,a divinizedstateimpliesterror’ in ‘Statehood’ , 5.

23 Smith, Modernism, 90.

24 Ibid.,44.

25 Cf.Grundtvig’ s mageløseopdagelse whichbases Danish Christianityoncommonspeechas opposedtowrittenwordstranslatedfromforeign languages.(See,forexample, Christelige Prædiker I.) Popular/National (folkelig)religionisclearlyimpossibleifitistobe ‘derivedfrom andbasedonbooks’ . ‘Elementary ChristianTeachings’ in AGrundtvigAnthology, 136–7.

26 Smith, Modernism,90.

27 Ibid.,98.

Tomkapointsoutthatasarival to Christianity,thenationoffersitselfasthe dominantinstitutionforformulatingindividual andcultural identityandas suchitis ‘ a likelystartingpointforideologieswithaclaimtoabsoluteness’ . In thefaceofthecollapseofreligion, ‘nationalismcreatesitsownsacredmicrocosmfromwithin,inawaywhichcannotberefutedfromoutside’ 28

Oneofthetheological threadsofnationalismcanbedefinitivelytracedback to 1789,whenAbbéEmmanuel Sieyèspublishedhispamphletentitled ‘What istheThirdEstate?’ anddeclaredthenationtobethegroundofall politics.29 Indeed,itseemsthatforSieyès,thenationismorethanjustthegroundof politics,foritisalso ‘theoriginofall things’ andit ‘existsbeforeall else’ , independentof ‘all formsandconditions’ . 30 Its lawisthesupreme law, promptingonecommentatortoconcludethat ‘Sieyèsthetheologiangives thenationthetraditional predicatesofGod’ . 31 Sieyèsdidnotproducethe supposeddivineattributesofthenation exnihilo,forbehindthem lies Rousseau’sdoctrineofthesovereigntyofthepeople. ‘Rousseauissimilarlya theologianindisguise orapseudo-theologian:heattributessuperhuman sovereigntytothe “volonté générale” ’ . 32 Oftenunderstoodbysocial historians asapolitical constructreferringtothegeneral will ofthepeople,Rousseau’ s ‘volonté générale’ was,infact,atheological termcurrentatthetime,meaning simplythewill ofGod.33 Isitanysurprisethatnationalismsencroachupon allegiancesandfunctionsnormallyattributedto Christianity?Fromthestart, nationalismappropriated Christiantheological concepts. Inshort,nationalism issimplyare-workedreligiousconstruct.

2.3A greataggregate ofmen

Fromthepseudo-theological underpinningsofnationalismnaturally flow religious-likeclaimsofprovidingauthenticityandidentitytoindividuals.

28 MiklósTomka, ‘SecularisationandNationalism’ inJohn ColemanandMiklósTomka (eds), Concilium:ReligionandNationalism (SCM, 1995),29. Cf.Westphal,‘Thesocietythat becomesitsownpointofreferenceabsolutizesitself EichmannandMengeleweregood Germansinthissense,andapartheidiswhattheagedemandsforAfrikaners.Thisiswhy Johannes Climacussaysthatthesystemhasnoethics Wewoulddowell torememberthat Socratesandtheearly Christianswereaccusedofatheismbecausetheydidnotworshipatthe shrinesoftheself-absolutizingculturesinwhichthey lived.’ Critique, 125

29 Emmanuel Sieyès, WhatistheThirdEstate? trans.M.Blondel (London: Pall MallPress, 1963. Qu’estce que leTiersEtat? (1789)).

30 SeeSieyès, Estate, ch.1. Cf. HeinrichSchneider, ‘PatriotismandNationalism’ in Concilium,38.

31 Schneider, ‘Patriotism’,38.

32 Ibid.

33 Cf. PatrickRiley, TheGeneral Will BeforeRousseau:TheTransformationoftheDivineinto theCivic (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1986).Anexampleofamore ‘political’ reading of volonté générale isMaurizioViroli, Jean-JacquesRousseauandthe ‘Well-OrderedSociety’ (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1988).

Aprimecomponentofnational ismisthatitmustte ll the storyofthe essentia l characterofthepeop lewhobe l ongtothenation. 34 I tisthis ‘ authenticidentity’ thatpreservesandde finesthegroup. D efi ning ‘ the peop le ’ invo l vesnotionsofunity,disso l vingall interna l divisionsandsubsumingtheneedsoftheindividua l intothegroup.Suchunityrequiresa sing l epub l iccu l ture,whichinturnisdeterminedbyhistoricright,heritage andgenerational inheritance. 35

Asanecessaryconditionforauthenticidentity,nationalistnarrativesadvertisethemselvesashistoricallyinviolable,rootedinself-evidentorcommonsense truths.Onlycertainuseful aspectsofhistoryandcultureareselectedforthe narrative,andeventhentheyareoftenradicallytransformed. Dead languages arerevived,traditionsinventedand fictitiouspristinepuritiesrestored.36 Contrarytoitsself-imageasan ‘inevitable’ expressionormovementof ‘thepeople’ , nationalismisinfactaproductofintellectual endeavourand(re)education, promptingGellnertocomment, ‘Thebasicdeceptionandself-deceptionpractisedbynationalismisthis:nationalismis,essentially,thegeneral impositionof ahighcultureonsociety’ . 37 Nationalismisacultural invention,indoctrinated intoapeoplewiththeaimofproducing thePeople.

Thecreationof thePeople andtheirstoryalsoconstructsanidentityforthe individual withinthegroup.Thestoryofanationis,fornationalism,effectivelythestoryofa ‘ groupperson ’ createdbyindividuals,afactorclearlyseen inRenan’ s 1882influential nationalistessaywhereheclaims:

Agreataggregateofmen,withahealthyspiritandwarmthofheart,createsa moral consciencewhichiscalledanation.Whenthismoral conscienceprovesits strengthbysacrificesthatdemandabdicationoftheindividual forthebenefitof thecommunity,itis legitimate,andithasarighttoexist.38

Thestoryofnational identityco-opts,andclaimsdefinitiverightsover,the identityofitsindividuals,andthecollectiveidentityofthegroupis the

34 Cf.Grundtvig, ‘Nyårs-Morgen’US IV,239ff; ‘LivingMemory’,91,94; Daneskere; ‘Norse Mythology’,48–50;ch.6below.

35 Anationallyunderstood ‘people’ isthebasisforMartensen’ s ‘principleofpersonality’.See especially: Outline,259,271,302–4; CE,230ff; SE,88, 196.Martensensaysthatthenational peopleisthe ‘conditionofall human,all moral andmental development’ SE,96.

36 ThisisnotonlyapparentinGrundtvig’spoetical andmythological projectfortheNorse people,butcanalsobeseen,forexample,inthesuccessful re-inventionof ‘the Celts’ inthe serviceofScottishnationalism. ‘I believethatthewholehistoryofScotlandhasbeencolouredby myth;andthatmyth,inScotland,isneverdrivenoutbyreality,orbyreason.’ HughTrevorRoper, TheInventionofScotland:Myth andHistory (London: YaleUniversity Press,2008).Less polemical,butarguingasimilarcase,isMurrayG. H Pittock’sstudyof ‘sham Celtification’ in TheInventionofScotland (London:Routledge, 1991), 100ff.

37 ErnestGellner, NationsandNationalism (Oxford:Blackwell,2006), 55, 56.SeealsoSmith, Modernism,42.

38 ErnestRenan, Qu’est-ce qu ’unenation? trans. IdaMaeSnyder(Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1882),29; Nationalism, 18.

essential componentofindividual identity:thecollectivedefinestheindividual,andnottheotherwayaround.39

Primordial appealstoancestral cultureandheritage(suchasBismarck’ s purportedexhortationtotheGermanpeopleto ‘thinkwiththeirblood’)are keyelementswithintheconstructofanation,givingitthepsychological dimensionofanextendedfamilyorblood lineage.Thisaddscredencetothe demandthatthedestinyof ‘thepeople’ takespriorityoverthatofanyone individual inthatgroup. Indeed,fornationalism,thesublimationofan individual intothegroupmarksthehighestpointofauthenticexistencefor thatindividual,insofaraseachpersonal sacrificecontributestotheauthentic identityofthewhole.40

2.4Illusion of destiny

Fo ll owingc l ose l yonthehee l softhestoryofessentia l identitycomes nationa l ism ’ sappeal to destiny :Messianicfervourandasenseofcu ltura l mission l eadnatura ll ytowardstheconceptofagrand,possibl yinevitab l e, futureforthechosennation. Itisprecise l ytheprob l emsconnectedtothe dogmaofanation ’ suniquepurposethatpromptedAmartyaSen’ sconcern withwhatheca ll s ‘ civi l izationa l partitioning’ ,thatis,atendencytoessentia l izecu l turesintoeasil ymanageab l e,andsupposed l ypredictab l e,units. H istargetis ‘ theoddpresumptionthatthepeop l eofthewor l dcanbe unique l ycategorizedaccordingtosome singularandoverarch ing systemof partitioning ’ . 41 Theprocessofidentifyingthesupposed ‘ essence ’ ofaunique cultureinevitably leadstospeculationaboutthatculture’sroleandpurpose ontheworld’sstage,aswell astheassumptionthatcertainnationsaredestined toclash.42 ForSen,thisis lessanaccuratescientificpredictionthanitisa self-fulfillingprophecy: ‘Theillusionofdestiny,particularlyaboutsome

39 Forexample,fortheAxisnations, ‘JapantotheJapanese[and] GermanytotheGermans wassomethingfarmorepersonal andprofoundthanaterritorial-political structuretermeda state;itwasanembodimentofthenation-ideaandthereforean extensionoftheself ’ Conner, ‘Nation’,385 (emphasisadded). Cf.Martensen, ‘I amnotformedtostandalone ... [I am] fitted tobea member ofonegreatwhole.’ CE,230; Outline,298.ForhispartGrundtvigmaintainedthat ‘ man ’ apartfromhisnational context,wasanabstraction.See ‘LivingMemory’ , Danskeren and thediscussionon ‘Menneskeførst’ inch.3below.

40 ‘National self-determinationis,inthe final analysis,adeterminationofthewill;and nationalismis,inthe firstplace,amethodofteachingtherightdeterminationofthewill ’ Elie Kedourie, Nationalism (Oxford: Hutchinson, 1960),81.

41 AmartyaSen, IdentityandViolence:TheIllusionofDestiny (London:AllenandLane, 2006),xii.

42 Itisthisthoughtwhichunderpinsthepolitical philosophyofSamuelHuntington,whose workhasbeenaninfluential sourcetextforneo-conservativeforeignpolicyandmilitary interventions.SamuelHuntington, TheClash ofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofWorld Order (New York:Simon&Schuster, 1996).

singularidentityorother(andtheirallegedimplications),nurturesviolencein theworldthroughomissionsaswell ascommissions.’43 Manyoftheconflicts oftheworldaresustainedthroughtheillusionofa ‘uniqueandchoiceless identity’ . 44

2.5 Group sustaining fictions

Theclaimtoanational destiny,orculturemission,basedasitisona constructedessential identity,canbeobservedasatendencytowards abstraction,althoughthisseemscounterintuitivetothosewhoenvisiontheirnational cultureasatangiblereality,rootedinthesharedcultural artefactsof land, historyandkin.45 Andyet,anyattempttodirectattentiontowardscertain favouredfeaturesworthyofallegianceisineffecttomisdirectattentionaway fromthereal existenceofthecomplexofnarratives,historyandpeoplethat havebeendeselectedinordertoarriveat the nation.Abstractiondetractsfrom engagementwiththepractical realitiesandproblemsofeverydaycommunity life Sen’ s ‘ordinaryandmundane’ factsofexistence thateveryactual societyexhibits,and fixatesinsteaduponideals.

Nationalismabstractsanindividual whenitsubsumeshisparticular, complicatedidentityintothegeneral,simpleidentityofthegroup,even whileitclaimstobethefoundationforthatindividual’sidentity. Itishere thatwereturntothetopicof ‘imaginedcommunities’ . Personal identityis trivializedandtruncatedwhenanational ideaistakentoconstitutenot part of,butthe whole ofwhoapersonis.Americanpolitical philosopherGeorge Katebrefersto ‘group-sustaining fictions’ which ‘offer to helppersonscarry theburdenofselfhood,ofindividual identity’.Thegreatestpartoftheburden is ‘thequestformeaningfulness,whichistantamounttoreceivingdefinitionof theself ’ . 46 Nationalismsactasgroup-sustaining fictionsinthattheyprovide thewhat,whyandwhereforefortheirindividual adherents,demandingonly allegianceinreturn.Andyet,ofcourse,asjudiciouslyselectedhistorical facts andinformation,nationalismsarea fiction,anabstractionfromactual personal experience,andthereforeultimatelyunsuitedforestablishingauthentic personal identityinitscomplexentirety.

43 Sen, Identity,xiv.

44 Ibid.,xv.

45 Weshall seeinch.3belowhowthisispreciselythecaseforGrundtvig. Itisalsotruefor Martensen,whodescribestheideaofapersonabstractedfromhissocietyasa fiction: ‘Nooneis ahumanbeinginpuregenerality,butonlyinadefinitepeculiarity ... inacertaincircleof society.’ SE, 196.Seech.2below.

46 GeorgeKateb, PatriotismandOtherMistakes (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press,2006),4, 5.

3. P ATR I OTSAN DP ATR I OT I SM

Thusfar I havearguedthatnationalismisproblematicnotonlyasamode ofcommunal relationsbutalsoasaconceptual foundationforindividual identity.Butwhatof patriotism? Patriotismisusuallyconsideredavirtueby thosewhowouldotherwiserepudiatetheexcessesofnationalism. Patriotism isoftenseenasamiddlewaybetweenblandapathyandexcessivedevotionto one ’scivicidentity, ‘aparticular loyaltycompatiblewithuniversal reasonable values’ . 47 Theideaofbelongingtoa state or country isseenasanalternative tothe nation,withallegiancenottoblood-ties,ethnicityandmythbutinstead totheapparatusofstate constitutions, lawsandhistorical symbols.Whereas nationalismis loveofnation,itishopedthatpatriotism,truly,is loveof country.

Manysociologistsandpolitical writersassumethatdistinguishingpatriotismfromnationalismisafairlystraightforwardtask.ElieKedourie,for example,definespatriotismas ‘affectionforone’scountry,orone’ sgroup, loyaltytoitsinstitutions,andzeal foritsdefence’.Kedourieclaimsthatunlike nationalism,thesentimentofpatriotismdoesnotdepend ‘onaparticular anthropology,[or] assertaparticulardoctrineofthestateoroftheindividual’ s relationtoit’ 48 Habermascomparesthepoliticalloyaltyofcitizenstothefree politytheyshareinpatriotism,tothefocusonethnicityandcultureinnationalism.49 Here ‘civic’ or ‘constitutional’ patriotismisproposedasacorrective antidotetotheproblemsofnationalism,50 sothat loyaltytothe ‘primordial’ elementsofrace,generational inheritanceand languagearereplacedbypolitical institutionsandtheconstitutionofthestate.51 Hencetheclaimthat ‘patriotism savespopulationsfromnationalism’ . 52

47 AndrewVincent, NationalismandParticularity (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2002), 111.SeealsoStephenNathanson, ‘In Defenceof “Moderate Patriotism” ’ in Ethics 99,no.3 (1988/89), 535–52;MaurizioViroli, ForLoveofCountry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

48 Kedourie, Nationalism, 73–4.

49 See Habermas, ‘Citizenship’ Habermashasonoccasiondefendedconstitutional patriotism withreferencetoKierkegaard. Heacknowledgesthat ‘intheidentificationsthatthenationstate expectedofitscitizensmorewaspre-decidedthanKierkegaard,withtheinterestsofthe individual inmind,couldallow’ . However, Habermascontinues, ‘thesituationisdifferentwith aconstitutional patriotism’ Habermas, ‘Historical’,261.MartinMatuštík’streatmentof HabermasandKierkegaardisdiscussedat lengthinch.7below.

50 See,forexample, CharlesBlatburg, FromPluralisttoPatrioticPolitics (Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000);Jürgen Habermas, ‘CitizenshipandNationalIdentity’ in PraxisInternational 12no.1, 1–19;Attracta Ingram, ‘ConstitutionalPatriotism’ in Philosophical andSocial Criticism 22no.6(1996), 1–18.

51 Smith, Nationalism,211,213.

52 Vincent, Particularity, 114, 115.

3.1A viablealternative?

I suggestthatpatriotismisnotsufficientlydistinctfromnationalismtooffera viablealternativetoitsmalignanteffects.Atthispoint,somereadersmay questionwhether I donothereruntheriskofaccidentallytargetingthose goodcitizenswhopracticethe(Christian)virtueof lovingtheircountry.This isnotinadvertent;theyare,indeed,mytargets.Theassumptionthat loveof countryprovidestheideal foundationforthe Christian loveofneighbourhasa respectablepedigree.53 Likewise,theassumptionthatsentimentsofnational superiorityandmanifestdestinyneednottroublethe Christianpatriot,and thatoneshouldallowothersto lovetheircountryjustasoneshould loveone’ s owniscommonplacein Christian literature,thoughtandpractice.54 Such widespreadassumptions,however,simplybegthequestionsathand. Isany ‘country’ worthyofour love?Whatifitturnsoutthatratherthanenabling, patriotism precludes trueneighbourliness?55

Inpractice,thedistinctionbetweennationalismandpatriotismfails. In practicepatriotismdoesnotinfactescapetheproblemsofnationalismfor whichitissupposedtobeanalternative.Thisisbecausepatriotic language andideasdrawfromthesamewell asthoseofnationalism.56 Commentators whowishtopreservepatriotismwhileavoidingnationalismoftenunwittingly usenation-languagewhentheymeantobetalkingaboutthestate,tooeasily assumingadifferencebetweenasupposedlyrational,constitutional patriotism,andemotive, fluidnationalism.ForKedourieandothercivicpatriots, patriotismdoesnotrelyona ‘particularanthropology’ or ‘doctrine’ ofindividual relationsasnationalismdoes;yetuponinspection,itistheseverythings thatpatrioticrhetoricmanifestly does relyon.Althoughunderstoodasa rational,constitutional allegiancetothestrictlypolitical, ‘state’ structuresof asociety,patriotismstill enjoysasymbioticrelationshipwiththenationalist ideasofparticularity,sentimentandselectivememory.Furthermore,these confusionsofpatriotismandnationalismareforthemostpartinevitable,due

53 Perhapsthebesttheological defenceofpatriotismasdistinctfromnationalismcomesfrom DietrichBonhoeffer. DietrichBonhoeffer, Ethics EberhardBethge(ed),trans.Neville Horton Smith(SCM, 1955);Bonhoeffer, TruePatriotism:Letters, LecturesandNotes 1939–45,trans. Edwin H.RobertsonandJohnBowden(Collins, 1973).SeealsoKeithW. Clements, APatriotism forToday:Dialoguewith Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Bristol Baptist College, 1984).

54 Anotableexampleis C.S.Lewis, FourLoves (London: Collins, 1977),whoalsoattemptsto differentiatebetween ‘demonic’ nationalismandrightful patriotism.

55 Seeespeciallych.7below.

56 Indeed,therelationshipbetweentheconceptsismorecomplicatedstill,withclassical patriotismprovidingtheconceptual furnitureformodernnationalism,whichinturnhasfuelled modernpatrioticimaginations.Seebelow.

tothefoundationsthatpatriotismandnationalismsharebutwhichmany commentatorsdonotacknowledge.57

Partoftheproblem liesinthefactthatpatrioticnotionsofcitizenshipare basedonideasofcivicdutyandallegiancetoaspecific legal andcultural entity,whichthemselveshavetheirrootsintheGreco-Romanideasof patria and respublica Patria refersbothtothefatherasheadofafamily,andtothe landandpropertyassociatedwiththatpaternal authority.58 Thepolitical scientistAndrewVincentputsitthus: ‘Thequalitiesof “local familial emotive identification” and “abstract legalloyaltyandentitlement” haveremainedpart ofthecuriousconceptual baggageofpatriotismtothepresentday.’59 Loveof theparticularhomelandandfamilyunitisanintrinsicpartoftheconceptof patria,asentimentthatarisespartlytocompensatefortheremotenessofthe impersonal,generalizedentityofthe respublica.Theemotive/familial asa targetofallegianceisnottrumpedbytherational/legal,butinsteadthey exist sometimesuneasily sidebyside.

Despitethe languageofrational/objectiveallegianceto lawsandstates,in realitythepatriotisbeingaskedtoidentifyhimorherselfmorallyand emotionallywithoneparticularwayof life.60 Yetthe lawsandsocial structures thatarethesupposedobjectsofpatrioticaffectionarethemselvesdeeply rootedinthecollective(un)consciousnessofanhistorical community. In otherwords,pledgingallegiancetoa flagis not simplyawaytounitedisparate groupsaroundaneutral,objectivesymbol.The flagitselfrepresentsacomplex mixofcultural,religiousandethnicassumptions.Likenationalism,patriotism assumesa ‘theoretical cultural homogenization’ ,a ‘moral chauvinism’ implicit inthepatrioticstorythatistoldtoenforceorshore-upsentimentsof loyalty andidentity.61

57 Twodefendersofpatriotismwhodorecognize(andwelcome)itsinseparabilityfromforms ofnationalismareRogerScruton, ‘In DefenceoftheNation’ inJ. C. D. Clark(ed), Ideasand PoliticsinModernBritain (London:Macmillan, 1990)andAlasdairMacIntyre, ‘Is Patriotisma Virtue?’ in Igor Primoratz(ed), Patriotism (New York: HumanityBooks,2002).MacIntyre suggeststhatthestatecouldnotsurviveifthe ‘bondsofpatriotism’ weredissolvedby liberal morality,whichquestionsnational partiality. Hearguesthatforthisreasonsoldierscannot(and shouldnot)begivena liberal education.MacIntyre, ‘Virtue’ , 56. Cf.Nathanson, ‘Thereisan airofrealismaboutMacIntyre’ s psychological claimthatmoralityisaweakmotivatorthatmust besupplementedbyblindpatriotism.’ in ‘Moderate’ , 549.

58 Vincent, Particularity, 111.

59 Ibid., 112.

60 Cf. Canovan’scritiqueofconstitutional patriotismwhicharguesthat Habermasand Ingramconstantlybetraypossessive, localized languageintheirdiscussionofthesupposedly supranational identityandallegiance.Sheconcludesthat ‘thenotionthatconstitutional patriotismcanprovideasubstitutefortiesofbirthandbloodisincoherent ’.Margaret Canovan, ‘PatriotismisnotEnough’ in British Journal ofPolitical Science 30(2000),413–32.

61 Vincent, Particularity, 123–4; Paul Gomberg, ‘Patriotismis likeRacism’ in Patriotism, 106–7.

Itisoftenassumed,andoccasionallymadeexplicit,thatpatriotismnamesa virtuethatappliestoreal peopleandconcretesituations.Soitisthat Hegel can praisepatriotismas:

Thepolitical disposition [whichis] certainlybasedon truth (whereasmerely subjectivecertaintydoesnotoriginatein truth,butisonlyopinion)andavolition whichhasbecome habitual. 62

Similarly,AlasdairMacIntyredefendspatriotismbasedonacountry’ s ‘true history’ overandagainstthe ‘irrational attitude’ ofpledgingallegiancetowards thosenationswhichhavebuiltthemselveson ‘largely fictitious’ narratives.63 Yettheassumptionaboutthe ‘truth’ ofpatriotism’ s love,ortheassumption thattherecanbe any countrywhosestoryisnot largely fictitious,begs preciselythequestionathand.Becauseitrequiresanelementofcultural homogenizationandidentityformation,patriotismdoesnotescapethecharge of abstraction. Itisforthisreasonthat I agreewithKateb’sclaimthat patriotism(loveforcountry) ‘isamistake’.Thisisin largepartbecausethe identityoftheindividual is lostjustassurelyinpatriotismasitisinnationalism,asKatebcontinues:

[Countries] arebestunderstoodasanabstraction ... acompoundofafewactual andmanyimaginaryingredients Acountryisnotadiscerniblecollectionof discernibleindividuals likeateamorafacultyora local chapterofavoluntary organisation. 64

Ofcourse,acountryhasa ‘rational’,geographical place:asetting,a landscape, cities,aclimateandsoon. ‘Butitisalsoconstructedoutoftransmitted memoriestrueandfalse;ahistoryusuallymostlyfalselysanitizedorfalsely heroized;asenseofkinshipofa largelyinventedpurity.’65 Likenationalism, patrioticabstractionoccursintheconstructionofthetargetofitsaffection. Evenifthefeelingsofaffiliationarenotovertlyfocussedonraceorethnicity, theyarestill focussedonobjectsorideasthataretheresultof(oftenextremely) selectivehistorical memory.Furthermore,anyactofselectionbydefinition involvesmultiple de-selections ofelementsthatdonot fitthepreferredpatriotic picture.Bytellingyou who youareand what youshould love,patriotic narrativesalsomakefoundational claimsonidentity.Evenwhenpatriotism isopposedtonationalism,it findsitselfappealingto ‘akindofcommunal identityformation’ thatdepends,inpart,onastoryofpeopleandplace ‘to providebothidentityanddirectiontothecitizen-ideal’ . 66 Inordertoavoid

62 Hegel, PhilosophyofRight, }268.Original emphasis.

63 MacIntyre, ‘Virtue’ , 55

64 Kateb, Mistakes,3.

65 Ibid.,8.

66 John Coleman, ‘ANationof Citizens’ in Concilium, 54.

content-lessgeneralizations, ‘peopleandplace’ inevitablybecomes ‘The people and A place’ . 67

3.1.1 CasestudyUSA

Oneneedonly lookattoday’ s flagshipofconstitutional patriotismtosee thisphenomenonineffect.TheUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA)endorsesa formofcivicpatriotismthatis,theoretically,analternativeto ‘primitive’ nationalism. Politiciansandcommentatorsroutinely looktotheUSAas theirprimepositiveexampleofapatrioticsocietythateschewsthedemand ofaffiliationtoaparticularcultural orethnicgroupinordertobelong.68 And yet,as CharlesTaylorhasnoted,mereappealstodemocracy,justice,equality andconstitutionaretoo ‘thin’,evenforacountrythatplacessuchahighvalue ontheabovenamedpolitical goods. 69 Almostassoonasitwasintroduced, themodel patriotismprovidedbytheUSAreliedonthetrappingsofnationalismandnation-states,includingappealstofoundingfathers,originmyths, religiouslyendowedsymbolsandideals,andreferencestohistorical,orquasihistorical,narrativeswithancestral/ethnicovertones.70 ForTaylor,suchadrift wasinevitable: ‘Nationalismhasbecomethemostreadilyavailablemotorof patriotism.’ AlthoughtheAmericanRevolutionwasnotnationalistinintent, later, ‘somuchdidnationalismbecometherule,asabasisforpatriotismthat theoriginal pre-nationalistsocietiesthemselvesbegantounderstandtheir ownpatriotisminsomething likenationalistterms’ . 71

Thetrendisbornoutintopical sociological surveys.Oneexampleis DeborahSchildkraut’sstudyofconceptionsofAmericanidentity.Shereports that,contrarytothe ‘official’ versionofacivicpatriotism(separatefromrace orcreed), ‘lingeringethnocultural conceptionsofAmericanidentity’ areinfull

67 Prompting Colemantocomment: ‘Nationalismandmodernconceptsofcitizenshipexistina conditionofbothtensileconflictandmutual inter-dependenceandinfluence. ’ in ‘Citizens’,48.

68 PrimeMinisterGordonBrownhasoftenreferredtotheUSAasamodel inthisregard.See his ‘Britishness’ in MovingBritainForward:SelectedSpeeches 1997–2006 (London:Bloomsbury, 2006).AlsoJanet Daley, ‘EveryoneNeedstobeGivenaStrongSenseofNationalIdentity’ Telegraph 2April 2007,and Canovan, ‘Patriotism’ . I agreewith Canovanindoubtingthatthe USAisreallytheconstitutional patrioticsuccessstorythatitisportrayedas.Seediscussion below.

69 See CharlesTaylor, MulticulturalismandthePoliticsofRecognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).

70 So,forexample,BenjaminFrankl inexpressedhisresentmentofGermanimmigrantsinhis newAmerica. ‘Theywill neveradoptour languageorcustoms,’ hewrote, ‘anymorethanthey canacquireourcomplexion.’ BenjaminFranklin’sLetters,quotedinMorris P.Fiorinaetal., America’sNewDemocracy,3rdedn(New York:Longman,2006),69.

71 CharlesTaylor, ‘NationalismandModernity’ inR.McKimandJ.McMahan(eds), The MoralityofNationalism (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1997),40–1.

force.72 DespitethetheorythattheAmericancivicidentityis ‘decoupledfrom ethnicity,separatedfromreligionanddetachedevenfromrace’ , 73 thereality seemstobethatthisdecouplingexistsmoreintheorythaninpractice. ‘The placeofrace,ethnicityandreligionindeterminingwhatpeoplethinkit meanstobeanAmericanisstill verymuchanactivedebate.’74 Eventhe bestmodel ofpatriotismasembodiedintheAmericanexperiencerevealsits relianceonthesameessential elementsasthenationalismforwhichitis supposedtobeanalternative. Contemporaryevidenceandanalysissuggest that,asasocio-political force,patriotismisnotsubstantiallydifferentfrom nationalism.

4. C URRENT CH R I ST I ANNAT I ONAL I SM

AstudyofpatriotismintheUSA leadseasilytoadiscussionofreligious expressionsofnationalismandpatriotism.Althoughthereareclearhistorical precedents,itisnotanachronistictotalkof Christian(orperhaps christianized)nationalismtoday.Arguably,shadesof Christiannationalism liebehind themostpowerful populistforcesatplaypresentlyinUSpolitics.Abrief surveyofsomemorepopulartreatmentsonthetopicrevealsnotonlythe problemitself,butalsothemanyattemptsthathavebeenmadeinrecentyears tounderstandandcriticallyassessit.Suchattemptsbetrayasenseofurgency aswell asacommondifficultyincomingtogripswiththetheoretical and theological rootsof Christiannationalism. 75

72 DeborahSchildkraut, ‘TheMoreThings Change ... American IdentityandMassandElite Responsesto9/11’ in Political Psychology Vol.23no.3,2002, 511–35 at 512.

73 StanleyRenshon, OneAmerica? (Georgetown:GeorgetownUniversity Press,2001),258.

74 Schildkraut, ‘Identity’ , 514. Cf.the 1996General Social Surveyinwhich 55% ofthe respondentssaidthatbeing Christianwasimportantinmakingsomeonea ‘trueAmerican’ , and70% saidthesamethingaboutbeingborninAmerica.Thestudyalsoshowedthatwhite Americansrevealedatendencytoassumethatpeoplewhodidnot fitthestereotypical WASP identitywereforeigners,despitethefactthatthese ‘foreigners’ enjoyedfulllegal citizenshipas Americans.R.Takaki, ‘RaceattheEndof History’ in D.BatstoneandE.Medieta(eds), TheGood Citizen (London:Routledge, 1999).

75 The literatureonthistopicisimmense,andthepolemical andideologicallymotivated natureofmuchAmericandiscourseinthisareadoesnotseemtohaveprovidedmuchclarityon theissue,asevincedfromtheexamples I deal withhere.Solidhistorical surveysoftherootsof thechristianized ‘Chosen People’ understandingofUSidentityandnarrativeinclude:SydneyE. Ahlstrom, AReligiousHistoryoftheAmericanPeople,2ndedn(New Haven: YaleUniversity Press,2004);NicholasGuyatt, ProvidenceandtheInventionoftheUnitedStates 1607–1876 (New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,2007);MartinE.Marty, ReligiousEmpire:TheProtestant ExperienceinAmerica (New York: DialPress, 1970).SeealsomanyoftheessaysinMarkA.Noll (ed), ReligionandAmericanPolitics (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1990).Thecontroversy surrounding US civil religionandthepurportedreligiousintentofthefoundingfathersisbriefly discussedbelow.

Inhis2005 book, God’sPolitics,theAmericantheologianandsocial activist JimWallis lambastesUSpoliticians(ofthe leftandoftheright)fortheir vacuoususeof Christiansymbolismandideas. Hisbookcontainsachapteron the ‘dangeroustheology’ ofempire,inwhichhehighlightstherhetoricof PresidentGeorgeW.Bush,andsubjectsittospecial criticism:

Itisonethingforanationtoassertitsrawdominanceintheworld;itisquite anothertosuggest,asthispresidentdoes,thatthesuccessofAmericanmilitary andforeignpolicyisconnectedtoareligiouslyinspired ‘mission’ andeventhat hispresidencymaybeadivineappointmentforatimesuchasthis.76

Tony Carnes,notesin ChristianityToday, ‘SomeworrythatBushisconfusing genuinefaithwithnational ideology’ 77 The ChristianCentury agrees: ‘Whatis alarmingisthatBushseemstohavenoreservationsaboutthenotionthatGod andthegoodaresquarelyontheAmericanside.’78

Notcontentwithmerelyfocussingonaparticularpresident,journalist MichelleGoldberghasinvestigatedthe Christianworldviewofherconservative, ‘RedState’ compatriots,seekingtouncovertheculturethat liesbehindthe alarmingannouncementsofhercountry’selected leader.Aself-styled ‘secular Jewandardenturbanite’ , 79 Goldbergseemsshockedto findasubculture espousingmilitant Christianpatriotismintherural heartlandsandsuburbs.80 Shetracestherootsofthemovementtothereactionarypreachingof ‘depression erademagogues’ andinthehighlypartisanpoliticsofthe 1970s.81

CliffordLongley,tryingto locatethe ‘bigidea’ thatshapesbothEnglishand Americanidentity,goesfurtherback, findinga Chosen Peoplemotifinthe Americannational myth.Theearly PuritanAmericans,hewrites, ‘firmly believedthattheBiblewasprimarilyaboutthem,andnotprimarilyabout theancienttribesof Palestine. Itwasnothistory,itwascontemporary narrativeandprophecy.’82 Longleyadmitsthepreviousexistenceofsome ‘extremefundamentalistsectsinAmerica’ andsuggestsinpassingthatthese ideas ‘maywell’ havecontributedtoUSpolicy.83 However,Longleyassumes thatinthepresentUSAtheseideasarenowoldandobsolete,referringto ‘modern Protestants’ whowould findtheconceptofachosennationalien. Onlythe ‘fringe’ elementcontinuestomaintaina Chosen Peoplestatus,and

76 JimWallis, God’sPolitics:WhytheAmericanRightgetsitwrongandtheLeftdoesn’tgetit (Oxford:Lion,2005), 139.

77 Tony Carnes, ‘TheBush Doctrine’ in ChristianityToday,May2003.

78 John Dart, ‘Bush’sReligiousRhetoricRiles Critics’ in ChristianCentury 8,March2003.

79 MichelleGoldberg, KingdomComing:TheriseofChristianNationalism (New York:W.W. Norton,2006),21

80 Ibid.,8.

81 SeeGoldberg, Kingdom, 10–13.

82 CliffordLongley, ChosenPeople:TheBigIdeathatshapesEnglandandAmerica (London: HodderandStoughton,2002), 101

83 SuchasAmerica’ s long-termsupportforthestateof Israel,seeLongley, Chosen, 109.

theclosestexampleLongleycan findofareligiousgroupthatstill holdstothis aretheMormons.84

Hecannothavebeen lookingveryhard.Goldberg,too,claimsthatthe attitudedoesnotrepresentthemajorityofAmericans,orevenamajorityof all evangelicals,butinsteadrepresents ‘asignificantandhighlymobilised minority’ 85 Thatthemindsethascoalescedintomovementsthataresignificant andmobilizedisundeniable.Thatitrepresentsonlyaminorityviewisfar lesscertain.WhencommentatorssuchasLongley,WallisandGoldbergexpress surpriseatparticularpronouncementsfromcertainpresidents,orascribethese sentimentstofringe,fundamentalistsubcultures,theyfail toappreciatethe depthandbreadthoftheseideasinpresent-day,mainstreamAmerica.

ThesenseofAmerica’ s ‘chosen’ status,itsfavouredplaceinhistoryandits famousclaimto ‘exceptionalism’ runsdeepintheculture,crossespolitical allegianceandisespousedbyboth Christianandnon-Christianalike.Whatis thesourceoftheseideas?Goldberg,buildingonher ‘mobilisedminority’ theory,suggeststhatitrepresents ‘aconsciousrefutationofEnlightenment rationalism’ . 86 This,however,failstorecognizethattheworldviewisitselfan exampleofarationalist,modernisticmindset,albeitwithadjustments. Itisa religious Chosen Peopleideology,boltedontoaclassically liberal interpretationoftheprogressionofhistory,cementedbyathoroughlyEnlightenment visionofmodernnationsandnational identity.

Theresultisatheologybestdescribedas ‘Christiannationalism’.Thetheology isnotsystematic,butitispervasive. Itdoesnothaveasinglesourceorauthor, butitdoesappearregularlyfrommultiplevoicesandatmultipletimes. Ithas notbeenexplicateddogmatically,butitscorethemesrecurwithremarkable consistency.Significantly,inhiscritiqueofGeorgeW.Bush,Walliscomplains thatthe President’ s Christiantheology ‘seemsnottohaveanimpactonforeign policy,butsimplyservestobolsteranideologyofUSmoral supremacy ’ . 87

I suggestthatwhatishappeninghereisnotthe absence orfailureof theology,butisinfactthe presence andsuccessoftheparticulartheologyof Christiannationalism.Bush’sconfusionoffaithwithnational ideology,and theequationofGodwiththeAmericanWay,areevidencenotofadeviation fromtheology,somuchasthefruitofatheologywhichhas longbeenatthe heartofUSself-identity.

Inaspeechmadeafterthe firstanniversaryoftheSeptember2001 attacks, PresidentBushsaidofhiscountrythatitis ‘thehopeofall mankind ... That hopestilllightsourway.Andthe lightshinesinthedarkness.Andthe darknesshasnotovercomeit.’88 Whatismostprofoundhereisnottheuse

84 Longley, Chosen, 105 85 Goldberg, Kingdom,8.

86 Ibid.,6. 87 Wallis, Politics, 141.

88 Ibid., 142.Atranscriptofthisspeechcanbefoundat hhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ americas/2252515.stm i.

ofascriptural phrasebutthefactthattheBible-believing,born-againdemographic(towhichthis languagewouldhavethemostresonance)heardtheir ChristianpresidentsubstituteAmericafortheincarnate Christandnoone battedaneye.Thefactthatsuchexplicitidolatrycouldgounnoticedandeven applauded,demonstratesthattheculturetowhomBushspokewasquite comfortablewithequatingnationwithdivinerevelation.89 Puritanpreacher JohnWinthrop,ontheboattotheNewWorldin 1630,toldhisfellowtravellers thattheircommunitywill be ‘asacityonahill’,asubstitutionofAmericawith theKingdomof Heaventhatwasfamouslytakenupby PresidentReaganina speechmorethan300years later.90 In 1850, HermanMelvillewrote:

AndweAmericansarethepeculiarchosenpeople the Israel ofourtime Long enoughhavewebeenscepticswithregardtoourselves,anddoubtedwhether indeedthepolitical Messiahhadcome. But he hascomeinus,ifwewouldbutgive utterancetohispromptings.91

Influential broadcasterandright-wingpolitical enthusiast PatRobertson maintainsthatAmericaisa Christiannationandthusthat ‘studyingthe constitutionis likestudyingtheBible’ . 92 Popularearlytwentieth-century evangelistBillySundaysaid ‘Christianityandpatriotismaresynonymous terms’ . Hewouldoftenendhissermonsbyjumpingontothepulpitand wavingtheAmerican flag. 93 In 1995,duringthepushtoprotecttheUS flag bydrafting lawsthatintentionallyusedreligioustermssuchas ‘sacralisation’ and ‘desecration’,Republican CongressmanBillYoungsaid ‘aloneofall flags, ithasthesanctityofrevelation’ . 94

Thesearepronouncementsandattitudesthatworrymanytheologians, political scientistsandsociologists,nottomentionUSpoliticiansworkingto

89 Foranexampleofthistraditionandarobustdefenceof PresidentBushonthispoint,see theunapologeticcelebrationofthetheologyofAmericanexceptionalisminStephen H.Webb, AmericanProvidence (New York: Continuum International,2004)esp.theintroductionand ch.1.ThephenomenonisfarmoreprevalentamongsttheAmerican-rightthantheAmericanleft;however,itoccasionallycomesfromthisquartertoo. Presumably Hebrews 10:23wasnot talkingabout ‘theAmericanpromise’ as Democraticpresidential candidateBarackObamawas whenheexhortedhisaudienceto ‘hold firmlywithoutwaveringtothehopethatweconfess’ duringhisnominationspeechon28August2008.

90 RobertJewettandJohnS.Laurence, CaptainAmericaandtheCrusadeAgainstEvil:The dilemmaof zealousnationalism (GrandRapids:WilliamB.Eerdmans,2003),276–7. Cf. Conrad Cherry(ed), God’sNewIsrael:ReligiousInterpretationsofAmericanDestiny (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1971),43);Longley, Chosen, 109.

91 Jewett, Captain, 1. Cf. HermanMelville, WhiteJacket (Evanston:NorthwesternUniversity Press, 1970.Original1850), 151 (emphasisadded).

92 Jewett, Captain, 143. Cf. PatRobertson, InAmerica’sDateswith Destiny (Nashville: Nelson, 1986),90.

93 GeorgeMarsden, UnderstandingFundamentalismandEvangelicalism (GrandRapids, WilliamB.Eerdmans, 1991), 51

94 Jewett, Captain, 297–300. Cf. Congressional Record,June28 1995, H6435,299.

navigatetheirwayaroundreligionandpatriotism.95 Yet,Americansdidnot invent Christiannationalism,andmost likelytheywill notbethe lastculture toexhibitit.96 TheAmericanexperienceisnotunique itissimplythatthe USAiscurrentlywherethetheological problemismostacute.Thisnota book-lengthassessmentofthesituationintheUSA,and I amnotproposingto pitKierkegaardagainstthemusingsofGeorgeW.Bushor PatRobertson.Nor do I intendtobecomeembroiledinthespecificallyAmericanconversation aboutthesourceand legitimacyofitscivil religion.97 Instead,havingdemonstratedthecontemporarypotencyofongoing Christiannationalistnarratives, I suggestthatallChristiannationalismssharesimilartraits,andreston commontheological assumptions.Forthisreason,Kierkegaard’scritiqueof thenationalisticideasofhiscontemporariescanbefruitfullyconsideredtoday. Kierkegaard’sauthorial projectcontainsawealthofargumentthatengagesthe elementsofany Christiannationalism,whatever flagitwaves.

5 .K I ERKEGAAR D AN D T H EMO D ERN C ONVERSAT I ON

Inthefollowingchapters, I hopetodemonstratethatKierkegaard’sthought proposesandsupportsaradicallyegalitarianorientationinwhichtheproblematicspecificsofnationalismandpatriotismdonottakeonultimateor

95 AsObamanodoubtdiscoveredinhisassociationwithRev.JeremiahWrightandthat preacher’sinfamouspropheticinjunctionthat ‘God DamnAmerica’.Thiscaseisdiscussedin ch.7below.

96 SomeotherexamplesworthyoffuturestudyincludetheresurgenceoftheOrthodox Churchanditsrelationshipto Putin’sRussia,andthefactthattheofficiallyrecognized(and verypopular) Christian Churchin ChinaiscalledtheThree-Self Patriotic Church.Africaisalso ofinterest. Zambiahaswritten Christianityintoitsconstitutionandwasdeclareda ‘Christian nation’ by PresidentFrederick Chilubain 1992.SimonKimbangubegana Christianmovement inthe 1920sinwhatwasthentheBelgian Congo. Itisstill flourishingtodaywithassociationsof Congolesenationalism.

97 Thisconversation,beguninearnestbyRobertN.Bellah’ s ‘Civil ReligioninAmerica’ in Daedalus 96(winter 1967)andsubsequentwritings,oftencentresonthereligiousintentofthe AmericanfoundingfathersandthequestionofwhetherAmericawas(oris,orcouldbeonce again)a ‘Christiannation’.Theissuehasbecomeafocal pointintheso-called ‘culturewars’ betweenAmericanconservativesand liberals,andthereisnoshortageof literatureonthetopic. See,forexample,GeorgeMarsden, UnderstandingFundamentalismandEvangelicalism (Grand Rapids,WilliamB.Eerdmans, 1991);MarkNoll, America’sGod (New York:OxfordUniversity Press,2002),andthecollectionofpoint-counterpointessaysinJerry Herbert(ed), America, ChristianorSecular? (Portland:Multnomah Press, 1984).While obvious lyofimportanceto certainsectionsofUSsociety,thehistorical-political debatetendstobypassmorefundamental theological reflectionandanalysis.EvenifweweretograntthehighlycontentiousandrevisionistconservativeclaimthatthearchitectsoftheUSconstitutionworkedfromprinciplesthat broadlycoincidewithpresent-dayAmericanevangelicalChristianity,wewouldstill be leftwith thedeeperquestionofwhethertheideaofanynationbeing Christianis Christianlydesirable,or indeedmakessenseatall.

eternal significance(thoughtheymayhelptosetthecontextofidentity formation).98 I arguethatthefoundationofthisthoughtisKierkegaard’ s incarnationalChristology,apersonandeventaccessedbyafaithandcomposed oftheexistential elementsofthemomentofvision,the leap,andcontemporaneity.99 Kierkegaard’sprisingofthesingleindividual awayfromidentityina group,andhispropoundingoftrue Christianityandreal sociality100 preclude theveryelementswhichnationalismsneedtoexist:thatis,histhoughtdenies thenarrativeofauthenticityrootedingroupaffiliationanditdeniesthedoctrine ofinviolablehistorical developmentanddestiny.Furthermore,Kierkegaardnot onlydeniesthatthemass-manspeaksforthe like-mindedunitswhichmakeup thewhole,healsodeniesthatthemass-manactsandrelatestoothermass-men inwaysanalogoustoindividual persons. 101

Despiteall this,itistruethatsomehavetriedtorecruitKierkegaardfor theirnationalistcauseandtheperceptionstilllingersinsomequartersthat Kierkegaardianexistential individualismamountsto littlemorethanincipient fascism.ThesecommentatorsthinkKierkegaardpropsupthebrandof bourgeois self-interestthat lentitselfeasilytosomeofthemorevirulentideologies ofthetwentiethcentury,especiallyNational Socialism.102 Inthisbook I hope todemonstratethat,althoughKierkegaardisoftentaintedbythevestigesof thisassociation,thisisaspuriousreadingofKierkegaard.Forthisreason,itis worthbrieflyconsideringtheusethatsomeNational Socialistthinkersmade ofKierkegaard,beforegoingontoreviewingother, I thinkmore legitimate, waysthatKierkegaardcanbebroughtintothemodernconversationabout nationalism,religiousidentityandpatrioticallegiance. I shall first lookbriefly attheusethat Carl SchmittmadeofKierkegaardintheserviceofnationalist ideals,andthenconsiderthereadingsbyMark DooleyandMeroldWestphal whom I thinkmorevalidlyuseKierkegaardtosuggestanideologycritiqueof thesesameforces.

5.1Schmitt

While Heideggerisoftenbroughtupinthecontextofapotentiallyfascistic readingofKierkegaard,anarguablymorepoliticallysignificantNational

98 Cf.chs. 5 and6below.

99 Cf.ch.4below.

100 Cf.ch.7below.

101 ThisrunsagainstthespiritguidingGrundtvig(ch.3below),butalsoespeciallyMartensen,as weshall seeinch.2below.Behindthe latter lies Hegel: ‘Thestatehasindividualitywhichis[present] essentiallyasanindividual and,inthesovereign,asanactual andimmediateindividual ’ Elementsof thePhilosophyofRight,trans. H.B.Nisbet(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), }321.

102 ThecriticismsofAdorno,Lukács,Marcuseandotherswill beaddressedinthefollowing chapters.Seeespeciallychs. 5 and6below.

SocialistthinkeralsowroteunderKierkegaard’sinfluence. 103 Y etun l ike H eidegger, C ar l Schmitt’ sappropriationofcertainKierkegaardiancategories hasgone l arge l yunremarkedinthesecondary l iterature.Schmittjoined H it ler’ sNationa l Socia l istpartyinMay 1 9331 04 andwaspromptl ytrumpeted as ‘ oneofthemostvisib leacademicsympathisersandintellectua l ornaments oftheneworder ’ 105 SchmittsupportedgrantingtheReichpresidentthe authoritytosuspendbasicconstitutiona l rightsandtakeextraordinary measuresinordertoe liminatethreatstothepub l icorder.106 Schmitt’ s theoretical justi fi cationforemergencystatesovereignexceptiona lismhas remainedinfl uential tothisday.107 Kierkegaardisrarel ymentionedbyname inSchmitt ’ swork,andasaresul tcommentatorstendtomissbothSchmitt’ s debtto anddistortionof the Danishphi l osopher ’ sideas.108 Y etKierkegaard’ sin fluenceisevidentinSchmitt’scritiqueofromanticismandhis constructionofsovereignexceptionalism,aphilosophythathewashappyto puttousefornationalistends.

103 Thedebateover Heidegger’srelationshiptobothKierkegaardandNazismiswideranging andcannotbethefocusofthepresentdiscussion. Heideggerhimselfminimallyacknowledged Kierkegaard,howeversee,forexample, Patricia Huntington,whoarguesthat HeideggerabstractedfromKierkegaard’snotionofinwardness,amovewhichdepletedKierkegaard’sthought ofitsethical importandwhichaccounted ‘insignificantmeasure’ for Heidegger’sdecisionistic turntowardsfascism. ‘Heidegger’sReadingofKierkegaardRevisited’ inMartinMatuštíkand MeroldWestphal (eds), KierkegaardinPost/Modernity (Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1995),44.RichardWolinbanishesKierkegaardandindeedall existentialistphilosophytoa decisionistandquietistcornerin lightof Heidegger’spoliticsin TheTermsofCultural Criticism (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1992). Cf.Martin Heidegger, AnIntroductionto Metaphysics trans.RalphManheim(New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1959),wherehe identifiesmetaphysicsas ‘thepivotal pointandcoreofall philosophy’ (at 17)andthengoes ontoidentifytheGermannationas ‘themostmetaphysical ofall nations’ (at38). Dooley (followingLevinas) findsin Heideggeranexistentialisttoutingofthe ‘Teutonicspirit’ thatfeeds directlyintoNational Socialistideology.Levinas’ rejectionofKierkegaardwasderivedinpart fromKierkegaard’sassociationwiththephilosophyof Heidegger,andinturnthatphilosopher’ s associationwiththeNazis. ‘Statehood’ , 1

104 Thesamemonthas Heideggeralsojoinedthe Party.

105 Translator’sintroduction, Carl Schmitt, Political Romanticism trans.GuyOakes(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986),xi.

106 Oakesin Romanticism,ix;JosephBendersky Carl Schmitt:TheoristfortheReich (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1983),part III

107 DespitehisNaziaffiliations,Schmitt’sthoughthasretaineditsimportanceinpolitical science,andheisseenasaperceptivecriticof liberalismandthe liberal state.See,forexample, Renato Crisiti, Carl SchmittandAuthoritarianLiberalism (Cardiff:UniversityofWales Press, 1998); DuncanKelly, TheStateofthePolitical (PublishedfortheBritishAcademybyOxford University Press:Oxford,2003);John P.McCormick, Carl Schmitt’sCritiqueofLiberalism (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997).

108 Schmitt’scommentatorsoftendonotmentionKierkegaardevenwhendiscussingthose textswhereSchmitthimselfquotesoralludestohim.ThisisthecaseforBenderskyandKelly, andJan-WernerMüller, ADangerousMind:Carl SchmittinPost-WarEuropeanThought (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press,2003).Anotableexceptiontothegeneral ruleappearsinGuy Oakes’ introductiontohistranslationof Political Romanticism,discussedbelow.

Schmitt ’ s Political Romanticism champions ‘ decisionpo l itics ’ via anattack ontheromanticismthatSchmittthoughthadpermeatedtheEuropean bourgeois,whichappearstodrawitsforcefromsuche l ementsas Concept ofIrony andKierkegaard ’ sportraya l ofthehedonisticSeducerin Either/ Or 109 ForSchmitt,romanticismhadtransformedpo litica l debateintoan end l essconversationthatrenderedgenuinepo l itica l decisionsimpossib l e. Herewe findmorethanashadeofKierkegaard’scritical assessmentofthe PresentAge’sobsessionwith ‘chatter’ in TA. 110 However,whereasKierkegaard intendshiscriticismtosparkinwardnessandspiritual seriousnessinthe individualsofthechatteringclasses,Schmitttakesfromhisownversionof thecritiqueanendorsementofdecisivepolitical action.Thisbecomesespeciallyapparentin Political Theology,aworkonsovereigntyandthepoliticsof exceptionalism.111 HereSchmittisinterestedinthedegreethatmodern national politicsderivesitspowerfromthetheological tropesofauthority, uniquenessandsovereignty.Thebook looksatthepoliticsofemergencies andextraordinarycircumstances,privilegingthepersonal political decision overandagainst liberalism’sabstractnorms: ‘Sovereignishewhodecidesthe exception.’112

HereSchmittadoptsatoneevokingnotonlyKierkegaard’sexploration ofAbrahamin FT butalsohisanalysisof levellingin TA.TheSchmittian sovereignistheonewhocanstandoutsideofnormallegal systemsandmake decisionsonbehalfofthepeople. ItisherethatSchmittapprovinglyquotes from Repetition:

A Protestanttheologian[i.e.Kierkegaard] stated: ‘Theexceptionexplainsthe general anditself Endlesstalkaboutthegeneral becomesboring The exceptionontheotherhand,thinksthegeneral withintensepassion.’113

109 ThestrongpresenceofKierkegaardiancategoriesin Po litica l Romanticism coupled withanalmostcomp lete lackofaccreditation(thereisaminorfootnoteneartheendofthe work)promptsOakestosayofSchmitt’ streatmentofKierkegaardthatitis ‘ eitherdisingenuousorremarkabl yobtuse ’.Oakesin Romanticism n.19,xxxiv. In lightoftheperceived Kierkegaardianconnection,itisworthnotingthatLuk ácsincludesthisbookundertherubric ofthe ‘destructionofreason ’,callingit ‘ pre- fascist’.GeorgLuk á cs, TheDestructionofReason , trans. Peter P almer(London:Merl in P ress, 1980.Original1 962),652. Cf.Müller, Dangerous, 21 andn.6.253.

110 Cf. TA,97ffandch. 5 below.

111 Carl Schmitt, Political Theology trans.GeorgeSchwab(Cambridge:MIT Press, 1985 originallypublished 1922).

112 Schmitt, Political, 5 Inhisintroduction,SchwabseesSchmitt’sprioritizingofsocial stabilityaspavingthewayfortotalitariangovernments. Iftherulercanensureyoursafety, thenhecandemandyourobedience.Thiswould leaddirectlytoSchmitt’ssupportforthe National Socialists 10years later.

113 Ibid.Thisquoteendsthechapter,thusgivingKierkegaardthe lastwordonSovereign Exception. Cf. Repetition,227.

Withhisappeal totheindividual exceptionabovethenormativeherd on behalfofthe herd,SchmitthastransformedKierkegaard’sprojectofegalitarian inwardnessbeforeGodintoapolitical philosophyofthetotalitarianstate.114 This leadsMüllertoconclude:

[Schmitt] affirmed ‘decisionism’,namely,thenotionthatitmatterednotso muchhowandwhichdecisionsaremadebutthattheyaremadeatall.The statedidnothavetoberighttocreateright.115

Ofcourse,Kierkegaardtooiscommonly labelledasadecisionist,withanethic thatintheendcannotamounttomuchmorethanasubjectivistversionof ‘might isright’ . 116 However,whilethismaywell beadeservedjudgementforSchmitt (theapologistforNational Socialism),itis lessappropriateforKierkegaard, whoseapplicationtothepoliticsofnational identitytendstowardtheopposite direction. I nowturntotwoauthorswho, I think,suggestamore legitimate readingofKierkegaardasacriticoftheideological structuresofnationalism.

5.2Dooley

Inanumberofworks,Mark Dooleyhasundertakena ‘prophetic’ andpolitical readingofKierkegaard.117 Inthecompanyof Derridaand Caputo, Dooley findsKierkegaardtobeuseful forcarvingoutapolitical spaceforthemarginalizedpersondisenfranchisedbythetotalizingnarrativeclaimsoftheestablishedorder. Dooleydoesnotwriteasatheologian,butinstead ‘translates’ Kierkegaard’ s Christiancategoriespolitically.Althoughhedoesnotdenyor ignorethe ChristianKierkegaard, Dooleyprivilegesthepolitical overthereligiousmessagesthatcanbedrawnfrombookssuchas PracticeinChristianity and WorksofLove. Indeed DooleyintimatesthatKierkegaard’sreligiousconcerns ‘havenopractical utilitytoday’ . 118

114 On ‘totalitarianism’ andSchmitt’scoiningoftheterm ‘totalitarianstate’,seeSchwab’ s introduction.

115 Müller, Dangerous, 23.

116 TheproponentsofthistypeofreadingofKierkegaardarediscussedinchs 5 and6below. AlongsideSchmitt,George PattisonhasidentifiedotherGermanwriterswhomadesimilar ‘decisionistic’ appealstoKierkegaard.NaziideologueAlfredBauelmerchampionedKierkegaard (alongwithNietzsche)asarareexampleofonewho acted onthebasisofhiswill againstthe stultifyingsocial order.Kierkegaard’sGermantranslator,Theodore Haecker,wasnotaNazi; neverthelesshis ‘Kierkegaardian ’ attackon liberalism,hisdefenceofauthoritariangovernment, andhis flirtationwith ‘sophisticated’ formsofanti-Semitismgaveintellectual solacetosupportersofnationalistictotalitarianism. ‘KierkegaardandNineteenth Century Democracy’ (unpublishedpaper,2008).

117 Theprophetasthemodel forthecritical philosopherhasalsobeenchampionedby Westphal,discussedbelow.

118 Mark Dooley, ThePoliticsofExodus:SørenKierkegaard’sEthicsofResponsibility (New York:FordhamUniversity Press,2001),xvi.

Aimingto findpointsofcongruencebetween DerridaandKierkegaard, Dooleydevelopswhathecallsapoliticsoftheémigré.119 Theindividual in exodusisonewhoisinastateof liminal existenceapartfrom orinspiteof acommonculture.120 DooleyrecognizesthatKierkegaardcanbeusefully employedinthesearchformeaningful individual identityinthefaceof overarchingnarrativesthat,bytheirabsolutizingnature,excludemorethan theyembrace.Tothisend, DooleydrawsfromKierkegaard’sassertionin TA thatthegenuinecommunityisonethatunitesaroundacommonidea. Yetthe commonideacanonlybeappropriatedbyindividualsasinwardsubjectswho arethinkingapartfromthecrowd:

Theparticular,ideal community[Kierkegaard] seekstogenerateiscomposedof ethicallyresponsibleandcommittedindividualsorselves,eachofwhomhas criticallychallengedthebasicassumptionsunderlyingthephilosophical,political andethical paradigmsthathaveheretoforedeterminedthemannerinwhich boththeindividual andsocietyhavebeendefined.121

DooleyacknowledgesthatforKierkegaard,theideathatthegenuinecommunitymustunitearoundistheGodoftheGod-man. However, Dooleymorphs thisexplicitlytheological tropeintowhathebelievestheGod-manstood for, namely, ‘onewhochallengedtheestablishedorderinthenameofthenuisancesandnobodies,inthenameofjusticeandradical egalitarianism’ . 122 Dooleyalignshimself(andKierkegaard)withJohn Dominic Crossanand other ‘historical Jesus’ approaches,arguingthatKierkegaard’ s Christiancommitmentmusttranslatepoliticallyintoapreferenceforthepoorandmarginalized.123 IntandemwithhisemphasisonJesusofNazarethasapolitical agitator, DooleyopposestheideaofKierkegaardasprimarily ‘ a Christian philosopherfora Christianpeople’,andinsteadinsistsonabroaderscopefor hissocial andethical theories.124 Thus Dooleyattemptstodemonstratehow Kierkegaard’sethicsofresponsibilitycanactasafoundationforaradical conceptionofsocial relationsthatdoesnot locatetheworthofanindividual primarilyinhisrelationshiptoculture,creedorcountry.

Intheessay ‘The PoliticsofStatehood’ , Hegel’ s Sittlichkeit,orsocial morality,standsasacipherforall systemsthatmonopolizenarrativesof

119 Ibid.,xiii,alsoch.6of Exodus.

120 Dooleyreferstosuchapersonasthe ‘deconstructedsubject’.See,forexample, ‘Risking Responsibility:a Politicsofthe Émigré’ inGeorge PattisonandStevenShakespeare(eds), Kierkegaard:TheSelfandSociety (London:Macmillan, 1998), 139.

121 Dooley, Exodus, 8; Cf. TA, 106.

122 Dooley, Exodus, 23.

123 Thenuisancesandnobodies linecomesfromachapterin Crossan’ s Jesus:ARevolutionary Biography (SanFrancisco: Harper, 1994), 54–74.

124 Dooely, Exodus, 146,also 144.Against Dooley, I arguebelowthatanoveremphasisaway fromKierkegaard’sspecifically Christianconcernsundermineshiseffectivenessasapolitical philosopher.

identity.125 Dooleyreads Sittlichkeit aseffectivelyconferringdivine legitimacy onthepowersthatbe. If,as Hegel says,the lawsofthestatearethematerial manifestationofGod’sdivinedesignonearth,thenGodiswovensofundamentallyintothefabricofthestateandthehistorical developmentofhuman cultures ‘thatitmaybe legitimatelyassumedthathemustpreferonesetof peopletoanother,hemust,thatis,begiventonationalisticfervor’ 126 Itisthis conclusion,foundin Hegel andin Hegel’sfollowers,that Dooleyargues ‘deeplydisturbed’ Kierkegaard. ‘TheideathatGodisonthesideofthepowers thatbewaswhatmostoffendedKierkegaardabout Hegelianphilosophy.’127 Itisonthisreadingthat DooleybaseshisKierkegaardian ‘politicsofexodus’ overandagainstrival ‘politicsofstatehood’ :

[Thepoliticsofexodus] challengesthedominantpolitical,ethical,religious,and metaphysical paradigmsgoverningreality,inthenameofthosewhosewelfare theydonotserve,thosepoorexistingindividualswhohavenotmadeitasfaras Hegel’ s Encyclopaedia,orintothegrandnarrativeofBeing.128

5.3Westphal

Behind Dooley liestheworkofMeroldWestphal,as Dooleyhimselfacknowledges.129 Westphal emphasizesthepossibilityofreadingKierkegaardianinwardnessasanideologycritiquewithconcretesocial ramifications,ratherthan asmerelyapropforindividualisticreligion.130 ForWestphal,Kierkegaard’ s critiqueofreasonisintricatelytiedupwithhiscritiqueofsociety.Thisis becauseitisnotanyandall ‘ reason ’ thatKierkegaardholdstoaccount,itis specificallythereasonoftheestablishedorder,ofquantitativevaluationand of Hegel’ s Sittlichkeit.Modernexpressionsof Christianityhaveuncritically incorporatedthis ‘ reason ’ totheextentthatitisdifficulttotell thedifference betweensocio-historical triumphalismand Christiantruth: ‘Kierkegaard,infact, isnotatall sureit’spossibletokeeptheargumentsfor Christianity’ sreasonablenessfrombeingheardasaffirmationsof Christendom’srighteousness.’131

ForWestphal,underlyingKierkegaard’scritiqueofreasonandsocietyisthe propheticaspectofspeakingtruthtopower remindingthepresentagethat itsstatusquois,infact,notinviolableoreternal:

125 Mark Dooley, ‘The PoliticsofStatehoodvs.A PoliticsofExodus:A CritiqueofLevinas’ s ReadingofKierkegaard’ in SørenKierkegaardNewsletter (Issue40,August2000), 5

126 Ibid.

127 Ibid.

128 Ibid.,6.

129 Ibid., 5 n. 13.

130 OnthephilosopheraspropheticcriticseeMeroldWestphal, Kierkegaard’sCritiqueof ReasonandSociety (Pennsylvania: PennsylvaniaUniversity Press, 1991),22, 105ff.

131 Ibid.,24.

UnderlyingKierkegaard’sverdictonapologeticsis arecognitionthathuman reasonisasocial enterpriseand,assuch,historicallyconditioned.Thisiswhere thegenuinelypropheticelementbecomesapparent.132

Westpha l ascribestoKierkegaarda ‘ socio logyofknow l edge ’ whichrecognizesthatsocia l groups l egitimizethemse l vesthroughtheirbe l iefsystemsin whichtheestab l ishedorderisjusti fi ed. 133 Thisisc l ear l yseen,forexamp l e, inthetonethatKierkegaardhashis H ege l ianc l ergymantakein PC. H ere, thec l ergymanisportrayed(andsatirized)formaintainingthat ‘ reasonis man ’ scapacitytorecognisetheauthorityoftheestab l ishedorder,thereby participatinginitsse lf - deifi cation’ . 134

Byconstantlyattackingthespeculativeapotheosisof Hegel andhisfollowers,Kierkegaardcritiquesthedivinizationofsocietyapparentinanybelief systemthatincorporatessoteriologywithgroupmembership:

Kierkegaardseekstodiscomfortthosewhoconfusesocialisationwithsalvation; they findtheirexistential taskcompletedwhentheinitiationritesprescribedfor adulthoodbytheirsocietyhavebeencompleted.135

Westphal placesKierkegaardinsharpcontrastto Hegel,whoclaimsthatthe ‘wisestofantiquityhavethereforedeclaredthatwisdomandvirtueconsistin livinginaccordancewiththecustomsofone’snation’ . 136 Socrates Kierkegaard’ssimplewiseman representstheoppositeconclusion.Virtueisfound inthespacewheretheindividual refusestoabrogateall responsibilitytothe groupmerelybecauseitisthegroup.Tobesure,suchapositionisnot antisocial. Pointingoutthathumansocietyisnotgodisnotthesameasseekingto annihilatethatsociety.Neverthelesstheself-deifiedestablishedorders137 tend nottocondonesuchcitizensintheirmidst:

Wewoulddowell torememberthatSocratesandtheearly Christianswere accusedofatheismbecausetheydidnotworshipattheshrinesoftheselfabsolutisingculturesinwhichthey lived.138

6.TOWAR D SAK I ERKEGAAR DI AN

ID EOLOG YC R I T IQ UE

Inthe lightofthedirectionssuggestedby DooleyandWestphal,itisclearthat I amnotaloneinrecognizingtherelevancethatKierkegaardmighthaveinthe

132 Ibid.,22. 133 Ibid.,23. 134 Ibid. Cf. PC,47. 135 Westphal,34.

136 Westphal isherequotingfrom Hegel’ s PhenomenologyofSpirit,trans.A.V.Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),214.

137 Westphal referstothe ‘apotheosisofthepresentage’ Critique,38.

138 Ibid., 125.

areaofidentitypolitics,orthecritical edgethathebringswhenexamining society’svariousself-divinizingcreeds.Withthem I affirmKierkegaard’ s propheticvoicethatspeaksagainsttheidolatrousstatusquoofinstitutionalized ‘ commonsense ’.With Dooley I recognizethatKierkegaardprovidesfor meaningful individual identityinthefaceofabsolutizingnarratives. I wishto furtherWestphal’ssuggestedprojectofmarryingKierkegaardianinwardness witharobustideologycritique.Theseauthors,theirprojectsandotherswho sharethemwill bediscussed laterinthisbook,andwithsomecaveats I would placemyselfwithinthisgeneral school ofthought.

6.1Central ityof nation

Onequalification I offeristhattheconstellationofideasthatmakeup ‘nationalism’ holdadeeperandmorecentral placeinconstructingaKierkegaardian propheticideologycritiquethanhasbeenpreviouslyrealized.Typically,commentatorstouchon,butdonotdevelop,therelevancethatKierkegaardhasto nationandstatetalk.139 Soforexample, Dooley’semphasisontheémigréis muchmoreconcernedwitheconomicandsocial classstructuresthanitis withissuesofnational affiliation.BypittingKierkegaardian ‘politicsofexodus’ againstthevarious ‘politicsofstate’ , Dooleyrecognizesthathisreadinghasa bearingontheseissues,buthedoesnotpursuethem,preferringinsteadto considerthosevictimsof ‘thestate’,ratherthantherolethat ‘thestate’ playsin formingtheidentityandcommandingtheallegianceofitscitizens victims andperpetratorsalike.140 Forhispart,Westphal isinterestedinthewaysin whichsocial groups legitimatetheirestablishedorderthroughthepropagation ofbeliefsystems.141 Heoccasionallyreferstonationalismandtendstosee national allegianceasoneofmanywaysthatthishappens,alongsideother ritesofsocializationsuchasmarriage,economicactivity,educationandthe ‘distinctlymodernkindofsocial formation’ fuelledbythemassmedia.142

139 Thisseemstobethegeneral ruleforthosewhorecognizeKierkegaard’spolitical application,including DooleyandWestphal aswell asJames.L.Marsh, ‘Kierkegaardand Critical Theory’ in KierkegaardinPost/Modernity . Invariousworks Cornel WestalludestotheKierkegaardianprojectasonewithpolitical ramificationsforracial andnational relations,buthedoes notelucidatefurther.See ProphesyDeliverance!:AnAfro-AmericanrevolutionaryChristianity (Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1982)and KeepingFaith:PhilosophyandRaceinAmerica (New York:Routledge, 1993). In chs.6and7below, I find thesametrendforcommentators workingon WorksofLove suchas C.StephenEvans,Robert PerkinsandM.JamieFerreira. AnotableexceptionisMartinMatuštík,whosepolitical (andexplicitlynon-theological)treatmentofKierkegaard’scontributionto ‘postnational identity’ isdiscussedat lengthinch.7below.

140 Forexample,afterconsideringthe linksbetweenKierkegaard’sand Derrida’ s ‘deconstructedsubject’ , Dooleymentionsinpassingthatsuchadiscussionisrelatedtoa Derridian critiqueof ‘national identity’ constructswithoutdevelopingtheidea. ‘Émigré’ , 145–6.

141 Westphal, Critique, 23.

142 Ibid.,34,47.

Andyettheself-deificationoftheestablishedorderthatWestphal and Dooleyrightlywishtocritiqueis,atbase,nationalismbyadifferentname. Theabsolutizationclaimed via technological,economic,familial orreligious meanstakesplacenotinsomegeneric ‘society’,butinatime,placeand population,expressedinthe languageandidiomsofanidentifiablepeople groupandintheserviceofdemandingallegiancetoaspecificcultureoverand againstotherspecificcultures.ThusitisthatwhenWestphal writesabout Kierkegaard’sattackonthosewhoconfusesalvationwithpropersocialization143 heisineffecttalkingaboutaKierkegaardianattackonnationalistic ideology.Thisisbecausetheveryactofdefiningwhatis ‘ proper ’ andwhat countsas ‘socialization’ istoprivilegeoneformofsocietyoveranother,and toattempttodeterminewhocountsasamemberofthatsociety againa preserveofnationalistideology.Laterinthisbook, I shall explorehow Kierkegaardianinwardnessdoesindeedofferanideologycritiqueofsociety, alwaysrememberingthatideologiesofsocietal absolutismcanexistonlyin relationtoactual societies,thusplacinguswithinthesphereofnationalism. Whatismore,whenWestphal writesofKierkegaardwantingtopreservethe possibilityoftheincarnationagainsttheapotheosisofthepresentage,144 he isinadvertentlysignallingapointofcontactwiththosenationalismsthat cropupin Christendom.Theapotheosisofnational cultureshashappened andishappeningstill withinthechristianizedsocietiesoftheWest.These arespecifically Christianformsofdivinization,using Christianmotifsand concepts,oftenappropriatingincarnationallanguagetodescribethedivine missionofthenationitself.Nationalismisnotsimplyoneofmanywaysthat societydivinizesitself theapotheosisorabsolutizationthatWestphal, Dooley andothersdiscussispreciselythe Christiannationalismthat I haveinview. InsettingoutaKierkegaardiancritiqueof Christiannationalism, I amnotin disagreementwiththosecommentatorswho findthetargetofKierkegaard’ s ideologycritiquetobethedivinizationoftheestablishedorder. Itissimply that I find ‘nationalism’ tobethebestwaytodescribetheideological tie thatbindsthedisparateelementsthatcontributetotheself-deification of society claimingfortheirnationthearbitrationofdestinyandidentitythat forthe ChristianshouldproperlybethedomainonlyofGod.

6.2CentralityofChristianity

This final pointconstitutesthesecondcaveattomyapproachinthischapter, whichisthat I primarilyreadKierkegaardasa Christianwriter,evenatheologian,andnotasasecularphilosopherorsocio-political critic.Furthermore,while

143 Ibid.,34. 144 Ibid.,38.

itisobviouslytruethatnon-Christianscananddomakeeffectiveuseof Kierkegaard,itremainsthecasethathisprimaryintendedaudiencewere Christians(orputative Christians) livingwithin Christendom.Forthisreason, itseemsperversetoapologizeeitherforKierkegaard’ s Christianity,orforthe contributionthathiswritingsmightmaketo Christian lifeandthought.Nevertheless,manycommentatorsaresuspiciousofimposinga Christianstructure ontothebroadspectrumofKierkegaard’sthought.Forexample,LouisMackey proposesthatKierkegaardwasprimarilyapoet-artistwhodidnothavean overarchingplanforhispseudonyms. 145 ForMackey,arguingthatinKierkegaardthereisadoctrinethatneedstobeacceptedorrejected ‘makesabout asmuchsenseasagreeingordisagreeingwith Hamlet’ . 146 Benjamin Daise, expresslyfollowingMackey,alsoattemptstoseparate ‘Kierkegaard’ fromany onephilosophical ortheological pointofview.147 Theimplicationofthis assumptionforKierkegaard’sovertly Christianworksisthattheyareapproached withsuspicion,iftheyareapproachedatall. Daiseonly looksatthe Climacus books,andMackeyintentionallyavoidsKierkegaard’ s lastworks,claimingthat thisisin linewithKierkegaard’soriginal preference;hetherebyimpliesthatthe laterKierkegaardisnotrepresentativeofthebestKierkegaard.148

Herewecometothecruxoftheissuethatmuchcontemporarycritical literaturetakeswiththe later(usuallynon-pseudonymousbutalwaysovertly Christian)Kierkegaard. Itisoftenassumed,andoccasionallymadeexplicit, thatKierkegaard’ s Christianityandhis finalChristianpolemicsareanacademicembarrassment,possiblyaproductofanincreasinglydeludedand fadingmind.ThisviewcanbetracedbacktoKierkegaard’scontemporaries, mostnotablyBishopMartensen,whowroteinhismemoirs:

[Kierkegaard] wasanobleinstrumentwhohadacrackinhissoundingboard. Thiscrack,alas,becamegreaterandgreater.Tothis I attributehisbrokenhealth, whichincreasinglyexercisedadisturbinginfluenceonhispsychologicallife Noonecansaytowhatdegreeheisaccountable.

149

MichaelPlekon(whodoesnothimselfholdthisopinion)reportsthatin conversation ‘notafewscholarshavemuttered,offtherecord,thatthe rantingsandravings therawmaterial forthepublicattack literature,are

145 LouisMackey, Kierkegaard:AKindofPoet (Philadelphia:Universityof Pennsylvania Press, 1971).

146 Ibid.,x; ‘Takenasinstrumentsofhisintent,’ writesMackey, ‘hisworksadduptoamagnificent nonsense ’,290.

147 Benjamin Daise, Kierkegaard’sSocraticArt (Macon:MercerUniversity Press, 1999),viii.

148 Mackey, Poet,xi.

149 HansLassenMartensen, AfmitLevnet III,(12ff),trans.T.H. Croxall, Kierkegaard Commentary (London:JamesNisbet, 1956),244–5.BishopMartensenwasnotaloneamongst Kierkegaard’speerstoholdthisopinion,seeMichaelPlekon, ‘Introducing Christianityto Christendom’ in AnglicanTheological Review LXIV(1982),328–9and331.Amodernexample ofthisview liesbehindJosiahThompson’ s Kierkegaard (New York:AlfredA.Knopf, 1973).

decidedlyinferiortotheearlierwritingsandoughttobeignored’ . 150 Some scholarsdonotignoreit,buteffectivelymakeananomalyofthe final phase ofKierkegaard’ s life. DanishcriticsK.E.L gstrup151 andJohannesSl k152 are amongstthosewhoarguethatKierkegaard’ s Christianpolemicsexemplifya distortionofhisearlierdialecticsandintellectual position.Theirinfluenceis discernibleintheEnglishscholarship. DavidAiken,forexample,proposesthat withtheovertly ChristianwritingKierkegaardwasbreakingwiththeprecedent thathisearlierworkshadset.AikensuggeststhatKierkegaard’saccountsof authentic Christianityactasasortof literaryconfessionoffailure,andmarka regressionfromthehighpointthathadcomebeforeinthepseudonyms.153

Itis,perhaps,Kierkegaard’sclaimonbehalfof Christianityitself,more thanthecoarsenessofthepolemics,whichmostirksomecritics.Oneofthe commentatorsmostopenlyhostiletothe ChristianKierkegaardis Henning Fenger.154 Fengerisforthrightabouthisaversionto Christianity,andis especiallycritical ofanyproposal thatthereisa legitimate ‘theological’ directiontoKierkegaard’sworks.155 Hedoesnot findKierkegaard’sroleas ‘ persecutedmartyrinthemarkettownof Copenhagen’ veryappealing;heimplies insteadthatbyand largetheeventssurroundingtheaffairofthe Corsair wereinfactaproductofKierkegaard’sowndelusional tendencyforselfdestruction.156 Fengerissceptical ofKierkegaard’ s lateclaims,inhisjournals andintheposthumouslypublished PointofViewforMyWorkasanAuthor (written 1848, firstpublished 1859),inwhichKierkegaardretroactivelystated the Christiandirectionofall ofhiswork.157 ThisKierkegaard,Fengersays, wasa ‘falsifierofhistory’ , 158 andheviewswitha ‘deepandfundamental distrust’ the latejournalsandother Christianwritings.159 Itistheinterpretationsofso-called ‘theologians’ whoattractmostofFenger’sinvective,and hecriticizesthemfor lettingideologycloudtheirjudgementwhenreading Kierkegaard.160

150 Plekon, ‘Introducing’,332. Plekonreportsthatthisviewismade ‘ontherecord’ byValter Lindström, Efterföljelsensteology [TheTheologyof Imitation] (Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsens Bokförlag, 1956), 128–9.

151 K.E.L gstrup, Opg rmedKierkegaard (Copenhagen:Gyldendal, 1968).

152 J.Sl k, DaKierkegaardtav.FraForatterskabtil Kirkestorm (Copenhagen: HansReitzel, 1980).

153 DavidAiken, ‘Kierkegaard’sThreeStages:A Pilgrim’sRegress?’ in Faith andPhilosophy 13(1996),352–67.

154 HenningFenger, Kierkegaard:TheMythsandTheirOrigins,trans.GeorgeSchoolfield (London: YaleUniversity Press, 1980).

155 Ibid.,214.

156 Ibid.,xi. Cf. COR

157 See POV,especiallypart 1,27–37. POV isdiscussedat lengthinch.6below.

158 Fenger, Myths, 1

159 Ibid.,20. Cf.ch.6below.

160 Fenger, Myths,214.Fengertendsto label anyonewhorecognizesthatKierkegaardwas primarilyareligiousauthorasa ‘theologian’ .

Bycontrast, I thinkitiseminentlypossible,indeednecessary,toreadthe religiousKierkegaardsympatheticallyandtoavoidtheblunt,naivereadingthat Fengerandothersseemtoascribetoall ‘theological’ commentators.161 Bytreating bothKierkegaard’ s Christianityandhispseudonymswithrespect,itispossible to findabalancedinterpretationoftheprojectinitsentirety. Indeed, I hopeto demonstratethatKierkegaardasapolitical philosophercanonlybeunderstood properlyoncetheological underpinningsofhisprojectareacknowledged,and hisintended Christianaudienceisappreciated.AkeyfeatureofKierkegaard’ s projectisthatheispreachingnottherawdataof ‘Christianity’ (heis livingwithin Christendomafterall),butrather ‘honesty’ forthosewhoalreadyclaimtobe Christians.162

I amnotsayingthatitisfor Christianity I venture suppose,justsupposethat I becomequite literallyasacrifice. I wouldstill notbecomeasacrificefor Christianitybutbecause I wantedhonesty.(Moment 49)

So lettherebe lightonthismatter, letitbecomecleartopeoplewhattheNew Testamentunderstandsbybeinga Christian,sothateveryonecanchoose whetherhewantstobea Christianorwhetherhehonestly,plainly,forthrightly doesnotwanttobethat.(Moment 97)

ItisforthisreasonthatitisappropriatetospeakofKierkegaardasatheologian: heisworkingwiththe ‘givens’ of Christianfaith. Hisaimistobeconsistentwith Christianclaims,actionsandevents mostnotablythosesurroundingthe incarnationortheGod-man.Kierkegaardisprofoundlyuninterestedinapologeticsorprovingthecentral claimsof Christianity butheisconcernedwith tracingouttheconsequencesofthemforeveryday life.163

Neitherdoes[God] wantanythingtodowiththishumanimpudenceaboutwhy andwherefore Christianitycameintotheworld itisandshall remainthe absolute.(PC 62)

Ifyoucannotbearcontemporaneity,ifyoucannotbeartoseethissightin actuality,ifyoucouldnotgooutintothestreet andseethatitisthegod [Guden] inthisdreadful processionandthisyourconditionifyoufell downand worshipedhim thenyouarenot essentially Christian.(PC 65)

Inotherwords: if JesusisGodinsomewaythat Christianitytraditionallysays heis, then therearecertainimplicationsofthiseventfortheself-professed Christian’sorientationtowardsGodandsociety.ForKierkegaard,these implicationsarenotcontingentuponthetruthoftheincarnationevent

161 Commentatorswiththeological sensitivitiesincludingEriksen,Ferreira,Mooney, Pattison, Perkins, PlekonandWestphal (tonamebutafewfromarich list)consistentlyfail to liveup toFenger’sstereotypeofthebluntreader.

162 Thisisakeyfeaturethroughoutthe laterworks,butespeciallythe final stageofKierkegaard’swritingcareer: ‘Verysimply I wanthonesty[Redelighed].’ Moment,46.

163 Seeespecially ‘The Halt’ part IV, PC,62ff.

(becauseitcannotbeproved)asmuchastheyareonthehonestfollowing throughofthisprofessedfaithin Christintheeveryday lifeoftheindividual.164 This ‘inward’ orientationtotheGod-manthushastangibleand ‘outward’ ramificationsforthe Christian’ s lifeinthenation,stateandneighbourhood, asweshall see.

ToargueforKierkegaard’spolitical relevanceiseminentlypossibleand desirable. However,todosoby firstdownplayingorradicallyre-interpreting his ChristianitydoesnotdojusticetoKierkegaard’sproject. I amwritingwith asenseofthosetowhomtheforceofKierkegaard’spolitical relevancewill bemostkeenlyfelt,namelythosepeoplewhocanmostcloselyidentifywith Kierkegaard’sreligiousconcernsandreligious language. Here I divergefrom DooleywhenhewritesthathedoesnotwanttoseeKierkegaardasprimarily ‘ a Christian philosopherfora Christianpeople’ . 165 ThefactthatKierkegaardhas timeandagainbeentakenupbynon-Christiansistestamenttothereasonablenessof Dooley’swish. YetthesereadingsofKierkegaard,intheirattempt toworkwithKierkegaardiancategories,almostinvariablyturnKierkegaard’ s Godinto ‘Society’ or ‘TheOther’,hisGod-manintoasocial classorproletariat, andhisethicsofchoiceandresponsibilityintoasubjectiveanddecisive leapintothedark,tonamejustafewwaysthatKierkegaard’ s Christian categorieshavebeenco-opted,inanattempttoappeal toamoregeneral philosophical-socio-political audience. 166

Yet,as I havestated,afterall theseattemptshavebeenmade,itremainsthe casethatKierkegaardwroteasa Christian,employing Christianthemesto catalyseauthentic Christianityamongstapopulationof Christendomwho alreadythoughttheywere Christians. InanagewhereGodsavesthe Queen andBlessesAmerica,anysuggestionthatKierkegaard’sreligiousconcerns havenopractical utilitytodayseemsatbestanoversightandatworstmyopic. TorecommendKierkegaard’sinsightstoa Christianaudienceisnottodirect itatadwindling,increasinglyirrelevantpopulation.Theoppositeistrue.Asa religion, Christianityisontheascendancy,ofteninformsthatactuallyor potentiallyfeedintotheideologythat I haveherecalled Christiannationalism. Thisisnotonlytrueforthegrowing Christianculturesofthemajorityworld suchasSouthAmerica,Africaand China.Asrecentworldeventshave demonstrated,itisoftenat,ornear,theseatsofpowerinthe first-world West.Tooffera Christiancritiqueof Christian nationalismisnottoparticipate inanachronism.Therefore,itistoadiscussionofthepolitical theologies ofKierkegaard’scontemporaries,Kierkegaard’sresponsetothem,andhis contributioninturntothewiderconversationsofnationalism,thatwemust nowturn.

164 ‘HonestybeforeGodisthe firstandthe last.’ PC, 66.

165 Dooley, Exodus, 146.

166 Theexamplesofthisinterpretativetrendwill bediscussedastheyariseinthefollowing chapters.Authorsinclude Heidegger,Sartre,Matuštík(whoisinturnfollowing Habermas),Best andKellnertonamebutafew.