16165: Brown: Re: 16159: Niloufer: Haitian Flag as clothing (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Haines Brown <brownh@hartford-hwp.com>

> I have a concern about the Haitian flag being used as an article of
> clothing from brassieres to bandanas. Apparently most people don't
> find anything wrong with this and would explain it as a symbol of
> pride and patriotism.

Damali,

Sorry, but this will have to be just a philosophical reply.

The use of flags is not universal, but emerged under specific
historical circumstances for specific reasons. Therefore, what a flag
means for us is always open to debate. There's no universal set of
rules or values to which we all must submit.

In historical terms, today's flags tend to be associated with the
bourgeois state. To the extent that state represents a political
commonwealth for its citizens, then they would be inclined to hold the
state, and perhaps also its flag, in esteem. On the other hand, some
individual or social class might not feel themselves to be
beneficiaries of the bourgeois commonwealth and therefore with justice
not respect its flag. Others, although beneficiaries of the
commonwealth, might nevertheless think the flag to be a rather
mindless and artificial way to express their respect or appreciation.

There is much more to this, however, for the modern bourgeois state
very much depends on instilling a national feeling among its citizen
recruits and taxpayers. This is quite different than an assessment of
the political commonwealth, for it entails an emotional commitment
that is supposed to be irrational, that subjects the private interests
of the individual to the bourgeois state: "You ask not what your
country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This
has often led to the kind of situation that is the very opposite of
what we think of as a political commonwealth that is defined in terms
of people's real interests.

The result has often been a contradiction between the citizen
commonwealth and behavior demanded by nationalism: the former arises
from and serves private interests, while the latter is independent of
private interests and often leads to their suppression. In other
words, there's something very ambivalent about our attitude toward the
state and hence its flag. If the flag becomes sacrosanct, then we
enter the realm of political religiosity associated with fascism and
other disagreeable things.

Therefore, it is to be expected that some people will manifest very
strong and rigid attitudes toward the flag, either positive or
negative, while others will be more relaxed or even indifferent. There
is unlikely to be rigid rules about how we feel about the flag and
behave toward it because such rules would tend to expose the
contradiction between nationalism and the political
commonwealth. Better just to leave things implicit.

You have certain strong feelings, but I don't think there is any
reason to assume everyone else will necessarily share them. If a
person uses a flag for a bandanna and sees it as patriotic, then we
have to take their word for it. We can't very well impose our own
sensibilities on them, for doing so would betray the values of a
commonwealth based on mutual respect, a right to express one's
personal thoughts and feelings.

Haines Brown