(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Meditation on the Pledge of Allegiance [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2023-12-30
The Pledge of Allegiance has been part of the civic life of the United States since 1982, when an original version was published in a youth-oriented magazine. The wording of that original differs somewhat from the version engraved in our memory ever since congress officially recognized the pledge in 1942, then added the words “under God” in 1954.
It is an optional part of our civic life; it is not required in order to vote, to serve in any political office, to serve in the civil service, nor even in the armed forces. But congress did set out an official wording, along with a description of proper etiquette (hand over heart, removal of non-religious headgear, etc.) when the pledge is delivered. The question whether and when this etiquette can be enforced as mandatory still stirs controversy. So far as I know, (IANAL) the Supreme Court decision in 1943 finding that requiring a public recitation of the pledge is inconsistent with the first amendment principle of freedom of speech is still in effect.
The history of the pledge does not usually float up to the top of one’s mind on those occasions where there is a delivery of the pledge. Its wording and phrasing have become so rote, that often the minds of the pledgers are wandering rather far afield while the words are rattling by.
What follows is me “thinking out loud” about the content of the pledge, and what sense I may make of it, and how it may encapsulate some of my relationship to my country.
Here are the words and phrases that do the most work for framing the meaning to me: Pledge. Allegiance. For Which It Stands.
A pledge is, according to American Heritage Dictionary, a solemn promise to do or to refrain from doing. According to etymonline.com (an etymological dictionary), that sense of a solemn promise can be attested in written sources by 1814, and the word is probably related to an old proto-Indo-European root that carried the sense of "to engage oneself, be or become fixed." For myself, I think the notion of firmness, of fixed intention solemnly accepted and declared is at the heart of “pledge” in this context.
Allegiance. (a difficult word for me)
There can be some significant difference in the way different good dictionaries choose to define this one. In one, the primary definition might be the loyalty, or the obligation of loyalty toward, for instance, a government or a nation. In another, the definition may give primary place to the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord.
These different primary definitions are very different in feeling to me. There is the sense of loyalty that is central, but whether that loyalty is freely given, or is somewhat of a coerced duty, or even a strictly enforced obligation seems unsettled among the definitions. That etymological online dictionary posits that the historical roots of the word appear to be tied to a root that means “to let go; to slacken.” To me, allegiance would be something that binds, or restricts one’s conduct somewhat. I struggle to find any application of letting go in acknowledging a loyalty, whether freely chosen or demanded with sanctions.
Loyalty, in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue. I think it depends on the nature of that to which the loyalty is attached. Loyalty is a good thing if given to persons or organizations deserving of it; not so good if extended to those dedicated to unwholesome purposes. Loyalty can be misplaced with unfortunate consequences. In terms of the pledge, I find myself needing to consider whether the allegiance called forth in the pledge deserves the loyalty it entails.
For Which It Stands.
A flag is a symbol. It is not the thing-in-itself. The symbol evokes the sentiments appropriate to the thing it stands for. Thus, all the brouhaha about reverence for the flag, the expressive value of burning a flag in order to object to some national conduct, and on and on. Under the first amendment, it is allowable – even healthy -- for people to feel and express different sentiments toward both the nation and the flag that is a symbol of it. Or to have mixed feelings within themselves.
Now that I have considered some of the weightier anchor words, on to the heart of the matter.
In declaring the pledge, I make a solemn promise to which I hold myself to account. I am speaking first of all, to myself. Only secondarily am I speaking to anyone else who may be listening. What they may make of the pledge that I say is likely to be quite different than what I’m telling myself. Or it may be much the same. But what matters most to me is what I tell myself.
In my mind, I am recognizing a loyalty that I choose to extend because the nation to which I am extending it deserves it – not because I happened to be born under its jurisdiction, or have any external duty thrust upon me by that nation.
For me, the crux of the entire pledge is in the definition of the nation to which loyalty is being extended. The nation is declared to one “with liberty and justice for all.” That phrase encapsulates why I feel the nation deserves my loyalty. The nation I want to be part of strives toward that goal; accepts that this goal is central to its endeavor as a body politic. That goal is given expression in important founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, the bill of rights in the constitution, the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.
I recognize that the nation to which I extend loyalty does not currently exist in fact, and never has. That ideal nation which does provide liberty and justice for all will always elude what we can accomplish in actual practice. The ideal will still appear remote no matter how much the actual nation that does exist may devise a more perfect union. In practice, the goalposts move along with any progress we may make. There will always be unfinished business needing attention no matter how much progress is accomplished. The goal is constant, though, and there are successes to be celebrated even though they be incomplete.
It has always been aspirational, not actual. There is no ‘Golden Age’ of the nation in which the high ideals were realized, and to which we ought to return. At every generation, there was manifestly NOT liberty and justice for all. At every generation, there were people seeking not only to maintain unfairly privileged positions, but to entrench privilege and wealth for the few at the expense of the remainder. But there were also those in each generation seeking (sometimes heroically) to make the promises more real. In each generation, there have been important victories toward that ever-remote goal. In each generation there have been set-backs and utter failures to live out the meaning of the founding creed. A few of those failures have had public apologies subsequently issued as we acknowledge them as mistakes and failures of principle.
It has always been aspirational. When the Declaration of Independence held forth the self-evident truth that all [persons] were endowed with certain unalienable rights, it was not describing any actual society or situation in which those same unalienable rights were actually enjoyed by all individuals. The rights might be unalienable – that is, not separable from the individual in theory – but those rights certainly could be and often were trampled, denied, violated, and ignored in the real world. But that document set forth an aspiration. A violated right is still a right to which the person is entitled and may validly claim. It is our collective and individual obligation to recognize and defend those rights for every person, to build a place where those unalienable rights would be much more widely recognized, acknowledged, and upheld in practice. It is a worthy goal to aspire to.
My freely extended loyalty does go to that aspirational nation-in-becoming, for which that flag is declared to stand. To be loyal to that nation-in-becoming, I am charged to recognize and acknowledge where the nation-that-is may be failing those goals; to lend my support and effort toward holding the course as best we can toward that great north star of “liberty and justice for all.”
We will not get there in my lifetime. Or yours. But we can get closer. We can measure clearly and compare and choose in the present. The yardstick is: liberty and justice for all. Always choose that which steers closer in that direction, recognizing that the work will always be unfinished.
From time to time, the endeavor can feel overwhelming and despairing. In those trying times, it is good to know that there are others similarly committed. It enheartens when we can recognize we have fellows who have also chosen to extend their loyalty and commitment to a nation-in-becoming that is dedicated to liberty and justice for all.
When I do stand among a public group where the pledge of allegiance is collectively muttered in the now traditional intonation and phrasing, I usually have no idea or clue how many of the people reciting the pledge share any of my thoughts or understandings of it. To me, that traditional public cadence does much to obscure and distract from the meaning in the phrases. That is OK. As I said before, when I perform the pledge, I am first and foremost talking to myself. It is OK with me that the same is true for my fellow reciters, too.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/12/30/2213680/-Meditation-on-the-Pledge-of-Allegiance?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
