Dual loyalty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dual loyalty is a term used in political discussions to describe, a situation where a person has loyalty to two separate interests which potentially conflict with each other.
[edit]Introduction
A classic example of political dual loyalty is a person who is a dual citizen or who is an immigrant living in one country, although the term is sometimes used in connection with people that have religious, cultural or political ties to a political interest other than the country of their primary residence. As opposed to ethical dual loyalty, which is often a self-described situation, political dual loyalty typically appears as an attack or a pejorative accusation designed to target and discredit a particular person or group, and to call into question the loyalty of that group to the country where they reside. As such, the accusation of "dual loyalty" is often used or co-opted by racist or xenophobic groups within a country, regardless of the original intent of the accusation.
A historical example of perceived political dual loyalties can be found in the history of the Second French Empire. Napoleon III was, in his early life, a member of the Italian anti-Austrian resistance movement, the Carbonari. According to some historians, Napoleon's pro-Italian and anti-Austrian sentiments deterred him from intervening in the Austro-Prussian War on the Austrian side. This allowed Prussia to gain sufficient strength to defeat France four years later in the Franco-Prussian War.[citation needed]
[edit]Inherently controversial
While nearly all examples of alleged "dual loyalty" are considered highly controversial, these examples point to the inherent difficulty in distinguishing between what constitutes a "danger" of dual loyalty -- ie, that there exists a pair of misaligned interests -- versus what might be more simply a pair of partially aligned or even -- according to the party being accused -- a pair of fully aligned, interests. For example, immigrants to country who still have feelings of loyalty to their country of origin will often insist that their two (or more) loyalties do not conflict. As Stanley A. Renshon at The Center for Immigration Studies notes,
- Lan Samantha Chang (1999), a novelist writing in response to the Wen Ho Lee case, could say in a New York Times op-ed piece entitledDebunking the Dual Loyalty Myth, "True, many immigrants have strong ties to their countries of birth...But cultural or familial loyalties are on a different level from political allegiances...I love China, but I am a citizen of the United States." Ms. Chang appears to want to distinguish a love for one's "home" country from being willing to commit treason against one's adopted one. This is obviously a fair, reasonable, and appropriate distinction.
- Yet, in the process of making such a distinction, she acknowledges the duality of her feelings. The issue is not between love of one's country of origin and treason, but rather the multiple loyalties that appear to be part of many immigrants' psychology. [1]
[edit]Transnationalist interpretations
Some scholars refer to a growing trend of transnationalism and suggest that as societies become more heterogeneous and multi-cultural, the term "dual loyalty" increasingly becomes a meaningless bromide. According to the theory of transnationalism, migration (as well as other factors including improved global communication) produces new forms of identity that transcend traditional notions of physical and cultural space. Nina Glick Schiller, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton define a process by which immigrants "link together" their country of origin and their country of settlement.
The transnationalist view is that "dual loyalty" is a potentially positive expression of multi-culturalism, and can contribute to the diversity and strength of civil society. While this view is popular in many academic circles, others are skeptical of this idea. As one paper describes it,
- On occasion, these imagined communities conform to the root meaning of transnational, extending beyond loyalties that connect to any specific place of origin or ethnic or national group. Yet what immigration scholars describe as transnationalism is usually its opposite... highly particularistic attachments antithetical to those by-products of globalization denoted by the concept of "transnational civil society" and its related manifestations. [2]
Beyond its usage in particular instances, the term "dual loyalty" versus "transnationalism" continues to be the subject of much debate. As one academic writes:
- Although the events of September 11th may have shaken some assumptions - at least in the United States - about the nature of transnational networks and their capacity to facilitate flows of people, goods, and ideas across borders, the terms "globalization" and "transnationalism" remain relatively stable, albeit frustratingly imprecise additions to the language of social sciences, including anthropology. [3]
[edit]Historical accusations
Other historical examples of actual or perceived "dual loyalty" include the following:
- During World War II, a number of United States citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry, including some born in the U.S., were confined to internment camps. (See: Japanese internment in the United States)
- During the English Reformation, many important British and Scottish figures such as Thomas More, Mary Stuart and Edmund Campionwere tried and executed for their alleged double loyalty to the Papacy and infidelity to the Crown.
- During the Third Republic in 19th century France, citizens were routinely divided between clericals and anticlericals because of long-lasting loyalty related conflicts between the French secularist government and the Holy See.
- During John F. Kennedy's campaign for and brief tenure as U.S. President, some opponents questioned whether a Roman CatholicPresident of the United States had a divided loyalty with respect to the Papacy and Vatican City. (See:http://www.americanpresident.org/history/johnfkennedy/biography/theamericanfranchise.common.shtml)
- Throughout their history in the Diaspora, Jews have frequently been accused of dual loyalty by their political opponents or anti-semiticdetractors. Examples include the Dreyfus Affair in France during the early 1900's, as well as accusations against Jewish Neoconservativeforeign policy advocates in the United States during early 2000's. Those who claim such dual loyalty believe that Jews owe their allegiance to the State of Israel rather than the U.S. (See: Jewish Neoconservatives)
- The loyalty of many Americans to the U.S. government was called into question during the Cold War due to alleged Communist sympathies, resulting in "witch-hunts" of various government officials, celebrities and other citizens. (See: McCarthyism)
- Muslims living in Western countries, especially during periods of heightened tensions, such as after September 11, 2001, or during theDanish Cartoon Controversy of 2005-2006, are sometimes accused of being more loyal to the Muslim ummah than to their country. (See:http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back603.html)
- "Dual loyalty" continues to be a concern of critics of U.S.'s immigration policy, particularly in those states which border Mexico (See:http://texnews.com/1998/opinion/chavez0408.html)
- The Hindu minority in Muslim majority Bangladesh is often accused of dual loyalty to neighboring India by the Islamist Bangladesh Nationalist Party.[1][2]
- The Congressional Black Caucus has sometimes been accused of dual loyalty to Africa, that as they were vociferous in their criticisms of nations such as Israel and apartheid South Africa, the CBC stayed largely silent about the numerous human rights abuses of black African dictators.
[edit]See also
[edit]References
Posts
