ABSTRACT

        The concept of patriotism has been debated over time in societies with regard to how citizens should be socialized. The tendency has been to stress nationalism as the highest form of loyalty. However, within school systems, there is an emerging trend to widen the perspectives of children. For example, multiculturalism, with its emphasis on diversity, is seen by many educators as a way to better understand others who are different in such areas as race, religion, ethnicity, social class, gender, and sexual orientation. This trend is also facing much resistance from those who want to preserve the status quo which underplays the importance of embracing diversity. They see such attempts at understanding difference as a threat to national identity and homogeneity. However, patriotism and cosmopolitanism do not have to be mutually exclusive. By cosmopolitanism, we mean a global perspective that transcends nationalism. Therefore, a balance can be achieved between the two and they can be pursued simultaneously. Thus, to whom we should be loyal and how we can go beyond traditional patriotism are important considerations in the quest for a more just and peaceful world. The challenge to education is to critically examine current policies and practices in an effort to identify ways to develop perspectives that transcend national borders.
 

Introduction

        Schools serve a role as a major agent of socialization of children, and colleges and universities serve similar functions with adults.  Strongly integrated into the curricula of schools in most, if not all, countries are the notions of character education and citizenship. These curricular foci are integrally entwined with the concepts of patriotism and political ideology. The result, all too often, is an historical perspective that is generally favorable toward the nation state  As such, students are given a view that highlights the virtues of their own country’s  past and present or de-emphasizes the positive aspects and/or emphasizes the vices of others’ countries. For example, the Holocaust is discussed frequently in U.S. schools but there is little mention of American treatment of Native American Indians. Other examples of countries paying selective attention to historical events include the relative silence regarding the mass killings perpetrated by the Japanese in Nanking, China and by the Turks against the Armenians. The problem, therefore, occurs when this socialization process involves the indoctrination of students into myopic views of citizenship. This poses a significant obstacle towards reaching the goal of a more peaceful world.

        This situation has been drastically underscored and further complicated by the events of September 11th and the recent war with Iraq. The fear generated by terrorist activities and heightened by governmental responses to such activities, such as the frequently reported color code of the terrorist threat level, has provided fertile ground for the flexing of nationalistic muscles. Because of this, our educational institutions have become the focus of patriotic fervor. For example, staunch conservatives in the U.S. have voiced opposition to faculty in higher education who dare to suggest any other way of understanding causes of and responses to terrorist activity, than "my country, right or wrong".  The climate created from such a stance is reminiscent of the McCarthy era. For example, "The media gave good airtime to Lynne Cheney and Joseph Lieberman’s American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which released a report that scathingly condemned ‘universities as a ‘weak link’ following Sept 11, because faculty ‘invoked tolerance and diversity as antidotes to evil’ and did not discuss the ‘difference between good and evil’’’(Zemblyas & Boler, 2002, p.11). This group even went so far as to compile a list of faculty members they believed were not acting in the best interests of the United States.

 The counterpoints to this hysteria, fear, and divisiveness represented by such extreme interpretations of patriotism are somehow obfuscated during times of national crisis. When emotions run high, there is a tendency to ignore reason and critical analysis. This is exacerbated when critical thinking and reasoning skills are not taught in schools where historical events are also sanitized. The result of schools not welcoming even the most respectful expression of controversy in the classroom may be the creation of a more dangerous world described by Barash & Webel (2002) who stated that, "nationalist passions and the jockeyings of states literally threaten an end to the entire human experience" ( p. 388). This possibility has been heightened by the recent threats made by some world leaders to use nuclear weapons. When this posturing is combined with the precedent set by the military strategy of a pre-emptive strike, the prospect of a nuclear holocaust becomes even more likely. Also, many (if not most) people believe that their government tells them the truth most of the time, and herein lies the central challenge to schools.  Also, Gwynne Dyer (1983), noted military historian, stated that people love their countries too much for their own good. Thus,  it is imperative that schools create the type of citizens who are capable of moving beyond the slogans, rituals, rhetoric and other expressions of traditional patriotism so that the world can avoid the abyss toward which we may be coming very close.

 The development of such citizens has profound implications for a world that could be on the verge of World War III brought to this point by the "world’s annual military expenditures which exceed $1 trillion dollars per year" (Barash & Webel (2002, p. 481). Of course, it is not possible to have reached these absurd limits without the support of citizens who love their countries and unquestioningly abide by their policies. This love of country also has very different effects depending on the military power of a particular nation state. For example, loving Costa Rica is not quite the same as loving the United States which has a military like no other country on the planet and has "5% of the world’s population and consumes more than 30% of the world’s resources" (Barash & Webel, 2002, p. 508).  According to Barash & Webel (2002), "one of the most important, but rarely acknowledged, reasons why the rich states maintain large military forces is that they are concerned with preventing any fundamental reorganization in the worldwide distribution of power and wealth" (p.485). Thus, the kind of patriotism that emphasizes external symbolic devotion to country such as flags, songs, and clothing provides a critical role in the perpetuation of the economic status of the "have" nations. Such patriotism is also tantamount to blind obedience to authority and "throughout human history, far more harm has been done by obedience to authority than by disobedience" (Barash & Webel, 2002, p. 421). Given this situation, some have even advocated teaching the opposite of rote compliance. For example,"Gertrude Stein once said that the most important thing to teach Germans is disobedience" ( Pines, 1981, p.65).

Perspectives on Patriotism

 For centuries to the present, there have been a few voices questioning the tendency of people to limit their loyalty to the nation state as if it were the sole entity on the globe. These voices have advocated for a different paradigm. For example, "In 1625, Dutch legal scholar, Hugo Grotius spoke about a fundamental natural law which transcended that of nations, and which emanated from the fact that people were ultimately members of the same community"(Barash & Webel, 2002, p.374). Three hundred years after Grotius expressed his view on the subject, and after the start of World War I, Albert Einstein noted that
 

                         When posterity recounts the achievements of Europe, shall we
                         let men say that three centuries of painstaking cultural effort
                         carried us no further from the fanaticism of religion to the
                         insanity of nationalism? It would seem that men always seek
                         some idiotic fiction in the name of which they can hate one
                         another. Once it was religion; now it is the state
                         (Barash & Webel, 2002, p. 171).

 Perhaps Einstein had not foreseen the role that religion now seems to be playing in promoting nationalism and regionalism. For example, in Iran there is no clear distinction between the state and religion while in the United States there is an increasing reliance on religiosity in speeches by the highest levels of government, including the President. These religious references are utilized in order to justify the policies and actions of the government. There is also widespread support for the government by numerous religious leaders. This leads some to view the U.S. as a state that is likewise eroding the distinction between church and state, albeit from a different direction than that of Iran. Despite the historical distinction between the church and state as noted in the U.S. Constitution, there are those who still fervently believe that the U.S. is, literally, "one nation, under God". For example, the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance was amended in the 1950s to include "under God". This came about in reaction to "Godless communism", a phrase that was coined during the oppressive government climate of the McCarthy era. Thus, there are several, powerful social forces working in conjunction with each other that limit our world view and prevent us from thinking and acting beyond our own ethnocentrism. Einstein knew this well when he said that,
 

A human being is part of a whole, called by us
the ‘Universe,’ a part limited in time and
space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings, as something separated from the
rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting
us to our personal desires and to affection for
a few persons nearest us. Our task must be
to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circles of compassion to embrace all living
creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty
(Calaprese, 2000, p.316).

 Also critical of the nationalistic habit was George Orwell who said that
 

  by nationalism, I mean first of all the habit of assuming
  that human beings can be classified like insects and that
  whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people
  can be confidently labeled ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but
  secondly - and this is much more important -
  I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single
  nation or other unit, placing it beyond good or evil and
  recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its
  own interests (Barash & Webel, 2002, p. 160)

 One of the issues that cannot be overlooked on the subject of loyalty to the state is a moral one. Thus, can people achieve the highest level of moral reasoning and behavior if they limit their loyalty to only their respective countries? For example, during the Nuremberg trials, those indicted for war crimes could not claim the defense of only following orders. Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles (Principle) states that a person who acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Those who followed orders were found guilty for not following moral principles or higher, unwritten laws that go beyond the jurisdiction of the state. This relationship between patriotism and morality was brought into question by Jenson (2001) who went as far as to say that patriotism is "perhaps the single most morally and intellectually bankrupt concept in human history" (p.1). He also contended that "if we are pledging loyalty to a nation-state, we have already touched on the obvious problems: What if that nation-state pursues an immoral objective? Should we remain loyal to it?"(p.5). He further asserted that "it is clear that any use of the concept of patriotism is bound to be chauvinistic at some level. At best, it is self-indulgent and arrogant in its assumptions about the uniqueness of U.S. culture" (p.7). His solution is to give up our ‘love and loyal or zealous support of one’s country’ and transfer that love, loyalty, and zealousness to the world, and especially the people of the world who have suffered most so Americans can live in affluence" (p.7). This would be in agreement with the great labor leader of the early 20th century, Eugene Debs, who said, ‘I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world’" (p. 11)

The Need for a New Kind of Education

 Given the need for an expanded world view, it is imperative for educators to ensure that students have the skills and opportunities to critically analyze the phenomenon of patriotism and how it is defined at different points in history. One of the problems with patriotism is that it means different things to different people. For example, one person may define patriotism as the conspicuous display of the national flag while another may view it as being a productive and informed citizen who is civically engaged. The latter perhaps could be construed as a form of inconspicuous patriotism. This divergence of definitions led Neumaier (2002) to note that "In spite of the new push for patriotism and the widespread display of flags and declarations of devotion to country in word, song, and television ads, there has been little analysis or discussion of what patriotism is, its significance and meanings, and its abuses and uses" (p.1). Through such analysis, students can learn ways to temper nationalistic passions which seem to be driven more by emotion than intellectual and moral reasoning. One outcome of such analysis would be to create consciousness of our greater role as human beings in the world rather than members of countries that often resemble exclusive clubs, especially those for the wealthy and power elite. Perhaps this is the reason that the notion of "world citizen" has generated so much interest recently. For example, the writings of Neumaier (2002), Abowitz (2002), Zembylas and Boler (2002), and Nussbaum (2002) have all stressed the need to transcend thinking that is bound within national borders. Also, Nell Noddings (1992) in her compelling book, The Challenge to Care in Schools, leads us in this direction when she talks about the importance of helping children learn to care about "strangers and distant others" (pp. 110-125).  According to Berman and LaFarge (1993), "the Space age has dramatically taught us...what simpler peoples have always known intuitively: that we are also part of a single, highly interdependent system of living organisms, all of which share a single home: Spaceship Earth. Teaching children this fundamental lesson of life has now become essential for our very survival" (p. 51), They further stated that "teaching students to be aware, to question, and to enter the political arena is patriotic; it is not the patriotism of blind obedience that bolsters itself through simplistic and polarizing slogans like ‘my country right or wrong, my country’, but instead a patriotism dedicated to the principles of justice, compassion, and harmony"(p. 4).

 Daniel Ellsberg (1972), noted peace activist and author of The Pentagon Papers once alluded to the idea that "people have a need not to know". This is a fundamental problem in schools today where children are fed a diet of "culturally correct" information that prevents any kind of dialogue or disagreement. Such dialogue and disagreement are seen as co-opting the covering of required material and threatening the widespread linear mentality of instruction and assessment which Freire (1995) refers to as the "banking system" (p. 53) of education.  Basically, children are often not challenged to go beyond the lesson plan and facts as presented. Therefore, any departure from normative educational content and process may be seen as tantamount to disloyalty to one’s country. An unintended consequence of a "pedagogy of comfort" is that students can be made too comfortable perhaps even to the point of boredom. They are rarely if ever provoked by ideas or diverted from their worksheets. As a result, they have come to view education as something to be avoided or as an obstacle to overcome in order to arrive at their culturally defined goal of personal success.

 Zembylas and Boler (2002) address this state of education by asking us to consider creating a "pedagogy of discomfort" in which students are exposed to more divergent and less sanitized views that run counter to more official versions of contemporary and historical events. They state that,
 

today’s educators, both in the U.S. as well as in
other countries, face the challenge of engaging
students in learning to read the world critically.
In an epoch such as this, when patriotism has gained
new fervour and access to accurate information
about political policy has become difficult,
if not impossible, educators face a tremendous
challenge in creating citizens equipped for the critical
thinking necessary to democracy (p.2).

 Freire (1971) discussed two processes that bear on this subject - "conscientization" and "praxis". The former refers to an outcome of liberatory education whereby students reflect on their relationship with the world and then transform themselves from objects to subjects of that world. In other words, they become active learners and agents in their own destiny. The latter refers to that point where reflection and action occur at which students are able to take control over their lives. Only then will students be able to "deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world" (Freire, 1970, p. 16). These kinds of students are no longer susceptible to indoctrination. Further, these students are considered by some, especially the power elite, to be as dangerous as those educators (alluded to earlier) who raise the ire of ultranationalists.

 Two crucial variables impacting the ability of teachers to promote a pedagogy of discomfort are institutional structure and climate which tend to mirror and perpetuate the wider culture. Every day in the school environment there are both subtle and overt messages that reflect the values and assumptions that underlie traditional patriotism. Here it is important to make a distinction between education and schooling. According to Ayers (1988),
 

education is about opening doors, opening minds,
opening possibilities. School is too often about
sorting and punishing, grading and ranking and
certifying. Education is unconditional -- it asks
nothing in return. School routinely demands
obedience and conformity as a precondition
to attendance. Education is surprising and unruly,
while the first and fundamental law of school
is to follow orders. Education frees the mind,
while schooling bureaucratizes the brain. An
educator unleashes the unpredictable, while
a schoolteacher sometimes starts with an
unhealthy obsession with a commitment
to classroom management and linear lesson plans"
( p. 23). But, "to embrace discomfort
 and ambiguity, of course, requires courage - courage
to tolerate emotional uncertainty and courage to
open up intellectually to find connections with people
around the world (Zembylas and Boler, 2002, p. 16)

 Thus, education for democracy would "burst bubbles and plant seeds" as it advances moral development, the imagination, creativity, critical thinking, relationships, and a global perspective. This kind of educational experience would be very different than that which maintains the current system and prevents the development of a more just and peaceful world. This new education is in stark contrast to the kind of education that continues to stress obedience, rote learning, testing, competition, sorting, classifying, and hierarchical structures. The traditional approach to education that encourages concrete and stereotypical views of people must be transformed into one that helps students to recognize and identify with common aspects of humanity. According to Noddings (2000),
 

 part of what children need to learn is that groups need
not be accepted or rejected wholly. Something in the
way we now educate induces our children to
suppose that persons and groups must be either right
or wrong - good guys or bad guys. Along with this
simplistic notion of human moral status, they often
come to believe that loyalty requires total acceptance
or rejection...We learn party lines and begin to divide
the world into we and they, us and them. One of the
school’s most serious shortcomings is that it
consistently induces and maintains the creation of rivals
and enemies (Noddings, 2000, p. 54)

 Thus, a  need exists for a radical new approach to education  that is aptly coined "critical cosmopolitanism" (Mignolo, 2000) which "suggests a citizenship education that prepares us for global allegiance" (Zembylas and Boler, 2002, p. 16). It is important to state at the onset that education for cosmopolitanism would go beyond a mere learning about the world (global education) to promoting an understanding of self in relation to the world and the reciprocal nature of that relationship. However, educators must ensure that such an undertaking include nonwestern views of equivalent concepts embedded in the notion of cosmopolitanism. One of the most provocative arguments for cosmopolitanism has been made by Martha Nussbaum (2002) who, in her book, For Love of Country?, insists that "we should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings (p. 7). For her, "patriotism is very close to jingoism" (p. 34) and it places others outside of our sphere of thinking and caring. However, she does acknowledge that being a world citizen is no easy task as it "is often a lonely business" (P. 34). This tendency to view distant others as not related to ourselves is poignantly expressed in Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1971) cognitive moral developmental theory which postulates that people are able to proceed, under certain conditions, from an egocentric to an altruistic perspective over time. The highest level of development of his theory is the Postconventional level of moral reasoning that, unfortunately, is achieved only by a small number of people. This is due, in part, because educational experiences have not encouraged "culturally incorrect" dialogue or a just community within the school. Therefore, it behooves educators to ensure a climate of safety and democratization within which such moral reasoning can be expanded so as to include others who have been deemed unworthy of consideration in classroom discourse.

 An additional obstacle to moral development is the strong need that people have for affiliation and connection which tends to keep most people at the level of Conventional morality which is one level below Postconventional morality. This is the level at which traditional patriotism (love of one’s country) and nationalism (belief in the superiority of one’s country) thrive because of the strong value attached to cohesion to the familiar group. For most, going along means getting along in order to keep one’s friends and associates, whereas departing from norms produces greater social isolation. In addition to the lack of preparedness that people have in their ability to embrace world citizenship is the lack of glitter associated with viewing the world with a wider lens. For Nussbaum (2002), "patriotism is full of color and intensity and passion whereas cosmopolitanism seems to have a hard time gripping the imagination" (p.15). If this is true, it becomes a serious challenge to educators who must be able to create a sense of intellectual excitement about cosmopolitanism.

 Nussbaum (2002) essentially wrote the introduction and first chapter of her book. She presented her case and then invited sixteen noted scholars to critique her position. The last chapter of her book is a reply to her critics who range in positions from partial agreement to vehement opposition to her argument. A few of the arguments that have been made against cosmopolitanism will be addressed beginning with Kwame Appiah who does not see patriotism and cosmopolitanism as mutually exclusive, and declared that "We cosmopolitans can be patriots, loving our homelands...Our loyalty to humankind - so vast, so abstract, a unity - does not deprive us of the capacity to care for people closer by; the notion of a global citizenship can have a real and practical meaning" (Nussbaum, 2002, p. 27).

 Another critic, Benjamin R. Barber, asks us to focus our affections on those within our proximity because he believes, what is so incisively stated in Moliere’s Misanthrope, that "those who love humankind in general often cannot abide individual men or women in particular"(Nussbaum, 2002, p.35). He would prefer that we "kindle affection for the general by revelling in the particular" (p. 35). This does seem to make a lot of sense and is reflected in such popular phrases as "To God through man" and "Think globally but act locally". Thus, a circuitous route may be preferable to a more direct and less efficient one. On citing Pope’s "An Essay on Man", Sissela Bok reinforced this point:
 
 

   God loves from Whole to parts: but human soul
   Must rise from Individual to the Whole.
   Self love but serves the virtuous mind to wake,
   As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake;
   The center mov’d, a circle strait succeeds,
   Another still, and still another spreads,
   Friend, parent, neighbor, first it will embrace,
   His country next, and next all human race,
   (p. 43).

What Bok suggests is that we must be fully developed as humans before we can aspire to loftier levels. Abraham Maslow (1954) knew this well when he developed his theory of a "hierarchy of needs". For example, if lower human needs such as hunger and safety are not met, then higher needs such as self-actualization will not be realized. The person will remain egocentric, not because of a selfish nature, but out of an orientation toward immediacy and survival that naturally blocks altruism and the potential for a cosmopolitan perspective.  Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning also comes into play here. For example, his theory posits that one cannot skip levels/stages or hurry through them, and one cannot reach the highest stage of Universal Ethical Principles within the Postconventional level without proceeding through all the stages in a timely and sequential fashion. Also, lower perspectives are not lost upon the achievement of higher stages. Instead, they are understood but surpassed. This suggests that developing cosmopolitanism can occur without sacrificing love of country.

However, reasoning alone may be insufficient in developing global citizens. Noddings (1992) insists that higher order moral reasoning must be combined with a pedagogy of caring in order to ultimately bring us closer to the cosmopolitan ideal. This is no easy task but well worth the effort. Also, Nussbaum’s critics fault her less for her goal than they do for her lack of adequately addressing the tremendous obstacles that stand in the way of achieving global loyalty. These obstacles, rather than being excuses for inaction, must be problematized in order to move beyond them. When this happens, we will be able achieve developmental progress toward cosmopolitanism. This moral destination cannot be arrived at unless the educational journey begins because, essentially, "we make the road by walking" (Horton, M. & Freire, P., 1990).

 In response to her critics, Nussbaum offers the example of goyim  - nonJews who risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis during World War II. These people, who were quite diverse in their nationalities and religious orientations, "had acquired a certain capacity to recognize and respond to the human, above and beyond the claims of nation, religion, and even family" (pp. 131-132). According to Nussbaum,
 
 

my essay in defense of cosmopolitanism
argues, in essence, that we should try as hard
as we can to construct societies in which that
norm will be realized in as many minds and
hearts as possible and promoted by legal and
institutional arrangements. Whatever else we
are bound by and pursue, we should
recognize, at whatever personal or social cost,
that each human being is human and counts
as the moral equivalent of every other (p. 133).

When this happens, people fashioned like goyim will be
 

retaining from childhood a sense of the human face,
and also their own needy hungry humanity...a
vivid determination that ill wishes would not
triumph over good, that their desires to subordinate
their parents to their own needs would not
triumph over the claims of the separate other.
Because they had not allowed themselves to
become encrusted by the demands of local ideology,
they were able to respond to a human face and form"
(p. 144).

 Divergent and progressive thinkers within society will, in fact, provide the best assurance that democratic ideals and principles will survive. If we only educate our populace to parrot the rhetoric of government and the military, we may be planting the seeds of complacency and blind ritualism that create laws and government decisions that are myopic and constrictive. In the worst case scenario, we run the risk, with such a mentality, of allowing democratic foundations like freedom of speech to become limited and possibly eliminated, especially when a culture of fear is deliberately promoted by those in power.

     Conclusion

 Therefore, one does not have to forsake patriotism for cosmopolitanism or vice versa. To this end, we must not be content to have attained a level of human development that stops at national borders. In order to be fully developed, we must examine the practices that currently limit us so that we can appreciate and extend our love and care to the human and nonhuman family of which we are a vital part. We have much work to do.  We must look to the kind of education for teachers and parents that will focus less on techniques and formulas and more on relationships so that everyone can see themselves in others. Only the full development of human beings will bring us to a love of humanity without sacrificing a love of those who are closer to us. To do this, there has to be a critical examination of how we raise and teach children. From that, we can establish a system of ends and means that relate to each other in a consistent and substantive manner. Also, we can use as models those fully developed people like goyim - people who not only love and care for those close to them but have extended this love to strangers and distant others.

These are people who use both their hearts and minds. It is this kind of feeling and thinking that can best serve to prevent international conflict and war while not compromising the ability of all citizens to truly display their love for the positive qualities of their respective countries. When the day comes for people to love humanity as well as those close to them, there will be earth flags, U. N. flags, or other world unifying symbols flying above every national flag all over the world, and all children will be reciting the World Pledge which educators everywhere should institute into their schools as a small step toward cosmopolitanism:
 

             I pledge allegiance to the world
             To cherish every living thing
             To care for earth and sea and air
              With peace and freedom everywhere
              /Lillian Mellen Genser

References

Abowitz, K.K.. Imagining citizenship: Cosmopolitanism or patriotism?.  Teacher College Record, ID Number 11008 (2002). Retrieved October 16, 2002  from http://www.trecord.org

Ayers, W., Hunt, J.A., & Quinn, T. (Eds.). Teaching social justice. New York: Teachers College Press (1998).

Barash, D.P, & Webel, C.P. (2002). Peace and conflict studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2000).

Berman, S., & Lafarge, P. (Eds.). Promising practices in teaching social responsibility. New York: SUNY Press (1993).

Calaprese, A. (Ed). The expanded quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (2000).

Dyer, G.  Goodbye war. Wilmette, Ill.: Films Incorporated (1983).

Ellsberg, D. Papers on the war. New York: Simon and Schuster (1972).

Falk, R. The great terror war. New York: Olive Branch Press (2003)

Freire P. The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum (1970).

Freire, P. Politics of education. South Hadley, MA. Bergin and Garvey (1985).

Horton, M., & Freire, P. We make the road by walking. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA. (1990)

Jensen, R. A talk delivered to the Peace Action National Congress, November 10, 2001.

Kohlberg, L, & Turiel, E.. Moral development and moral education. In G.S. Lesser (Ed), Psychology and educational practice, Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman (1971).

Maslow, A.H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row (1954).

Mignolo, W.D. The many faces of Cosmopolis: Border thinking and critical cosmopolitanism, Public Culture, 12 (2000)

Neumaier, J.J. A look at patriotism - It’s background, its uses, its abuses. Daily Freeman, Kingston, NY, Sunday, March 3, 2002

Noddings, N. The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University (1992).

Nussbaum, M.C. For love of country?. Boston: Beacon Press (2002).

Pines, M. (1981). Unlearning blind obedience in German schools. Psychology Today, May Edition (1981).

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950, No. 82.  Retrieved   May 25, 2003 from
http://www.rise4news.net/Nuremberg_Principles.html

Zembylas, M., & Boler, M. On the spirit of patriotism: Challenges of a "pedagogy of discomfort". Teacher College Record, ID Number 11007 (2002). Retrieved August 28, 2002 from http://www.trecord.org