According to “For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism” by Maurizio Viroli, the term “patriot” has carried various historical meanings. It has referred to figures ranging from Italian nationalists resisting foreign rule during the 19th-century unification movement to nameless soldiers in the trenches of Ypres and American colonists opposing British authority. In “The Truth about Patriotism,” American theorist Steven Johnson wrote that patriotic sentiment has started revolutions, toppled empires and united nations. However, it has also been weaponized to promote blind loyalty, divide people and bring numerous oppressive regimes into power.

Though the concept of patriotism has shifted with culture, politics and moments of crisis across history, contemporary academic sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describe patriotism as both emotional attachment to one’s country and civic responsibility. AP United States History and AP United States Government and Politics teacher Ariana Rodriguez shares a modern view of patriotism.

“Patriotism is love for one’s country,” Rodriguez said. “But also knowing the country is not perfect…and hopefully making it better for everybody.”

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the term “patriot” comes from the ancient Greek “patriōtēs,” meaning “fellow countryman.” The term passed into Latin and later Old French as “patriote.” Its meaning expanded during the medieval period as emerging territorial states and local loyalties made devotion to one’s homeland and community a more prominent political and social idea. Britannica notes that by the Renaissance, the term “patriot” was used to describe someone who was devoted to the welfare of their community or region, often in contrast to corrupt elites or foreign rulers.

The modern political meaning sharpened in the 17th and early 18th centuries according to Britannica. In England, the term gained prominence when opponents of perceived government corruption, such as the “Patriot Whigs,” described themselves as defenders of the nation’s “true interests.” The American colonists adopted the word during the Revolutionary era, using it to define those resisting British imperial rule. Patriotism has also carried various meanings throughout history due to differing social climates. Political participation was largely limited during the American Revolution, and many groups such as women, enslaved individuals, people of non-Angelican backgrounds and Indigenous populations were not included in the ideals of liberty and self-government.

“[American colonists] felt they were fighting oppression, but they weren’t as inclusive as we would hope now,” Rodriguez said. “Patriotism looked different because the people defining it had different values.” 

As patriotism is rooted in personal belief, it remains inherently subjective. Political scientist Benedict Anderson’s concept of nations as “imagined communities” explains how patriotism can reflect different interpretations of national identity. Throughout history, this subjectivity has led to contrasting patriotic responses to the same political moments, leading to debates over how national loyalty should be understood and expressed. According to historian Eric Hobsbawm in “Nations and Nationalism since 1780”, during the early 20th century, particularly in periods of war and political instability, loyalty to the nation was increasingly equated with loyalty to the state and its leadership. Hobsbawm noted that governments often claimed to embody the nation’s true interests, while criticism of state policy was framed as disloyal or unpatriotic, even when dissenters argued they were acting in the nation’s long-term interest.

In modern political discourse, labeling opponents as “unpatriotic” has often functioned as a rhetorical strategy within political debate. A 2019 Pew Research Center survey found that majorities in both major parties viewed the opposing party as “more unpatriotic,” indicating that accusations of disloyalty are a common feature of contemporary partisan conflict. After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, analysts noted that critics of U.S. foreign policy were sometimes described as “un-American,” a framing that shaped public debate and influenced how dissent was perceived during discussions of the War on Terror. 

Political actors have also used patriotic rhetoric to bolster their own authority: in post-independence Zimbabwe, the ruling party branded opponents and civil society activists as threats to national sovereignty while painting critics as enemies. By exploiting people’s natural attachment to their homeland, governments and parties can weaken democratic processes in the country or subject them to sectionalism or polarization within society, as noted by Ethnic Studies and U.S. History teacher Adam Zentner.

“A lot of people see the government as embodying the country,” Zentner said. “But patriotism doesn’t mean you support every administration.” 

When patriotism has been equated with obedience to political leadership, historians show that the consequences have often been severe. In the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, according to historian Orlando Figes, criticism of government policy was treated as betrayal of the socialist motherland, justifying purges and the suppression of political opposition. According to the book “Mussolini and the Rise of Fascism”, under Mussolini in Italy, patriotism was continuously equated with loyalty to the state, using slogans such as “Credere, obbedire, combattere” (Italian for “believe, obey, fight”). Italians were taught that the state represented the nation itself, so resisting Mussolini meant betraying Italy. This messaging framed public loyalty as a mechanism for maintaining authoritarian governance.

Comparable political strategies appear in several contemporary states, though in less overly totalitarian forms. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has characterized opposition activism as “unpatriotic,” while laws prohibiting the discrediting of armed forces, enacted after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, have restricted public criticism of state policy in the name of national unity, according to Human Rights Watch. 

When dissent is treated as disloyalty and love for a nation is defined as unquestioned support for the government, it can become closely aligned with nationalism. 

Nationalism, according to famous Irish historian and politologist, Benedict Anderson, arises when a nation starts to imagine itself as a united, exclusive entity with rigid boundaries separating insiders from outsiders. This transformation is often seen as shifting from a broad, inclusive sense of national pride to a more divisive, exclusionary mentality that defines “true” patriotism as allegiance to a specific vision of the nation, often at the expense of marginalizing groups or dissenting voices.

The shift from patriotism to nationalism is rarely abrupt. According to Imagined Communities, nationalism emerges when a nation begins to imagine itself as a distinct and limited community, drawing sharp boundaries between those who belong and those who do not. 

“There’s a fine line where patriotism starts teetering into nationalism…where a group sees itself as superior,” Rodriguez said.

Anderson also argued that many countries throughout history were shaped around cultural identities, creating environments where “us vs. them” mentalities developed and later evolved into nationalistic movements. He linked this pattern to competition for power within the collapsing empires. Additionally, in Imagined Communities, Anderson described how nationalist movements in late imperial Europe emerged as rival elites competed to control territory, resources and political authority once dynastic rule weakened. In the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, where emerging national leaders used shared language, history and cultural identity to mobilize support, political competition was framed as a struggle between nations. These nationalist movements later solidified into regimes that claimed exclusive authority over the state, using patriotic narratives to marginalize minorities and suppress opposition. Some political scientists note that nationalism can arise from a desire for security and belonging during periods of uncertainty. In such contexts, people may adopt simplified narratives that identify an “out-group,” which can lead to scapegoating or xenophobia. This pattern has been observed in countries such as Myanmar, India, France and the United States.

However, other more productive interpretations of patriotism also exist. During postwar Germany, philosopher Jürgen Habermas described “constitutional patriotism” as a form of patriotism based on shared commitment to democratic principles rather than loyalty to leaders or parties. From this perspective, criticizing the government for the improvement of it can be seen as consistent with national loyalty rather than a betrayal of it. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, patriotism is less likely to become exclusionary when it is grounded in civic engagement, pluralism and an openness to criticism rather than unquestioned loyalty. Seeing disagreement not as a threat but as a normal part of democratic life can help patriotic feelings become rooted in shared responsibility rather than superiority.

Patriotism has long helped nations take shape by bringing people together around common purposes, though those same feelings can also spark tension when citizens imagine different paths forward. When leaders claim exclusive ownership of patriotism or when the love of one’s country becomes a measure of superiority, the line between unity and division begins to blur.

“[Patriotism] doesn’t belong to just one side,” Rodriguez said. “It belongs to everybody.”