Tim Soutphommasane has written an elegant defense of patriotism in a liberal society. The central question in The Virtuous Citizen has vexed political thinkers for centuries: To what extent ought citizens be bound by common beliefs about, and loyalty to, the nation to which they belong? This issue has particular salience in liberal polities facing pressure both to respect the diverse beliefs of national minorities and to open their doors to immigrant groups whose beliefs may conflict with the dominant culture of the admitting nation. As the author notes, the challenge lies in “retriev[ing] a patriotism defined by reason rather than hysteria, and a model of civic virtue in which good citizenship is defined as much by negotiating differences as by conforming to shared values” (p. 4). To this end, he endorses a model of patriotism that recognizes the values of loyalty and tradition but is open to revision and adaptation. As Soutphommasane reminds us, Charles Shurz did not simply say “My country, right or wrong”; he continued by observing that “if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right” (p. 229).

The liberal nationalism espoused here envisions a deliberative democracy in which national culture is self-consciously considered and reconsidered by all members of the polity, where “an expansive love of country complements civic virtues such as tolerance, mutual respect and reasonableness” to create “a form of national attachment that might successfully reconcile solidarity and diversity” (p.5).

Throughout, the author considers—and dismisses—objections to this form of patriotism from diverse quarters. Attentive to the need to avoid xenophobic forms of patriotism, he crafts a patriotism grounded in public debate and accommodation (p. 18), requiring active citizenship rather than blind political attachment. Recognizing that loyalty typically derives from an identity tied to a nation’s particular history, he argues forcefully that respecting one’s national history does not mean ignoring the less savory aspects of that history or becoming cynical about its aspirations (p. 140). This patriotism involves an attachment to fair treatment, impartial laws, and an inclusive, ongoing dialogue that promotes stability, social justice, and democratic deliberation (p. 30).

A patriotism so conceived neither requires a surrender of liberal autonomy nor precludes a concern with the world at large. While loyalty to one’s nation means that there may be a primary imperative to assist fellow citizens, such a concern does not cancel out thoughtful consideration of the historical, social, political, and economic context in which that nation has emerged. Indeed, the patriot must of necessity be actively engaged in securing justice and equality both inside and outside a particular nation’s boundaries (p. 155).

The author then turns to multicultural concerns, noting that even a culturally diverse society must have a “we” at its core. National identity is never static, but rests upon robust discussion extending to all of its members. That community must recognize and respect difference and engage with it in open conversation, which means that not all cultural distinctions can be maintained or, in some cases, even tolerated (p. 53). Political communities, he argues, must necessarily be attuned to cultural factors that influence how people imagine themselves, and theories that try to transcend identities altogether will miss some of the most constitutive aspects of the polity. This culturally aware patriotism can challenge unjust hierarchies and move toward a national culture continually reconstituted by all its members engaged in dialogue with one another. Only if liberal polities understand the interpretive dimension of culture can they hope to build bonds among diverse people and groups (p. 90).

Civic virtue is critical for building such culturally conscious patriotism. This is not a civic virtue hammered into citizens by an overweening state but civic virtue as a participatory practice, in which citizens exchange views on everything from social institutions and policy decisions to symbolic political matters (pp. 108–9, 113). The requirement that citizens engage in public deliberation and act in good faith to provide reasoned justifications for their positions rescues this form of patriotism from more exclusive forms of the same (p. 134). Through such open discussions, a true love of country can emerge, according to the author: a love that sees all of a nation’s warts and imperfections but is generous enough to ignore some of those minor imperfections and move toward overcoming others (p. 140).

The last section of the book outlines the author’s prescriptive concerns, discussing the social institutions and practices necessary to promote liberal nationalism. His arguments in the last two chapters touch on very sensitive subjects: immigration and education. With respect to the latter, he provides a graceful defense of common schooling, outlining a model of education “directed at the conscious social reproduction of citizens who share a national culture and tradition” (p. 176). He offers compelling arguments in support of his assertions that children should be educated primarily in public schools because only within such institutions will they truly experience difference and learn to understand diversity within a broad cultural narrative. As he notes, “[a] national education must encourage civic behaviour that is motivated not only by a citizen’s desire to exercise mutual respect for fellow citizens, but also their desire to do their part to secure a collective identity and the flourishing of a tradition” (p. 182).

This eminently reasonable emphasis on public schooling is likely to meet strong resistance, however, despite Soutphommasane’s solid arguments that such a civic education does not violate individual or parental autonomy. In the United States, for example, parents have jealously guarded constitutional rights to educate their children as they see fit. While a compelling case is made throughout the book that living in a liberal democracy requires children to learn tolerance and respect for diversity, putting such a system into practice and suggesting that private education should be limited is likely to jangle nerves. As the author notes, the civic education he espouses need not be overwhelming—teaching children to be good citizens does not mean compelling them to be “active busybodies”—but many parents will see any imposition of a national cultural education as heavy-handed, especially one focused on “an open sense of historical self-understanding” (p. 185).

Likewise, there is much more to be elaborated in the final chapter on immigration. Here, the author recognizes that nations may be selective in deciding whom to admit; they should not be required to allow immigrants in such numbers that they would overwhelm the current population, nor bring in groups who would not be willing to engage in public discussions and negotiations of cultural difference. Nations, he argues, may legitimately limit intake to “culturally compatible” groups, but he notes that as a reality, that threshold would have to be high to show that any particular groups would be incompatible (p. 201). Like the arguments about education, there is more embedded in this argument than the author perhaps acknowledges. Determining the groups that are culturally compatible has the power to spawn deep disagreement, and deserves greater attention than given here.

The Virtuous Citizen is an important addition to the literature on multiculturalism, liberalism, and patriotism. It is to be hoped that its prescriptions will generate discussions among both scholars and policymakers; its framing of these issues is long overdue. It is appropriate for scholars, upper-level undergraduates, and graduate students.