Loyalty

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Loyalty can be defined as a feeling of attachment to something outside of the self, such as a group, an institution, a cause, or an ideal. The sentiment carries with it a willingness to support and act in behalf of the objects of one’s loyalty and to persist in that support over an extended period of time and under conditions which exact a degree of moral, emotional, or material sacrifice from the individual. Josiah Royce captured most of the connotations of the term when he defined it as “the willing and practical and thorough going devotion of a person to a cause” (1908, pp. 16-17).

As used in political discourse, the concept of loyalty occupies the ground between patriotism and obligation. It is something less than the typically uncritical adulation of one’s own political group, often accompanied by rejective attitudes toward outsiders, which is the heart of patriotism. It is something more than the formal, rationally justified duty to obey law, which is the essence of obligation. Loyalty is cooler in emotional tone, more rational in its bases, and less comprehensive in its object than patriotism; and it is warmer, less rational, and more comprehensive than obligation.

Since loyalty is an attitude, it varies along the same dimensions as any other attitude: intensity, specificity, endurance, direction, content, and so forth. Loyalties emerge out of a social matrix, and the processes of loyalty formation, growth, and change are closely akin to those involved in the process of identification. When one is said to be loyal to a group, for example, it is tantamount to saying that he has identified himself with the group, that his membership in the group forms part of his own self-definition, and that he perceives his own interests and purposes as integrally connected with those of the group. Loyalty thus has both instrumental and affective components.

Political loyalties are those directed toward political objects that are of importance in the life of the political community. These objects include formal institutions, parties, interest groups, political leaders, social and economic classes, military organizations, constitutions, traditions, and symbols and myths which a population perceives as embodying or representing the community, history, and destiny which make them a distinct people. Political loyalties form part of a system’s political culture—that particular constellation of normative, practical, and emotional orientations toward political things shared by the population of a political system (Almond & Verba 1963, chapter 1). Loyalties can be directed toward a variety of objects within the political system, and systems can easily and usefully be classified according to the strength, incidence, objects, and patterns of loyalties among the citizenry.[SeePolitical Culture.]

Patterns of loyalty Since loyalties sustain both the individual and the polity by laying the ground-work necessary for shared effort and unity of purpose, loyalty is a very old subject of political discourse, and virtually “all serious political writing regards the quality of loyalty as a good thing” (H. B. White, quoted in Grodzins 1956, p. 16). Classical Greek and Roman writers regarded loyalty as the supreme political virtue, and while few persons in the ancient states enjoyed the status of citizenship, those who did were taught to regard the role of citizen as the noblest of all roles. Duty to the state was the highest duty, and loyalty was the highest value. This evaluation of political loyalty and citizenship permeates the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Plutarch. Early Christian writers, however, placed little value on loyalty to city or state; for them, religious salvation was the supreme goal, and loyalty to the church and creed that held the keys to that kingdom the highest loyalty. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the nation-state, political loyalty, except in the form of the local and semi-personal loyalties of feudalism, mattered little to individuals. Machiavelli’s reassertion of the primacy of politicalloyalty—his statement that he preferred his country to the safety of his soul—was considered blasphemous in the opinion of his time. The modern idea of mass political loyalty and the conception of the nation as the capstone and most comprehensive object of loyalty are really no older than the eighteenth century. They appeared with the French Revolution and reached their most passionate expression in Rousseau’s plea for a “civil religion” (Social Contract, especially book 4, chapter 8).

Patterns of thought and behavior involving loyalty have been complex and contradictory since the end of the eighteenth century. On the one hand, a number of liberal internationalist thinkers have attacked loyalty to the nation-state as an outmoded and dangerous conception. They argue that increasing national interdependence requires a shift of loyalty away from the nation-state to the institutions and symbols of the international community. On the other hand, the totalitarian states of the twentieth century have demanded of their subjects a degree of concentrated loyalty toward national political leaders, institutions, and policies which is without precedent. Also, the creation of many new states in the underdeveloped areas of the world has meant a renewed growth of national loyalties at a time when such loyalties may be on the wane in the highly developed states.

It is characteristic of the advanced, complex, highly industrialized states that the loyalties of individuals tend to be numerous, segmental, and increasingly instrumental. The individual yields partial loyalty to many objects instead of giving all his devotion and allegiance to one or a very few objects. Similarly, peer-group loyalties increasingly supplant hierarchical affiliations. This is part of the meaning of the movement from “status to contract” [see the biography ofMaine] or from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft [see the biography ofTönnies]. One strand of modern social criticism laments this transformation in loyalty patterns as the “decline of community,” while another welcomes it as the advent of an era of increased individual liberty.

Over and above these matters stands the dominant fact that no political system can long endure or enjoy much stability unless its citizens, and especially the elites, place a high value on political loyalty. Among the emerging nations, the development of sentiments of national loyalty and identification is a task of the highest priority (Pye 1962). Many of the emerging nations are riddled by tribal, ethnic, linguistic, and regional divisions. The inhabitants must be urged to abandon their parochial loyalties, and they must be imbued with a sense of affiliation with the national community and a willingness to obey the directives of central authority. Links must be forged in the minds of individuals between their personal interests and joys and the policies and institutions of the state. In order to do this, governments employ all the resources of propaganda and communication to reach the masses. Promoting nationalist ideologies, publicizing the activities and words of charismatic leaders, fomenting antagonism toward foreign governments and peoples, and developing programs of mass action and ritual participation are among the standard methods used in these attempts to build national loyalties. [SeeModernization.]

In a political system that has existed longer as an entity and reached a higher stage of political and economic development, the problem is not to create national loyalties but to maintain them. There, loyalty is both a product of the individual’s direct identification with and involvement in the nation’s history, symbols, institutions, and destiny and, indirectly, a product of the individual’s private satisfactions. Rewards and satisfactions gained in the private sphere have a kind of spillover effect, and political objects receive the benefits of the individual’s gratitude for the joys of personal life. In addition, the level of communication and integration is higher in such states, and inhabitants are frequently exposed to political symbols and messages. The public schools carry the message of patriotism and loyalty to millions of children: after an extensive review of European and American experience, Merriam (1931) concluded that the public school had become the dominant agency for transmitting the themes of loyalty and “civil religion,” having largely replaced the army, the church, the family, and patriotic rhetoric in performing this function. In such polities, through the processes of political socialization, attitudes of loyalty toward the nation are widely shared. The national political community forms a common reference point for nearly all citizens. [SeeSocialization, article onPolitical Socialization.]

Thus, loyalty is the ordinary condition. Although political loyalties are not prominent for most people most of the time, they are there in the background and can be evoked by the appropriate stimuli. Since loyalty is the ordinary condition— the atmospheric condition—active disloyalty is very difficult: custom, the climate of opinion, informal and formal sanctions, inertia, fear, the lack of clear alternative objects of loyalty—all these forces work to assure that even those who are not actively and intensely loyal are at least not disloyal. Ordinarily, political authorities do not ask far more than that, for it is enough.

Multiple loyalties Few persons are loyal to just one object. Most men move within a network of loyalties—to primary group, party, occupational group, clubs, and so forth. In the liberal-democratic states, these partial loyalties are not regarded as incompatible with a larger, comprehensive loyalty to the political community. In fact, these circles of particular loyalties are held to be the very foundation for firm loyalty to the nation (Grodzins 1956). This view, which is widely held among modern pluralistic theorists, is really a rediscovery of Burke’s insistence that what holds society together and gives it meaning and richness is the multiplicity of its “little platoons,” its primary associations of individuals. Individuals, then, are tied to the central symbols and agencies of the political system through a series of linkages formed by loyalties to smaller groups [seeIdentification, Political].

In an important study, Shils and Janowitz (1948) found that while goals and policies might be set by central political authorities, individuals acted in accordance with those policies not so much out of direct loyalty to the nation as in response to the smaller, primary groups in which they were involved. This was found to be the case within the German army during the Nazi period. The finding thus runs counter to the whole totalitarian conception of loyalty, which insists that all loyalty must be concentrated directly around one political center. As Mussolini stated the totalitarian conception of loyalty, “Fascism takes a man from his family at six, and gives him back to it at sixty.” Contrary to this conception, it seems clear that lesser loyalties must exist even in totalitarian states and that these lesser loyalties constitute the individual’s primary attachments. It is through them that he is tied to the state, and it is largely in response to them that he loyally accepts and executes his duties to the state.

The existence of multiple loyalties implies the constant possibility of conflicting loyalties. Hence, conflict of loyalties is a theme that entered political writing along with the subject of loyalty itself, and it is already present in the story of Abraham and Isaac and in the tragedy of Antigone. Conflicts of loyalty are especially important during times of rapid social change and when the state feels threatened from within and without. During such times, individuals are uncertain of the intentions and the reliability of others, and the old patterns of belief and affiliation conflict with the new patterns that are emerging. Governments are then likely to require formal professions of loyalty, to undertake investigations of loyalty, and to insist on public adherence to official ideology (see Brown 1958; Schaar 1957). Loyalty is equated with conformity, criticism with disloyalty. The concept of “loyal op-position,” one of the supreme achievements of the liberal-democratic regimes, is placed in jeopardy.

Still, while conflicts of loyalty are dramatic and painful, it must be repeated that loyalty is the normal condition. Individuals, by processes similar to those subsumed under the theory of cognitive dissonance, tend to perceive their loyalties as mutually consistent, even when they might appear inconsistent to an observer. Or they tend to rationalize incompatible loyalty imperatives as not really incompatible after all.

In most political systems there is a measure of ambiguity as to just what one must be loyal to in order to be regarded as loyal. Does one owe loyalty to the nation? The government? Traditions and ideals? A mission? Rulers? Hence, actions which seem to be disloyal by one standard may be justified as entirely loyal by another. In all these ways, individuals are able to “save the appearances,” to regard themselves as loyal and to defend themselves against charges of disloyalty.

Political loyalty is supremely important both for individuals and for political communities, and many psychological mechanisms and social processes work to build and maintain it and to assure that loyalty rather than disloyalty or conflicts of loyalty will be the rule.

John H. Schaar

[See alsoDuty; Identification, Political; Nationalism. Other relevant material may be found inInternment And Custody; Personality, Political; Social Control; and in the guide to the reader and the articles underCommunity.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almond, Gabriel A.; and Verba, Sidney 1963 The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton Univ. Press.

Bloch, Herbert A. 1934 The Concept of Our Changing Loyalties: An Introductory Study Into the Nature of the Social Individual New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Brown, Ralph S. 1958 Loyalty and Security: Employment Tests in the United States. Yale Law School Studies, No. 3. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

C’urti, Merle 1946 The Roots of American Loyalty. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Dewey, John (1922) 1950 Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Modern Library.

Dicks, Henry V. 1950 Personality Traits and National Socialist Ideology. Human Relations 3:111–154.

Freud, Sigmund (1921) 1955 Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Volume 18, pages 67-143 in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth; New York: Macmillan.→ First published in German.

Grodzins, Morton 1956 The Loyal and the Disloyal: Social Boundaries of Patriotism and Treason. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Hoffer, Eric 1951 The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. New York: Harper. → A paperback edition was published in 1958 by New American Library.

Meerloo, Joost A. M. 1954 The Psychology of Treason and Loyalty. American Journal of Psychotherapy 8: 648-666.

Merriam, Charles E. 1931 The Making of Citizens: A Comparative Study of Methods of Civic Training. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Pye, Lucian W. 1962 Politics, Personality, and Nation Building: Burma’s Search for Identity. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Royce, Josiah (1908) 1936 The Philosophy of Loyalty. New York: Macmillan.

Schaar, John H. 1957 Loyalty in America. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

Schachter, Stanley 1959 The Psychology of Affiliation: Experimental Studies of the Sources of Gregariousness. Stanford Studies in Psychology, No. 1. Stanford Univ. Press.

Sherif, Muzafer; and Cantril, Hadley 1947 The Psychology of Ego-involvements, Social Attitudes and Identifications. New York: Wiley; London: Chapman.

Shils, Edward 1956 The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.

Shils, Edward; and Janowitz, Morris 1948 Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly 12:280–315.

West, R. G. Ranyard (1945) 1951 Conscience and Society: A Study of the Psychological Prerequisites of Law and Order. 2d ed. London: Methuen.

West, Rebecca (1947) 1964 The New Meaning of Treason. Rev. & enl. ed. New York: Viking. → First published as The Meaning of Treason.

422. Loyalty (See also Friendship, Patriotism.)

1. Achates companion and faithful friend of Aeneas. [Rom. Lit.: Aeneid ]
2. Adam family retainer; offers Orlando his savings. [Br. Lit.: As You Like It ]
3. Aeneas carried his father Anchises from burning Troy. [Rom. Lit.: Aeneid ]
4. alexandrite type of chrysoberyl typifying undying devotion. [Gem Symbolism: Jobes, 67]
5. Antony, Mark Caesar’s beloved friend; turns public opinion against Caesar’s assassins. [Br. Lit.: Julius Caesar ]
6. Argus Odysseus’ dog; overjoyed at Odysseus’ return, he dies. [Gk. Lit.: Odyssey ]
7. Balderstone, Caleb servant true to Ravenswoods despite poverty. [Br. Lit.: The Bride of Lammermoor ]
8. Bevis mastiff who “saved his master by his fidelity.” [Br. Lit.: Woodstock ]
9. Blondel loyal troubadour to Richard the Lion-hearted; helps him escape. [Br. Lit.: The Talisman ]
10. bluebell symbol of loyalty. [Plant Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 172]
11. Byam, Roger remains faithful to Captain Bligh after mutiny. [Am. Lit.: Mutiny on the Bounty ]
12. Camillo as counsellor, exemplifies constancy. [Br. Lit.: The Winter’s Tale ]
13. Chauvin, Nicolas (fl. early 19th century) he followed Napoleon through everything. [Fr. Hist.: Wallechinsky, 164]
14. Chester Matt Dillon’s lame but game sidekick. [TV: “Gun-smoke” in Terrace, I, 331–332]
15. Chingachgook ever-devoted to Hawkeye. [Am. Lit.: The Last of the Mohicans ]
16. Cordelia faithful daughter of sea god Llyr [Celtic Myth.: Parrinder, 67]; loyal and loving daughter of King Lear. [Br. Lit.: King Lear ]
17. dog ever pictured at feet of saints; “man’s best friend.” [Medieval Art: Brewer Dictionary, 332; Western Folklore: Misc.]
18. Dolius the loyal retainer of Odysseus and Penelope. [Gk. Lit.: Odyssey ]
19. Eros Antony’s freed slave; kills himself rather than harm Antony. [Br. Lit.: Antony and Cleopatra ]
20. Eumaeus loyal swineherd of Odysseus. [Gk. Lit.: Odyssey ]
21. Faithful Johannes loyal servant dies for king and is resurrected. [Ger. Fairy Tale: Grimm, 22]
22. Flavius loyal and upright steward of Timon. [Br. Lit.: Timon of Athens ]
23. Gloucester faithful to Lear, he tries to save the king from his daughters’ cruelty. [Br. Drama: Shakespeare King Lear ]
24. Gonzalo Prospero’s “true preserver and a loyal sir.” [Br. Lit.: The Tempest ]
25. Good-Deeds only companion who ultimately accompanies Everyman. [Medieval Lit.: Everyman ]
26. Horatio true-blue friend of Hamlet. [Br. Lit.: Hamlet ]
27. Horton “faithful one hundred percent,” Horton sits on the Mayzie bird’s egg until it is hatched. [Children’s Lit.: Horton Hatches the Egg ]
28. Iolaus nephew and trusted companion of Hercules. [Gk. Myth.: Howe, 141]
29. Jonathan stalwartly defended David; aided him in escape. [O.T.: I Samuel 20:32–34, 42; 23:16]
30. Kato loyal servant of the Green Hornet. [Radio: “The Green Hornet” in Buxton, 102–103]
31. Kent a “noble and true-hearted” courtier. [Br. Lit.: King Lear ]
32. Merrilies, Meg Henry Bertram’s Gypsy-nurse; thoroughly devoted and protective. [Br. Lit.: Guy Mannering ]
33. Moniplies, Richard Nigel’s servant; helps him out of imbroglio. [Br. Lit.: Fortunes of Nigel ]
34. Panza, Sancho squire to Don Quixote. [Span. Lit.: Don Quixote ]
35. Passepartout faithful valet of Phileas Fogg. [Fr. Lit.: Around the World in Eighty Days ]
36. Pilar fiercely devoted leader of a loyalist guerrilla group in the Spanish Civil War. [Am. Lit.: Hemingway For Whom the Bell Tolls ]
37. pirates of Penzance surrender only when charged by the police to yield in the name of their beloved Queen Victoria. [Br. Opera: Gilbert and Sullivan The Pirates of Penzance ]
38. Ruth devotedly follows mother-in-law to Bethlehem. [O.T.: Ruth 1:15–17]
39. Scipio Gil Blas’ secretary; shares his imprisonment. [Fr. Lit.: Gil Blas ]
40. speedwell indicates female faithfulness. [Flower Symbolism: Flora Symbolica, 177]
41. Suzuki ever faithful to her mistress, especially in sorrow. [Ital. Opera: Puccini, Madama Butterfly, Westerman, 358]
42. Titinius Cassius’ loyal follower; follows him to death. [Br. Lit.: Julius Caesar ]
43. Tom, Uncle “noble, high-minded, devoutly Christian Negro slave.” [Am. Lit.: Uncle Tom’s Cabin ]
44. Tonto the Lone Ranger’s constant companion. [Radio: “The Lone Ranger” in Buxton, 143–144; Comics: Horn, 460; TV: Terrace, II, 34–35]
45. Weller, Samuel servant helps imprisoned Mr. Pickwick by getting himself imprisoned with him. [Br. Lit.: Dickens Pick-wick Papers ]
46. Wiglaf stood by Beowulf to fight dragon while others fled. [Br. Lit.: Beowulf ]

loy·al·ty / ˈloiəltē/ • n. (pl. -ties) the quality of being loyal to someone or something: her loyalty to her husband of 34 years. ∎  (often loyalties) a strong feeling of support or allegiance: fights with in-laws are distressing because they cause divided loyalties.

loyalty n. pl. -ies
1. the quality of being loyal to someone or something: her loyalty to her husband of thirty-four years.

2. (often loyalties) a strong feeling of support or allegiance: fights with in-laws are distressing because they cause divided loyalties.

loyalty •footy, putti, sooty, tutti •shufti • casualty • deputy •butty, cutty, gutty, nutty, puttee, putty, rutty, smutty •mufti, tufty •bhakti • subtlety • humpty-dumpty •Bunty, runty •bustee, busty, crusty, dusty, fusty, gusty, lusty, musty, rusty, trusty •fealty • realty •propriety, society •loyalty, royalty •cruelty •Krishnamurti, Trimurti •liberty • puberty •faggoty, maggoty •Hecate • chocolatey • Cromarty •commonalty • personalty • property •carroty • guaranty • mayoralty •warranty • admiralty • severalty •poverty •Alberti, Bertie, dirty, flirty, shirty, thirty •uncertainty •Kirstie, thirsty •bloodthirsty