1500 words

Pride in one’s group seems like it should be valid to have. After all, some (all?) groups have been through some heinous things, and so most may think that it follows that they should be proud of their group, like their race or ethnicity. Take, for example, white pride, Asian price, black pride, Jewish pride, etc. None of them make any sense. They don’t make sense because they aren’t actual accomplishments. They are, in fact, proud of a lucky accident. Something they they themselves don’t choose at all. I will construct an argument I call “the agency-based price argument” to show that it’s nonsense to be proud of something you didn’t accomplish. While it may seem understandable that people may feel pride in their group, I will try to argue that this doesn’t make sense because ones race/ethnicity isn’t an accomplishment.

The argument

(P1) You should only be proud of things you accomplish.

(P2) Your race/ethnicity isn’t an accomplishment.

(C) So you shouldn’t be proud of your race/ethnicity.

The argument is clearly valid (modus ponens), but is it sound? I think so. And while I think there some ways a proponent of racial/ethnic pride (REP) could try to attack the argument, I will focus on the defense of the first premise.

P1 asserts that pride should normatively be tied to personal agency and effort, implying that only accomplishments—outcomes of deliberate actions—justify pride. Quite clearly, this is a merit-based definition of pride. While of course, people do feel pride in their group, that doesn’t make it a rational thing to hold pride about. Some defenses that could possibly be made against premise one fall short.

P1 makes a normative claim about what pride should be. P2 needs no defending since it’s a straightforward observation—one’s race or ethnicity isn’t something they themselves choose or accomplished, it’s just a lucky accident of birth. Since the argument is valid, if all of the premises are true then the argument is sound. Thus, the REP proponent would need to reject P1.

The way I am conceptualizing and defining “pride” in this argument is simple—a positive emotion of self-satisfaction or esteem derived from one’s personal accomplishments, which are outcomes derived from deliberate effort, agency, or responsibility. Thus, pride is warranted if and only if it is tied to actions or results and individual has actively contributed to excluding unchosen circumstances. Pride should be rooted in accomplishments that reflect an individual’s effort, skills, or intentional actions. One must have played a direct causal role in the outcome through their choices or actions, which ensures that pride is earned rather than passively received. So pride is a rational response to merit based on what one does not what one is. This is an agency-based definition of pride, so what matters here are outcomes. Pride requires agency and being born a certain way isn’t agentic.

Clearly, the definition of “pride” I am operating under is an agency-merit one. One may say “That’s just your definition, RR, so what?” But if I can be proud of anything that’s outside of my control, what power does the word even have? My definition preserves the only reason why pride was considered admirable.

So if the word “pride” is removed here when discussing race/ethnicity, which positive emotion are they referring to when they express feeling about their unchosen group status? They are referring to gratitude, belonging/solidarity, happiness, relief at no longer feeling shame, appreciation for their ancestors who have suffered. But none of those emotions requires using the pride concept.

When someone says they are proud of their race, what about other things outside of their control? Would it make sense to say they are proud of any other things that were outside of their control? Why should one feel pride in an unchosen trait?

Defending racial pride means one of two things: (A) membership in their group is itself an achievement or (B) their group is superior and they deserve credit for belonging to it. Let’s say tomorrow it was found out that race X’s achievements had actually been found to have had a worse track record than one who is proud of their race—fewer inventions, more atrocities, less resilience—would they feel less proud? If the answer is “yes” then the individual has admitted that their pride is just basically tribal score keeping, not personal achievement. If the answer is “no”, then pride has nothing to do with the group’s merits at all, so why should the group be brought into it?

The linguistic habit of calling unchosen traits a source of pride is not a harmless linguistic quirk; it is a surrender of the individual to the collective. Pride is one of the only positive emotions that signals personal responsibility. Allowing pride to be triggered by unchosen traits strips the word of its meaning. It no longer means “I earned this”, it then collapses to mean “I like having this.”

Certain other actions and choices people make are not sources of such pride. We treat other actions with shame at worst or neutrality at best. So if pride and shame are to remain to coherent moral emotions, they must track the boundary of agency. Things outside of my control can neither be pride-making or shame-making. Thus, extending pride to unchosen positives while rejecting it for unchosen negatives is arbitrary special pleading.

Pride refers to “I did”, not “I am.” We have words for appreciating unchosen things, like gratitude, contentment, joy, celebration. So why does it make sense to take the one word that uniquely means “I earned this”, and apply it to luck? Therefore, pride must remain tethered to merit. Being proud of your race is like feeling guilty for the weather, feeling jealous of your own possessions.

This is why pride without accomplishment doesn’t make any sense and is a logical contradiction; if asserts a causal responsibility that just does not exist. The emotion doesn’t make any sense when used for things an individual did not accomplish. The REP proponent—no matter if white, black, Asian, or any ethny—has no where to go. This argument holds for any racio-ethnic pride. Although some have argued that racial pride is a valid emotion in response to historical injustices, arguing that it fosters solidarity and resilience, but Frederick Douglas stated that the whole concept of racial pride is ridiculous (Fischer, 2021), and I of course would be included to agree with him.

Why would or should one be proud of their ancestor’s achievements? Would they be proud of the accomplishments of an individual of their same race that is alive at the same time as them? Or is it only for, say, the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Or the Revolutionary War? If one has ancestors from those time periods who were at those events and played pivotal roles in the events, should they be proud of it? No, they shouldn’t. Because there is no causal agency on their part. There is just a causal disconnect. The link between one’s ancestors and racial compatriots is their DNA and phenotype. If your great-great-grandfather signed the Declaration of Independence, should you feel proud? Should the descendants of Benedict Arnold feel shame? Should the grandchildren of SS officers hang their heads in shame? Should Italians feel pride for Caesar but disavow responsibility for Mussolini?

Having pride in historical achievements is like a cafeteria buffet, you’re only choosing what you want and ignoring everything else. Taking pride in the good but ignoring the bad. It’s like a British nationalist taking pride in their great British Empire that they were born into through nothing but luck but disowning slavery, genocide, and conquest. They’re just picking and choosing what to “feel pride for” when it comes to their ancestor’s achievements.

A parent who raises a child can feel proud of their children’s accomplishments because they had a hand in their own development. If a parent helped to create the conditions in which their child’s accomplishments occurred, then the parent is justified in taking pride in their children’s accomplishments, since they have the agency that necessitates such pride. This would be second-order pride, if the parent can point to specific costly actions they took, they grant the child primary ownership of the achievement, and they would have accepted proportionate responsibility had their child failed. Therefore, under these conditions a parent has a right to say that they are proud of their children and the accomplishments they made, since they had a direct hand in it.

Conclusion

Clearly, the argument I’ve mounted here shows that agency is intertwined with pride. Pride belongs only to the hands that did something and the mind that made the choices, not the blood and the luck that made one have the same race or be born in the same place as individuals from the past. One can admire their ancestor’s achievements and study them, but feeling pride for them? That’s obviously ridiculous.

As I’ve shown, pride is the emotion for personal accomplishments. Nothing else qualifies, not genes, skin color, ancestors, empires, co-racial strangers, and no child who’s success is on their own. The only exception is the parent who’s years of deliberate shaping helped the child become successful, but the pride must remain modest and cede the bulk to the child. But everything outside of this is gratitude, admiration, joy, or solidarity.