Here it is, a day before I see your next post, Josh. I finally comment after a week of mulling. I think the word citizen connotes a location, a place. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned in that regard, but it seems to me that the power of citizenship diminishes as the circumference of the circles around us grows. I am more easily heard, potentially more powerful, and therefore more responsible in the nearby "city" (Rougemont is very little hamlet of a place) than I am in the larger frames of state (i.e., province) or nation or, heaven forbid, planet.
And so, I do think that the concept of citizenship has meaning and even a moral substance that is tied with the plain and increasingly outmoded notion of locality. I think that locality has transformed through technologies like the telephone, the radio/television, and (most of all) the Internet and its applications. I live a world away from you, Josh, and yet I have easily exchanged ideas with you. I have waved at my neighbors in the heat of the US southern summer, but have I exchanged words?
Does this technological re-centering of our spheres make citizenship a cipher? I wonder if that's part of the problem with the concept; perhaps that warping of locality also warps our responsibilities or perceptions of power. And makes it more likely for evil to emerge in larger frames. Or, perhaps, makes it easier for us to see the evils that are done as if -- as if! -- on our behalf.
Interesting point on the diminishing power of citizenship with the dissolution of distance/space and one I'm inclined to agree with - I guess there is a difference between citizenship in the traditional sense and the broader politicization of identity. The latter has become a key fixture of public discourse and as you rightly mentioned, it further complicates any straightforward meaning of what being a citizen means. Unless of course we define it within the conceptual perimeters of locality.
I've just finished a recent re-read of Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to death" and your observation on technology re-defining space was reflected in the book. Perhaps the changing media ecology around us has a profound impact in dismantling past conceptual reference points that we use to explain ideas such as identity, state and citizenhood. From a governance standpoint and in the current age of social media, citizenhood seems to lend itself well to various flavours of authoritarian rule, or at least that is what recent history seems to tell us.
Your comment has inspired me to think about this more deeply!
Postman's book is good, even though he seems remarkably grouchy at times. Another view of social media in particular is Jaron Lanier's work. Of course, he's very much an insider -- some would say a father of VR -- but he is very skeptical of the way that social networks have evolved, and his skepticism arises from the economic foundations of the commercial internet. You may already be familiar with him. Some of his thinking intersects with the kinds of shaping (distortions?) that frameworks of social media imprint on society and the roles and responsibilities of citizenship.
As a kid (and still) I always felt I was a world citizen, humanity being one nation.
I grew up in a province of the Netherlands that is most separate from the Netherlands as a nation. Also, I am half North-African. I was torn between three cultures—Dutch, Frisian, Moroccan—so I didn't fit anywhere regarding culture or ethnicity. But still, I did feel kinship with many people, regardless of their background. I was very naïve thinking everyone felt like that though. Luckily the internet and global friendships came along in my early teens!
Thanks for sharing. Very intriguing and I can only imagine the rich mix of customs, beliefs and practices you must have grown up with!
I share your sentiments about being a world citizen. I've similarly grown up around/in different cultures - but maybe not as many as you have. I'm of Indian ethnicity but was born in Singapore and have spent more than half of my life in Australia. I've always found it difficult to fully identify with any one culture in particular - because I didn't have a fixed reference point as such. And Singapore and Australia are pretty cosmopolitan in their make up.
I believe that the kinship you speak of is really what it means to be human - to cherish each other for the humanness they possess over and above their national identity.
I’ve never liked the term citizen for some reason. Maybe it’s that hint of conformity and blind obedience. I would rather subscribe to community as a term - despite being a rather solitary person. Community invites - citizenship compels, I believe. Always for me it is freedom that is important and to be compelled is a manipulation. When invited we have a choice.
Yes, there seems to be an implicit power dynamic in the term ‘citizen’. It also assumes an “otherness” - people who aren’t citizens and hence outside the remit of national concern as far as national interests go. The latter point I find rather stifling towards fostering any sense of shared vision built on common experience rather than national ideology.
To me, the concept of citizenhood seems to have more of an administrative and governance purpose over anything remotely human.
Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. I am a citizen and I choose to live within that framework, but for me, being a citizen is not even to close to a primary identity. When being a citizen of one country or another becomes the way in which a person primarily defines themself, then the individual is all but lost. It's that tight rope between a unified humanity and individual fulfillment.
Thanks Brian. You brought up a really interesting point on agency and choice in your comment: “choosing to live within the framework”. That’s an important nuance (that I’ve not really touched on in the article) given that citizenship for a lot of people is a functional ideal rather than an ideological or even personal one.
I like the analogy of the tightrope. It is a difficult balance between appreciating the machinery of the state for what it provides but keeping a critical distance from it in terms of defining ourselves and broader purpose. I think the media often conflate these 2 aspects especially when discussing national identity or a a specific country’s diplomatic stance. These aspects don’t define the individual as you’ve rightly said.
So beautiful. And this speaks to so many of our dreams: “ What if the rallying cry for unity emanated not from the brick and mortar institutions of power but from a mutual recognition of the humanity that resides in all.” It’s so odd, really, that rights aren’t considered universal within political boundaries but are instead tied to one’s documented legal status.
Thanks Antonia and I personally feel that the general hesitancy in universalising rights stems from the unwillingness of (certain) leaders to define their sphere of influence on human ideals. The latter I suppose appears more abstract, as much of humanism is, and hence less controllable from a governance perspective.
I don't disagree with your essay - I consider myself to be on Team Humankind - among other subsets - and the crimes committed in the name of a national identity are beyond calculation.
But... the subsets can still bring both value and connection.
I definitely agree Mark and great point. Perhaps, there is greater meaning and value when we are able to see those threads of commonality that bind us all together across national boundaries. We somehow cherish these connections more because they seem less obvious at a superficial level.
Here it is, a day before I see your next post, Josh. I finally comment after a week of mulling. I think the word citizen connotes a location, a place. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned in that regard, but it seems to me that the power of citizenship diminishes as the circumference of the circles around us grows. I am more easily heard, potentially more powerful, and therefore more responsible in the nearby "city" (Rougemont is very little hamlet of a place) than I am in the larger frames of state (i.e., province) or nation or, heaven forbid, planet.
And so, I do think that the concept of citizenship has meaning and even a moral substance that is tied with the plain and increasingly outmoded notion of locality. I think that locality has transformed through technologies like the telephone, the radio/television, and (most of all) the Internet and its applications. I live a world away from you, Josh, and yet I have easily exchanged ideas with you. I have waved at my neighbors in the heat of the US southern summer, but have I exchanged words?
Does this technological re-centering of our spheres make citizenship a cipher? I wonder if that's part of the problem with the concept; perhaps that warping of locality also warps our responsibilities or perceptions of power. And makes it more likely for evil to emerge in larger frames. Or, perhaps, makes it easier for us to see the evils that are done as if -- as if! -- on our behalf.
Beautifully articulated as always Mark.
Interesting point on the diminishing power of citizenship with the dissolution of distance/space and one I'm inclined to agree with - I guess there is a difference between citizenship in the traditional sense and the broader politicization of identity. The latter has become a key fixture of public discourse and as you rightly mentioned, it further complicates any straightforward meaning of what being a citizen means. Unless of course we define it within the conceptual perimeters of locality.
I've just finished a recent re-read of Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to death" and your observation on technology re-defining space was reflected in the book. Perhaps the changing media ecology around us has a profound impact in dismantling past conceptual reference points that we use to explain ideas such as identity, state and citizenhood. From a governance standpoint and in the current age of social media, citizenhood seems to lend itself well to various flavours of authoritarian rule, or at least that is what recent history seems to tell us.
Your comment has inspired me to think about this more deeply!
Postman's book is good, even though he seems remarkably grouchy at times. Another view of social media in particular is Jaron Lanier's work. Of course, he's very much an insider -- some would say a father of VR -- but he is very skeptical of the way that social networks have evolved, and his skepticism arises from the economic foundations of the commercial internet. You may already be familiar with him. Some of his thinking intersects with the kinds of shaping (distortions?) that frameworks of social media imprint on society and the roles and responsibilities of citizenship.
Powerful, honest raw words - respect
Thanks David much appreciated.
As a kid (and still) I always felt I was a world citizen, humanity being one nation.
I grew up in a province of the Netherlands that is most separate from the Netherlands as a nation. Also, I am half North-African. I was torn between three cultures—Dutch, Frisian, Moroccan—so I didn't fit anywhere regarding culture or ethnicity. But still, I did feel kinship with many people, regardless of their background. I was very naïve thinking everyone felt like that though. Luckily the internet and global friendships came along in my early teens!
Thanks for sharing. Very intriguing and I can only imagine the rich mix of customs, beliefs and practices you must have grown up with!
I share your sentiments about being a world citizen. I've similarly grown up around/in different cultures - but maybe not as many as you have. I'm of Indian ethnicity but was born in Singapore and have spent more than half of my life in Australia. I've always found it difficult to fully identify with any one culture in particular - because I didn't have a fixed reference point as such. And Singapore and Australia are pretty cosmopolitan in their make up.
I believe that the kinship you speak of is really what it means to be human - to cherish each other for the humanness they possess over and above their national identity.
Ah, such a similar experience indeed! And I see more people in our (writing) "vicinity" have this humanness as well. Thanks for sharing.
I’ve never liked the term citizen for some reason. Maybe it’s that hint of conformity and blind obedience. I would rather subscribe to community as a term - despite being a rather solitary person. Community invites - citizenship compels, I believe. Always for me it is freedom that is important and to be compelled is a manipulation. When invited we have a choice.
Yes, there seems to be an implicit power dynamic in the term ‘citizen’. It also assumes an “otherness” - people who aren’t citizens and hence outside the remit of national concern as far as national interests go. The latter point I find rather stifling towards fostering any sense of shared vision built on common experience rather than national ideology.
To me, the concept of citizenhood seems to have more of an administrative and governance purpose over anything remotely human.
Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. I am a citizen and I choose to live within that framework, but for me, being a citizen is not even to close to a primary identity. When being a citizen of one country or another becomes the way in which a person primarily defines themself, then the individual is all but lost. It's that tight rope between a unified humanity and individual fulfillment.
Thanks Brian. You brought up a really interesting point on agency and choice in your comment: “choosing to live within the framework”. That’s an important nuance (that I’ve not really touched on in the article) given that citizenship for a lot of people is a functional ideal rather than an ideological or even personal one.
I like the analogy of the tightrope. It is a difficult balance between appreciating the machinery of the state for what it provides but keeping a critical distance from it in terms of defining ourselves and broader purpose. I think the media often conflate these 2 aspects especially when discussing national identity or a a specific country’s diplomatic stance. These aspects don’t define the individual as you’ve rightly said.
So beautiful. And this speaks to so many of our dreams: “ What if the rallying cry for unity emanated not from the brick and mortar institutions of power but from a mutual recognition of the humanity that resides in all.” It’s so odd, really, that rights aren’t considered universal within political boundaries but are instead tied to one’s documented legal status.
Thanks Antonia and I personally feel that the general hesitancy in universalising rights stems from the unwillingness of (certain) leaders to define their sphere of influence on human ideals. The latter I suppose appears more abstract, as much of humanism is, and hence less controllable from a governance perspective.
I don't disagree with your essay - I consider myself to be on Team Humankind - among other subsets - and the crimes committed in the name of a national identity are beyond calculation.
But... the subsets can still bring both value and connection.
I definitely agree Mark and great point. Perhaps, there is greater meaning and value when we are able to see those threads of commonality that bind us all together across national boundaries. We somehow cherish these connections more because they seem less obvious at a superficial level.
And to the point of your post, many terrible things have been done in the name of nations.