DEFINING CITIZENSHIP
The concept of citizenship have become increasingly salient and complex. Traditionally, citizenship comprises of full membership of the polity that is the nation-state. It is integrally linked to a territorial state and to the people who belong to the state. The analytical and historical differences between the nationality and citizenship arise in the modern overlay of the membership in the nation (nationality) and the active membership in the political state (citizenship). The word nation no longer denotes the sovereign people but the collection of people recognizing the authority of the same state. It is the political structure created by the state and the country under its control. When a person talks about the national
…show more content…
It means the legalization of rights, benefits and obligations of the citizens in a constitution. The institutionalization of citizenship makes the difference between the nationals and the non-nationals. It also underscores distinction between effective, full citizens and those without full memberships. Marshall’s notion of citizenship as a status denoting full membership in a community and to which are attached rights and duties outlines three distinct elements of citizenship: Civil, Political and Social. Recently, some citizens have also included cultural rights as the elements to the citizenship. These developments were driven by the state, the ruling economic and the political class and other socio-economic classes. They were a function of national conflict and were reflected in the state-citizenship nexus. They feature the deployment of nation-state, shared nationhood and bounded …show more content…
The concept and practice of citizenship have been struggling to encompass ideas, attitudes and activities for which it was not originally designed. The context in which the rights of citizenship are claimed and enjoyed and its duties discharged would be unrecognizable to Aristotle today.
According to Heater, citizenship has expended in three directions: demographical, legal-constitutional and geographical. Originally in the Greek city states, citizenship was formulated as an elite status whereas the expectations today is that it should be universally conferred.
The extension of civil/political citizenship to social citizenship and minority rights has certain contradictions within the nation-state. During the early liberal evolution of citizenship also, the same simplicity of legal status applied.
Citizenship is the fundamental institutions that connect the individual bearer of rights to the protective agencies of the state. The civic realms of the state provides the main channels through which individuals can participate politically and share in governance.
CITIZENSHIP IN EVERYDAY
There was something pulling me back” (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, 2000.) The citizen described by Aristotle is a member of the polis. The polis is particularly important in defining the citizen because it is what allows self-sufficiency. This self-sufficiency creates an artificial equality that causes people to do things for the public good.
In his article “The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics,” Russell Dalton, an author and political analyst, focuses on a specific issue in regards to “Citizenship and the Transformation of American Society.” Dalton tries to shine light on a complicated paradox issue by asking a stimulating question: ‘What does it mean to be a good citizen?’ Throughout the article, Dalton explores two types of citizenships while cross analyzing three generations that could resolve the paradox issue. His answer was confusing throughout the article, until it became apparent at the end of the article when Dalton explains the respect he has for his fellow peers views’ on ‘what does it mean to be a good citizen’ and who’s to blame
Around 500-600 BC, an Athenian man named Solon thought up and introduced various democratic ideas to his city-state of Athens. The ideas proposed by Solon, and many others such as Pericles and Cleisthenes, evolved over time into laws that many countries, including America use today. One of the ideas that Solon proposed was to allow all free, non- foreign males to be granted citizenship and be able to vote for laws and who would run the government. This idea grew and grew and now in America everyone born in the U.S. and others who have applied have citizenship. Along with the right to vote, the free, non-
In this paper I will argue that Socrates’s argument at 50a-b of the Crito would be not harming his fellow citizens by breaking the laws. Based on the readings from Plato’s The Five Dialogues, I will go over the reasoning of Socrates’ view on the good life. I will then discuss the three arguments Crito has for Socrates regarding his evasion of the death sentence including the selfish, the practicality, and the moral arguments. I will deliberate an objection to the argument and reply to the objections made in the paper and conclude with final thoughts. Socrates argues in the Crito that he should not escape or disobey the law because it is unethical.
Citizenship in Athens and Rome: Which was the Better System? 1. The idea of citizenship, or a status given by a government to its people, emerged in approximately 500 BCE. Citizens were responsible for playing significant roles in the life of the state or nation, but in turn were able to possess and benefit from certain rights. Compared to Athens, the Roman Republic's system of citizenship was better in the fact that it was more generous, although careful, in granting citizenship in which rights made the government much more organized.
Does John Locke have an answer to Aristotle’s question of: “what is a good citizen”? Aristotle wants to explore and understand nature of different states and constitutions but in order to do that, he argues that first we would have to take a deeper look at the nature of citizenship. Aristotle believes that saying that a citizen is someone who lives in a city or has access to the courts of laws is not enough, he supplements this argument by mentioning other people groups that has access to these things as well, specifically slaves and resident aliens (The Politics of Aristotle, 2009, p. 122). Instead, Aristotle proposes an idea that citizen is someone who upholds the public office and participates in administration of justice, this definition, which he suggests is only applicable to individuals in democratic state, is then further broadened stating that: “a citizen is anyone who is entitled to share in deliberative or judicial office”. To understand if John Locke has an answer to Aristotle’s question or if he’s even interested in such a question it is necessary to look deeper and explore more how Aristotle and John Locke views the states and constitutions, how they explain them and what are their views on citizenship (if they have any).
Citizenship is a status given by a government to some or all of its people. Being a citizen means not only meeting certain responsibilities, but also enjoying certain rights. In the U.S. today, many of our governmental institutions are based on concepts of the Ancient World. Citizenship in the United States resembles the concepts of citizenship in both Ancient Athens and Ancient Rome. Ancient Athens believed that participating in government and making the city-state work was a part of being a good citizen.
Nationalism is the pride for one’s country, the love that one has for its country and it is the want for the good of all people in the nation. This love is not conditional, it does not depend on race religion or economic standing. When a leader is chosen, when a country is coming out of great national change, this requires a particularly strong leader who only wishes for their countries greatness and success in the future. However, this can quickly turn into ultranationalism, or expose ultranationalistic motives. The two concepts of one’s love for their country have similarities, one is formed from the other, or that each can be provokers of change in either direction in the political spectrum.
Leho chavez states that in simple terms, citizenship for many is about the legal recognition that comes along with it, the formal membership in an organized political community (Chavez, 12). For those that are anti-immigration, citizenship is also about the rights, privileges and responsibilities (Chavez,12). There is a harsh effect when not being a citizen, since the 1996 welfare reform act made it harder for immigrants to achieve citizenship and also barred non-citizen immigrants from getting many social services like food stamps and medicare(Chavez, 13). Citizenship is further discussed with the discussion of anchor babies. Anchor babies, which are babies born to take advantage of 14th amendment.
Australian Citizenship Australian citizenship is your prerogative, once you have lived in Australia for a certain period of time. It offers a range of benefits and is considered the next step to your migration. It means that you are ready to commit to the country and what it stands for, and proudly, you can claim to be an Australian. It offers a wide range of benefits, being an Australian citizen. You will become part of a community that contributes to the welfare of the country and its people.
The fundamental roles of the individual citizen were to exercise these rights such as expressing their opinion in both speaking in public (freedom of speech, 11) and in deciding on things such as taxes (speaking to a representative,14). 3. How does the document define political sovereignty, and how is this definition related to the deputies’ collective sense of identity and
The word citizen is a term that is very fraught and at times contradictory in its underlying meaning and message being shared and shifts throughout the text. Not only does the word Citizen imply various meanings, but as a repetition in the text, the word “you” shifts as well which directly correlates to the theme of the title. A perfect example of you shifting meaning in text from showing that you directly becomes a term relating to an individual being an outsider in a community whereas throughout the text Claudia Rankine uses you as a ideology to show individuality with oneself. An exemplary example of Claudia Rankine's shift with the word you, is a situation in which she addresses you as racial minority and showing a white person on the outside.
Miller’s conception of “nationality” is inspired by John Stuart Mill’s writing in Chapter 16 of Considerations on Representative Government. In defending his principle of nationality, Miller takes into account three interconnected propositions – proposition concerning national identity, ethical proposition, and political proposition. Not withstanding the introduction and conclusion, the book is divided into five chapters. Miller dedicates one chapter each to the propositions concerning national identity (chapter 2) and ethical proposition (chapter 3), and two chapters (chapter 4 and chapter 5) to the political proposition. Specifically, chapter 2 discusses what it means to have a national identity and if this identity is rationally defensible; chapter 3 talks about the ethical significance in determining the duties we have as both individual and citizen; chapter 4 explores how the issues of sovereignty, self-determination and secession fit into the paradigm of nationalism; and chapter 5 confronts the conflict between nationality and cultural pluralism.
What is a good person, and how does one achieve the good life? These were the questions asked by the ancient Greeks. Arete, or excellence, was what the Greeks strove for in everything. In a quest for excellence, the Greeks experimented with new types of politics. Greece was divided into individual city-states that each had their own form of government.
(Young 2014:19). In addition, this framework implies that sociocultural complexity is the striking feature of the state – or, at least, characterises social groups that are in the process of becoming one. In his paper, Possehl goes against this view by