“Citizenship” usually denotes the existence of a group of people within in a strict, geographically demarcated nation-state. But as people, ideas, goods and services are able to move more freely, the relationship of a citizen to their nation becomes complicated.
It brings about the issue of national identity as well as the rights and duties associated with it. As nationalism can challenge the notions of cultural diversity within nations, globalization complicates the notion of national citizenship itself.
In these trying times, we have an opportunity to redefine and rejuvenate citizenship in order to temper down on nationalism and reap the benefits of globalization. What does society even mean, you may ask, when people living in such close proximity are divided into groups with widely varying allegiances and obligations?
In America, most of Europe and sometimes Asia, citizenship seems to correspond less and less to the bounds of any country as time has gone on. The bonds of loyalty that people used to feel towards towards other citizens seem to be melting away.
For example, political ideology is a key factor for loyalty in America, while religion has become a more important factor for gauging loyalty in India. These and similar examples in other nations have reduced the sense of shared purpose and values which were part of common citizenship.
For most citizens of any country, very little is asked in return for the benefits and rights of citizenship. Is it because we are required to give so little that we value it so little?
I am not suggesting that everyone has to earn their citizenship in a legal sense, with the official papers and passports to prove their loyalty. What I am suggesting instead is a conception of citizenship where service, military or civilian, is seen as duty.
Military service has always been seen as a noble act of duty to one’s country, but it is not the only duty that citizens have. The question then arises: what other types of service should be considered?
We should inculcate a sense of shared duty and purpose that motivates everyone to contribute to society outside of their dayjob. The content of citizenship has to be broad enough to reflect diverse motivations of people in the country.
Poverty, homelessness, global warming and ethnic nationalism are just some of the problems we face today that need public engagement at every level of society — individuals, families, neighborhoods, schools, cities, states and nations should take action.
These efforts can be through teaching at a low-income school, running for office, serving the elderly, raising awareness about global warming, participation in community decision-making and more.
Such forms of service will foster bonds of shared purpose and values among people living close by to one another and serve to temper the increasingly divisive individualism that our lives have been confined to. The service I am suggesting is meant to be a regular, active citizenship.
Does this sound paternalistic? It is certainly not aligned with the prevailing notion of freedom we enjoy to do things as we like or not do them at all.
But if the very suggestion of service as a duty of citizenship feels judgemental, where does that leave the tradition of citizenship as a responsibility? Certainly, it shows how far we have strayed from what the framers of modern constitutional democracies conceived around republicanism, in which voting is just one of the myriad of means to participate in representative self-governance and society.
Reviving and renewing active citizenship can do more than just solve social and community issues — it can reinvest value in citizenship, broaden its meaning and reduce its fractiousness.
