Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Model Answers Citizenship
Model Answers Citizenship
Q. What is Citizenship? Analyze the Greek View of Citizenship with special reference to Plato and
Aristotle.
Introduction
The whole idea of citizenship began in antiquity with the Greeks for whom politics was both an
art and a science. It was an idea that arose in the city-states during the teething period of
colonisation and the stirring times of the Persian wars out of the Greeks’ desire and appreciation
for liberty and cultural freedom. The socio-political atmosphere of the city-states, especially
Athens, allowed the citizens to participate in public life (Ibid.). The institution of slavery enabled
free citizens to have all the time to share in the judicial and deliberative administration of the
state. Greek citizenship was remarkably exclusive. The poleis were sharply stratified along
aristocratic lines and different categories of people inhabited them. They had varying statuses.
Some were citizens and others were not. Both however, had different obligations and functions.
GREEK
There was no distinction between a Greek’s public and personal life because both were
intertwined. The citizen’s obligations were connected to his everyday life in the polis and this
seems alien to the modern western notion where everyone minds his business (Hosking, 2005).
Generally, the Greeks believed that for a man to be truly human, he had to be a proactive citizen
in and to the state. He must be a good man, who possessed the knowledge, temperance,
capacity and justice to rule and be ruled, the total of which embraced the performance of his
civic duties. Aristotle impressed that, “to take no part in the running of the community’s affairs
is to be either a beast or a god”
The Greeks therefore, believed that citizenship should be based on obligations to the state
rather than on the rights given to the individual as we have it today. Indeed, for the 5th century
Greeks, and particularly in poleis such as Athens and Sparta, where the evidences are strong,
loyalty of the citizens lay first with their respective states. The destiny of the state was indeed
seen as their very destiny and truly, when a state is made up of ideal patriotic citizens, they feel
greater commitment to the community. Contrary to the Greeks’ experience, civic participation is
no longer required for citizenship in many countries of the world today. For instance, in the US,
there is no requirement to attend town meetings, belong to any party, vote in or run for
elections. Civic participation is purely voluntary.
BODY
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates, asserts that an ideal state would consist of three classes of citizens:
the guardians, the soldiers and the common people. The guardians are to rule the state, the
soldiers are to defend its sovereignty and the common people, such as farmers, merchants and
artisans, are to provide the material needs of the state. The guardians, who are the rulers of the
state, are seen by philosophers as kings. They are to undergo long and rigorous educational
programme until they are thirty-five years old before taking up any official assignment. They are
to own no private property but to live in communities together like monks and practice common
possession of things with nobody claiming anything as his own, at least while they lasted in
office. All their children belong to the state which would be responsible for their education. In
other words, Plato proposes, not only the elimination of private properties, but also of family.
This would enable the guardians to be completely dedicated to the service of the state. Since
the guardians’ double as rulers and decision makers of the state, it becomes imperative for
them to acquire or possess sophia, the quality or virtue of wisdom for only the wise, indeed the
philosopher-kings, have the reasoning capacity to grasp reality, draw conclusions and administer
justice
Similarly, the ruled, especially the soldiers, should not have private properties. They should live
communal lives and undergo educational, physical and military training to enable them to be
completely dedicated to the state. Because the primary duty of the soldiers is to defend the
state and protect its citizens from any internal and external aggression, they require the basic
virtue of courage (andreia), so as to willingly take orders from their rulers and face dangers.
Courage recognises and maintains the truth as a natural order and the commonest way to
exhibit fortitude is by reasonable endurance of ordinary difficulties of life. The rest of the
citizens should also undergo some certain level of educational, physical and military training to
enable them meet up with the both material and economic needs of the state. As the ruled in
the state, they must follow their leaders instead of pursuing private interests and exhibit the
virtue of moderation (sophrosyne), the subordination of personal desire to a higher purpose.
Between the Medieval and Renaissance period, the concept of citizen or citizenship shifted
slightly from socio-political considerations to other socio-cultural European traditions, pointing
to deeper historical pedigrees in the ties between the language of citizenship and the struggle
for communal independence. For instance, after the Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli, most
renowned and controversial as an advocate of citizen liberties, was stirred by the model of civic
virtue practiced by the Romans. Machiavelli, since his conception of the citizen-body remains
definitely patriarchal, called for a new ethos of devotion to the political community sealed by a
practice of collective self-rule and self-defence.
T.H. Marshall’s classic, Citizenship and Social Class which offers an explanation for the
successive growth of citizenship rights in the context of the development, course and
consequence of the capitalist mode of production. It is known that Marshall’s scholarship was a
ground-breaking exposition which embraced social and economic rights and questioned the
concept of citizenship with an explanation different from the solely narrow theory of formal
individual liberties. Moreover, Marshall identifies social rights as the “consumer rights of the
modern welfare”. In all, these categories of rights are paradigms of citizenship and they
belonged to, or rather, are given to the citizen through what Marshall termed the “status of
citizenship”
THE ARISTOTELIAN PERSPECTIVE
According to Aristotle, citizen must be someone who partakes in the active deliberations of the
state often through its assemblies and in the juries. The state (polis) comprises different
categories of citizens, sufficient enough to ensure and assure a sovereign and self-sufficient
polity. To ensure the self-sufficiency and assure sovereignty, participation of all citizens in
conduct of the polis is incontestable. And when Aristotle speaks of about participation, he infers
that the ideal citizen should participate and deliberate directly in the assembly; for him, voting
for representatives was simply not just enough. He must be available and willing to serve on
juries to sustain justice and help uphold the law. This is in contrast with the contemporary
realities in many states where there are very few opportunities to participate directly in politics.
Nigeria, for instance, operates an indirect system of citizen participation in government.
For Aristotle, participation in deliberation and decision-making means that the citizen is a part of
a group that discusses both the advantages and disadvantages, the good and bad, and the just
and unjust in the state and then passes law as well as reaches judicial decisions, all resulting
from robust deliberations earlier made. This procedure, as was practiced in the Athens of
Aristotle, warrants that all citizens should examine the various possible courses of actions and
weigh alternatives, primarily on their merits and demerits. By doing so, the citizen participates in
reason and speech, thereby fulfilling his purpose and developing his human potentials.
Participation, in this process, enables him to attain the virtuous and happy life.
Moreover, Aristotle says in a state where citizens are akin and equal by nature, all citizens
should be allowed to participate in politics, though not all at once. They must take turns, ruling
and being ruled in turn as it was in Athens. He asserts that citizenship is not just a bunch of right
and privileges but also a bundle of duties. The citizen has, not only certain freedom that the
non-citizen does not have, but also important obligations which include political participation
and military service. For him, political requirement of citizenship is entirely in accordance with
nature because citizenship is nothing less than the fullest attainment of human potentials in
terms of the “good life”, that is, the summum bonum.
The essence of citizenship therefore, lies in active participation. The citizen is also not merely a
free inhabitant of the state or a member of a political group; he is the essence of the state with
the ability to achieve the greatest measure of happiness and virtue as an integral part of the
community. For this reason, the citizen must have the leisure to devote himself to the political
and socio-cultural pursuits which facilitate the understanding of virtue.
It is against this background that Aristotle affirms that the citizen must not live a mechanical or
commercial life which is ignoble and militates against the attainment of virtue. Thus, Aristotle
recognizes the fact that the picture of citizenship changes as constitution or demography
changes. All in all, Aristotle holds that a citizen should participate actively in his state affairs and
constitution.
CONCLUSION
Plato and Aristotle, both of whom defined the content of ancient political philosophy, were
sceptical of the inherent goodness of democracy. It is difficult to explain how, when ancient
Greece was experimenting with novel democratic practices, including citizenship, of course with
all their limitations, the pinnacle of ancient Greek philosophy epitomized in the works of Plato
and Aristotle achieved its greatness outside the realm of the democratic imagination. Perhaps
one answer lies in how both theory and practice, despite their differences and separation from
each other, took all too seriously the collective pursuit of the good life in different directions.
At the heart of all these different conceptions is a desire to reclaim for democratic life the
imperative of active citizenship. Novel practices of accountability (such as social audits or
democratic audits), the sine qua non of any true democracy, need to be encouraged outside the
realm of formal political structures and institutions. Last but not the least, more realistic
assessment of the classical conception of citizenship may be called for. But the idea of the
bounded polis with an active citizenship body will keep alive the democratic imagination for a
long time.
Q. Will Kymlicka’s views on citizenship in context of diversity.
INTRO
Diversity is the extent of various noticeable and non-noticeable differences of people. These can include
visible elements such a skin, colour hair, physical disabilities and gender as well as non-visible elements
such as sexuality, religious beliefs and mental disabilities. People of different ethnic groups as well as
different religions, genders and sexual beliefs exist in different parts of the world and often can be
different based on the place. It is very important that all citizens of the world accept those of different
diversity features and do not discriminate them in any way. It is absolutely crucial that diversity
acceptance is present in the public services as they often act as role models towards society.
BODY
MULTICULTURAL CITIZENSHIP
Whenever a state has a majority community and number of small cultural minorities, clashes between
majority and minority communities over issues such as language rights, regional autonomy, political
representation, education curriculum, land claims, immigration and naturalization policy, even national
symbols, such as the choice of national anthem or public holidays.
Both parts of the world i.e., one comprising of western Europe and America and other comprising of
Eastern Europe and third world countries are dealing these diversity problems differently. The former
faces volatile disputes over the rights of immigrants, indigenous people and other cultural minorities
and the latter suffers from violent nationalistic conflicts. Some of these conflicts are intractable because
of lack of sense of fairness, lack of tolerance, unique historical and circumstantial background of every
dispute.
Kymlicka thus focuses on key concepts and principles to be considered while building a framework for a
liberal approach to minority rights. Western political tradition has always operated in an idealized model
of polity in which fellow citizens share a common descent, language and culture.
According to the historical accounts, governments in order to achieve homogenous polity have pursued
various policies such,
4. Likewise, similar attempts have been made in the history to protect cultural minorities and to
regulate the potential conflicts between majority and minority cultures for example –
1. Bilateral treaties – Germany agreed to accord certain rights and privileges to Polish people
residing within its borders, so long as Poland similar rights to ethnic Germans in Poland. This
treaty was extended a more multilateral basis under League of Nations.
2. Such treaties had limitation since the only protection which was provided to the minorities
was from discrimination and oppression. Treaty provisions were often used as grounds for
invasion by ‘kin state’ who took interests in protection of minorities in their land.
For example, Nazi Germany justified its invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia on the
grounds that these countries were violating the treaty rights for ethnic Germans on their
soil.
Most of the liberals thought that minority conflicts can be addressed under the new scheme of human
rights instead of direct protection to the vulnerable groups through special rights. Cultural minorities
would be indirectly protected by guaranteeing civil and political rights to all individuals regardless of
group membership. They believed that if these rights were firmly protected liberals assumed that no
further were needed to be attributed to members of specific ethnic or national minorities.
Liberals compared the idea of universal human rights to the 16th century episode of religious conflict
between protestants and Catholics and the disintegration of European states which was finally resolved
by separating the Church and the state and entrenching each individual’s freedom of religion. Liberals
suggest the same model of ethno-cultural differences as well
Left liberals suggest affirmative action for disadvantageous racial communities intended to move
towards a society which could have existed had there been a separation of state and ethnicities right
from beginning i.e., colour blind society.
For other liberals, affirmative action is counter-productive. It exacerbates the problem rather than
solving it by making these people more conscious of group differences and more resentful of other
groups. All liberals commonly reject the idea of permanent differentiation in the rights or status of the
members of certain groups.
But TRADITIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS standards have failed to address certain issues pertaining to cultural
minorities such as
1. Right to free speech – does not tell what an appropriate language policy is.
2. Right to vote – how political boundaries should be drawn or how powers should be distributed
between levels of government.
3. Right to mobility – does not tell what an appropriate immigration policy is.
So normally questions like these are decided by majoritarian decision making of state. Kymlicka suggests
supplementing traditional human rights with the theory of minority rights.
- Abuse of language of minority rights for example, for racial segregation and apartheid.
- By belligerent nationalist and fundamentalist groups.
-
FORMS OF MULTICULTURALISM- The term multiculturalism covers many different forms of
‘cultural pluralism’ each of which raises its own challenges. Generalizations about the goals or
consequences of multiculturalism can therefore be very misleading.
A. National minorities form of cultural diversity arising from the incorporation of previously
self- governing, territorially concentrated cultures into a larger state. These communities
wish to maintain themselves as distinct societies alongside the majority culture and demand
various forms of autonomy or self-government to ensure their survival as distinct societies.
(Through federalism)
Such states with multiple nationalities are also called as ‘multination states’ Here nation refers
to a historical community more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or
homeland, sharing, a distinct language, culture. The incorporation of multination in one state
can be involuntary when cultural community is invaded and conquered by another, or is ceded
from one imperial power to another, or when its homeland is overrun by colonizing settlers.
FINLAND, NEW ZEALAND. It can be voluntary when different cultures agree to form federation
for their mutual benefit. Example is U.S.A.
B. Ethnic groups- cultural diversity arising from individual and familial immigration. Such
immigrants often coalesce into loose associations. They typically wish to integrate into
larger society, and to accept as full members of it. while they often seek greater recognition
of their ethnic identity, their aim is not to become a separate and self – governing nation
alongside larger society, but to modify the institutions and laws of the main stream society
to make them more accommodating of cultural differences. Such states are called poly
ethnic states. Example U.S.A, Canada, Australia.
Kymlicka suggests that the category collective rights is large and heterogeneous and must not be
confused with idea of group differentiated rights.
THREE FORMS OF GROUP DIFFERENTIATED RIGHTS
- Poly-ethnic rights – these are rights intended to help ethnic groups of a religious minority
express their cultural particularity and pride without it hampering their success in the economic
and political institutions of the dominant society. These are not temporary because the cultural
differences they protect are not something that are sought to be eliminated
CONCLUSION
It is very beneficial for public services organisations to have employees from a diverse range of
backgrounds. This brings greater understanding of different cultures and religions as well as different
languages in order to communicate better with society. Composition of the local and national
community - places with emerging economies such and new environments such as Hong Kong must be
aware of different cultures and religious beliefs in order to deal with situations which involves people
with such different beliefs. This allows governments and citizens to be able to treat different people
fairly and equally. This is extremely important in public services organisations especially in the work
place. Different ethnic groups should be accepted in the workplace in public service environments as
they have a huge benefit towards these organisations. Having a diverse workforce positively impacts
society as it allows public services to be able to attend to more diverse groups correctly and fairly to
avoid discrimination of any kind maintaining trust in such services.
Q. Multiculturalism and its Response to pluralistic society. Elaborate.
INTRO: MULTICULTURAL IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP
Introduction
Multicultural idea of citizenship emphasizes the need to supplement the focus on common
rights with greater attention to cultural pluralism and group differentiated rights. This idea is a
challenge to the liberal or universal idea of citizenship discussed under the heads like ‘politics of
difference’; ‘identity politics’; ‘politics of recognition’ etc.
Trends before the onset of multicultural challenge-
a. Diversity was ignored and the model of ‘normal citizen’ prevailed mostly representing
the white males.
b. Deviation from this model meant exclusion, marginalization and silencing.
c. Non-white groups were often denied entry to the Western democracies or if admitted,
were expected to assimilate to become citizens.
d. Indigenous people were either shunted into isolation or were expected/forced to
abandon their traditional lifestyle.
e. Homosexuality was criminalized and if not, criminalized gays were expected to hide
their sexuality in public sphere.
f. Trend today is such that these multi-cultural identities demand inclusive conception of
citizenship which recognizes their identities and which accommodates their differences.
g. Multicultural movement is different from previous forms of movement because they
were class-based movements focused on economic interests and multicultural
movement is identity based. But in reality, identity and interest cannot be separated.
The traditional model of citizenship /liberal model of citizenship i.e., ‘citizenship as rights’
sort to promote certain sort of common national identity among the citizens. It is evident
from T.H Marshall’s definition of citizenship not merely a legal status defined by a set of
rights and responsibilities but also an identity or expression of one’s membership in a
political community. As a matter of fact, his argument for extending the citizenship rights to
include basic social rights like health and education was oriented towards creation of a
common national identity.
Social rights had both humanitarian purpose and also that it would help integrate previously
excluded groups into a common national culture and thereby provided a source of national
unity and loyalty.
Fear behind cultural inclusion through provision of social rights for example in case of
Britain was the English working class might get tempted to support foreign ideas particularly
communism. It is easier for a state to govern a society when its citizens share a common
national language, culture and identity. All institutions function in a better and smooth way.
Various categories of multicultural minorities are homosexuals, religious minorities.
Marshall’s strategy of including all minorities is a failure: -
Criticism levelled against religious minorities who ask for differentiated citizenship along
with common citizenship is that the leaders of such religious groups encourage feelings of
resentment and inequality amongst group members to maintain their control over them
and to justify receiving grants for their organizations.
POLITICS OF RECOGNITION- NANCY FRAZER (identity-based hierarchy) (status hierarchy)
It focuses on cultural injustices, rooted in social patterns of representation, interpretation
and communication, including cultural domination, non-recognition, and disrespect.
- The remedy is cultural or symbolic change to upwardly revalue disrespected
communities.
- Affirming group differences.
- Targeting groups defined by relations of recognition and who enjoy lesser esteem,
privilege, honor and prestige than other groups.
REMEDY:
- Economic restructuring such as income redistribution, reorganization of division of
labour or regulating investment decisions.
- The target of public policies are classes defined economically by distinct relations to the
market or the means of production.
2. Gays- they are economically well off but culturally stigmatized. In western democracies,
they suffer from extreme homophobia.
3. Well established immigrant communities like Arabs, and Japanese – Americans who
enjoy higher than average levels of income and education but suffer from cultural
marginalization.
4. Catalans and Quebecois are cultural minorities enjoy same living standards as majority
and in some cases actually higher than average income and education yet their cultural
is seen as inferior to that of the majority.
5. There are lower income groups who are economically at lower rung in the society but
enjoy higher status because they think that their being heterosexual, white skinned and
protestant status is the accepted norm of the society.
Policies regarding public service employment, military service, national media, and so on: tools
of nation building. They target ethno-cultural minorities to integrate into common public or
they can try to build their own institutions or else they can opt simply to be left alone and live-
in state of voluntary isolation.
Three of these alternatives require certain accommodations from the state in form of
multicultural policies or self-government and language rights, trade rights land right.
Minorities often feel threatened by state nation building and fear that it will create various
burdens, barriers or disadvantages for them. Minority rights are understood as mechanisms for
protecting minorities from these possible injustices. Since different kind of minorities face distinct
threats from state nation building their corresponding minority rights claim will also differ.
These injustices faced by indigenous people are different from immigrants and are reflected in minority
rights claimed by them. Multi-cultural rights are a defensive response to the state nation building.
There exists a dialectic between state nation -building. Kymlicka raises a concern here that in
everyday public analysis and debate minority rights are often described as 'forms of special
status of privileges' and minorities are often considered a pushy and aggressive for demanding
concession and advantages.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, we see that both liberal and radical attempts to define multicultural
citizenship have several problems. Even though Kymlicka provides an exact elaboration of who
the minorities are, in most cases national minorities get precedence over ethnic immigrants. It
is significant to note that in practice, multicultural citizenship has been exceedingly rare. Today,
only Australia and Canada explicitly declare the use of the doctrine. However, their
multicultural citizenship differs significantly from what we find in theory. Multiculturalism
therefore needs to explore the ways through which the sense of alienation and disadvantage
that accompanies minority status is visibly diminished.