Citizenship: an idea in transformation

Globalisation and European unification are challenging national definitions of citizenship. This long-term trend makes a pragmatic focus on the welfare aspects of "people flow" problematic. The key impact of migrants on developed societies goes far wider - to reshape how citizens relate not just to migrants, but to each other.

*snip*

The authors of People Flow have proposed connecting such a citizenship ceremony to the wider European context. What is interesting about their prototype in general is the acknowledgement of a shift which has been taking place over the last decade, towards the creation of a concept which would have been considered an aberration only a few years ago: European citizenship.

This profound transformation of a citizenship concept still conditioned by national affiliation into a form of supra-national belonging, is an attempt to rise to the challenge of the unprecedented effects of globalisation, by creating some basic common ground of rights and duties beyond national borders.

The modern concept of citizenship is changing. Take as an example the challenge of dual citizenship. Can one be loyal to more than one state? For a long time this seemed highly improbable and unreliable. Nations worldwide did their best to cultivate such mistrust: dual citizenship was prohibited by law ? not only nationally, but also internationally, by mutual agreement.

www.opendemocracy.net...

The article is pretty long but it's worth the read. Globalisation is indeed changing the concept of citizenship.

I'm all for it.

As an American (knowing I will be bashed here for this) I want balance in the superpower void to save America from itself.

Then one day we may explore the stars together as citizens of Earth, not refuges of AmeriKa.

Cool. I believe it was our good friend Weishaupt that said "nationality is a fetter" and "patriotism is a hindrance to the solidarity of mankind." On those points, I'll agree. My nationalism is to the earth, and my patriotism to humanity.

As long as we divide ourselves into warring nation-states, much like teams at a football game, we'll continue to build WMDs because "they other guy might have them." Why do we need to choose sides? Aren't we all on the same side, in the end?

Originally posted by logiclock
1) Why do we need to choose sides?

2) Aren't we all on the same side, in the end?

1) Because there are many sides. ( Socialist, commies, nazis, ecologist, liberals and so on... )

2) Not at all. Read above and read my signature.

[Edited on 8-12-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

I'm thinking more in the overall picture. Communism, socialism, capitalism, and the other -isms are techniques that initially try to accomplish the same goals: provide security for men, let people do what suits them best, and maintain social order. Implementations of governance get flawed and corrupted, but I think they all start out with the same aims.

I'm also concerned with citizens being on the same side, as individuals - not part of power structures. If I was to talk to the most die-hard socialist or fascist, I'm sure we'd have the same basic goals: eat good food, keep our family safe, and be free to pursue our individual interests.

Of course, there are always exceptions. Some people want to be above everyone else. It just strikes me as odd that every civilization aims to accomplish the same things, hence all on the same side.

It's the technique that gets distorted and individual yahoos that mess things up. "People are people," as the cliche goes.