If We Ask Ourselves What Being a Citizen Means and Subsequently How We Should Behave In

The awareness of belonging as the first step towards the virtuous citizen

If we ask ourselves what being a citizen means and subsequently how we should behave in order to be considered citizens who deserve this name, we realize immediately that theseconsiderations all depart from the perception of the importance to feel we belong to something that might be a community more or less great in number, a political institution, a universe of menconnectedby the same origin from the thought of a greater creature.

From this point of view we realize what deep difference there can be in a definition of what we are in accordance with what we belong to, since this can be expressed by each of us stressing a specific aspect or feature of what we are part of, even though every thought on this topic, as previously stated, departs from the idea of belonging in itself.

For the topic here analyzed, men’s idea of fellowship can mainly be distinguished into that exemplified by the Polis with citizens who belonged to what was in its nature first of all a political association, idea reinterpreted centuries later by Hegel under the form of the Ethical Prussian State, and the concept ofa universal community of global citizens which is developed to its greater extent in Christian religion.

In the first casethe idea of virtuous citizen in a more general perception is over placed to one that sees in him just a tool of thestate-machine that has to be well oiled to ensure the closest adherence towhat are the needs and the features of the State, which passes from instrument to authority.

While this last idea is that of a universal community in which we have no right to distinguish between those who belong to it and those who, let the reason be political, social or ontological, do not. Let alone all the sub-divisions of men united under the name of any discriminating elements such as culture, religion or race, it is the awareness of how our actions involve the others and of what effect they might have on them that ought to guide our behaviour in a direction or another and make us realize we are all part of the same society. Our actions should be directed towards a community of equally righted creatures according to Kant’sprinciple of ideally extending our behaviour to each of them and judging its morality under this universal perspective.

In the behaviour of men rights and responsibilities melt together in order to shape a figure that finds in the others a continuation of himself that has to be expressed, respected, criticized.In addition to this, if we want to follow the teachings of one of the main personalities of the twentieth century, Gandhi, we should realize that we should first worry to respect our duties, since if we chase our rights without interest in our responsibilities, they will behave like chimeras: the more we run after them the further they’ll run away from us.

Even if this view can, or even ought to be in nowadays society, shared for its positive principle of equality, it is just when we realize it’s the presence of differences itself that enriches a community that the idea of citizenship finally stretches its wings and reaches its highest significance. John Stuart Mill warned men of the risk of what he called the tyranny of the majority. He stressed how men in a democratic form of government risk to silence those whose opinions are not shared by the most numerous group of people who imposes its view pushing the others to a side. Under this point of view in democracy lies both a positive chance to express opinions and a risk, that can be avoided just if those who claim the right to vote for themselves do this together with the forceful request of the same right for the others for whose ideas each member of the community should feel ready to sacrifice their life while, as Voltaire remarks, we should not sacrifice our life for our own ideas.

In conclusion, among the many views on this topic it is worth noticing what Tacito proudly stated about Nerva’s ruleunder which he lived: he considered it to be a very positive form of government,if compared to the tyranny of Domiziano, since every citizen had the right to think what they liked and to express their thoughts.However, there is something to be added to what Tacito considered great in this: what people think or say should not be accepted under the principle of toleration, but under that of a constructive dialogue from which each member of the community can learn something and that in its pure existence enriches the entire community.

This should be taught in schools; there is nothing more important than the awareness that we all belong to a society in which every opinion has a value in itself and not in what it states. Therefore it deserves respect.

Gloria Leonardi