C-266.2. Citizenship
Theory FOR citizenship emphasizes a working relationship between Selves: the steps of the individual and those of the community. When the latter are technologically developed institutionally, as what community representatives (e.g., “them not us”) do, better Selves of Individual and/or Community are not served.
In practice and conceptually, one can be a “citizen” of a nation automatically at birth. Or one may become a citizen by an acceptance procedure. These vary. What really matters, is it not, is how might we, how ought we, produce better citizens. Should there be citizenship paths made that can be taken by anyone, whatever their birthplace?
Nations are relatively unique in possessing citizens. Lesser political communities, from states on down to counties, cities, townships and villages have “residents” instead. However, there is as likely to be just as strong a personal identity relationship (“family,“ “membership”) for these as for the nation.*
Relevant ratios point the way forward. Population/individual (“populism”); consumer/citizen (“marketing”); decision making/problem solving (“voting”); issue/problem (politics); us/we and self/Selve … these are all seriously imbalanced and getting worse (i.e., >1++). Address the imbalances via CEM procedures, starting with correction of the B-ness body/step >1 imbalance, then improving the “back and forth” in their bi-ness.
Total freedom, real freedom, our greater consequentiality (the difference we make!) – i.e., freedom TO in addition to freedoms FROM and OF – depends on our CEM-guided advance.
***
* As the Civil War in the United States illustrates. Producing an operating system when (at least) three kinds of Selves are in play (e.g., individual, state and nation) is a daunting challenge. The 1787 Constitutional task focused primarily on the state-nation (federal) relationship, with attention to individual-nation to come later via the Bill of Rights. The electoral system dealt incompletely with both … and not at all with the individual-state relationship. As we were to find out later. But this was a time (it still is! Behavioral architecture is more craft than art, much more art than science, and not procedural tech enough) when the calculus of good/bad functionalities (behaviors, not behavior) dominated constitutional concerns … and the totality of needed functionality was forfeit to NGO’s or populists
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
In practice and conceptually, one can be a “citizen” of a nation automatically at birth. Or one may become a citizen by an acceptance procedure. These vary. What really matters, is it not, is how might we, how ought we, produce better citizens. Should there be citizenship paths made that can be taken by anyone, whatever their birthplace?
Nations are relatively unique in possessing citizens. Lesser political communities, from states on down to counties, cities, townships and villages have “residents” instead. However, there is as likely to be just as strong a personal identity relationship (“family,“ “membership”) for these as for the nation.*
Relevant ratios point the way forward. Population/individual (“populism”); consumer/citizen (“marketing”); decision making/problem solving (“voting”); issue/problem (politics); us/we and self/Selve … these are all seriously imbalanced and getting worse (i.e., >1++). Address the imbalances via CEM procedures, starting with correction of the B-ness body/step >1 imbalance, then improving the “back and forth” in their bi-ness.
Total freedom, real freedom, our greater consequentiality (the difference we make!) – i.e., freedom TO in addition to freedoms FROM and OF – depends on our CEM-guided advance.
* As the Civil War in the United States illustrates. Producing an operating system when (at least) three kinds of Selves are in play (e.g., individual, state and nation) is a daunting challenge. The 1787 Constitutional task focused primarily on the state-nation (federal) relationship, with attention to individual-nation to come later via the Bill of Rights. The electoral system dealt incompletely with both … and not at all with the individual-state relationship. As we were to find out later. But this was a time (it still is! Behavioral architecture is more craft than art, much more art than science, and not procedural tech enough) when the calculus of good/bad functionalities (behaviors, not behavior) dominated constitutional concerns … and the totality of needed functionality was forfeit to NGO’s or populists
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S