It is an honor for me to join you today in this beautiful and historic place of learning and culture, which is so well known for its nurturing of the exchange of ideas. And what subject could be better suited for such dialogue than that of the meaning and practice of citizenship? As you may have noted, I have entitled my talk today "Citizenship '101': A Dean's Perspective," both because the subject has, for centuries, attracted the attention of world's leading philosophers and political thinkers and because, as you've heard, I am the Dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. So, I am going to offer you a mini-course, "Citizenship 101," on how the issue of citizenship is addressed at a school where we've been teaching, conducting research and writing about the subject for more than 82 years. And let me quickly assure you that while this short course will have no papers or final exam, I hope that it will engender a lively discussion afterward!

The Maxwell School Experience

As the Maxwell Dean, I can not, of course, avoid some initial promotion of my institution. Maxwell is the nation's oldest and one of its most distinguished schools of public affairs, having been ranked consistently by U.S. News & World Report as the #1 graduate school in the field for the last 12 years, edging out such distinguished rivals as the Kennedy School at Harvard and the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. Moreover, as far as we know, we are the only academic institution in the United States -- and possibly in the world -- with the word, "citizenship," emblazoned over its entrance and in its name. And this is no accident. The School was founded in 1924 by George Maxwell, a Boston lawyer, inventor and industrialist (but unfortunately, no relation to the maker of the coffee!), who was an alumnus of the University and a member of its Board of Trustees. Maxwell thought that the best way to promote what he called "intelligent patriotism" in future generations would be to establish a "School of American Citizenship." As Maxwell said at the time of the School's founding, "the primary objective of this school is to teach good citizenship, and to cull from every source those principles, facts, and elements which, combined, make up our rights and duties and our value and distinctiveness as United States citizens. This involves the diffusion of good citizenship throughout the entire student body." In Maxwell's mind, his school would graduate young people who would teach old-fashioned, patriotic values in their classrooms -- or civics as we sometimes call it today.

George Maxwell's idea for a school that would teach citizenship came about at a time in our nation's history when government reform and "good governance" was very much on the public agenda. Citizens had become fed up with the rampant cronyism and corruption that was present in government at all levels-federal, state and local-and they were demanding the creation of a non-partisan and professional class of civil servants, who would be appointed on the basis of expertise and competence (as demonstrated through civil service examinations), rather than political patronage. Thus was born the graduate field of public administration, which the Maxwell School played a pivotal role in developing. Indeed, public administration quickly became a major part of the School's mission-in addition to continuing to educate undergraduates about their rights and responsibilities as citizens.

Okay, this largely concludes my formal promotion of the Maxwell School, though I hope you will indulge me if I use the Maxwell experience and the work of some of our leading faculty members as a reference point during my talk. It is also worth noting that while George Maxwell's original idea for teaching students about the basic values of citizenship flourished for many decades after the School's founding, the social and political upheavals associated with the Vietnam War era caused the popularity of such courses to fade away in the late 1960s - a situation that was paralleled at the secondary school level, where the teaching of civics also was phased out of most high school curricula. We revived the concept at Maxwell about 15 years ago in a new form -- two innovative, multi-disciplinary courses on citizenship and public affairs that are designed for and directed at Freshmen -- or Fresh People, as we now refer to them -- one dealing with domestic policy issues and the other dealing with global policy matters. I will return to this later as well.

Notions of Citizenship: Theory

I noted previously that citizenship, as a political and philosophical concept, has been the subject of extensive intellectual exploration for centuries. For Aristotle, "the excellence of a citizen consists of being able to rule and be ruled well." Aristotle is perhaps most famous for having remarked that 'man is a political animal,' and it is from the Ancient Greek philosophers, and their commentary on Athenian democracy, that we often trace an ideal of active, engaged citizens sharing the freedoms and burdens of collective life. From their perspective one cannot be fully human unless one participates in the decisions that affect ones life. Simultaneously, it is necessary to recognize the equality of fellow citizens and to submit to the decisions that have been collectively reached -- that is, to accept the rule of law and be ruled. Of course, such grand ideas of equality, inclusion, and autonomy were not meant for ALL people in the Ancient Greek world. Women, slaves, and foreigners to the Athenian city-state were not included as members in the great project of citizenship.

In contrast with the demanding yet exclusive conception of citizenship, which developed into the civic republican tradition of the 18th century, is a more minimal yet inclusive conception emerging from the liberal tradition, as represented by Locke and others. Here, the emphasis turns away from duties of citizenship and focuses instead on the rights of citizenship, that is, the guarantees and freedoms to which all members of the political community are entitled. Although in practice liberal polities may not always have been particularly inclusive by today's standards, the articulation of an ideal of universal rights is extremely important. Of primary concern for the liberal perspective is the preservation of liberty and the avoidance of tyranny of the majority.

This model of democracy was succinctly described in the Federalist papers, where James Madison argued that a large polity was ideal because it would increase the number of competing and clashing interests, and thereby limit the ability of one faction to become dominant and to threaten to liberty. Yet the Constitution, as historian Michael Ignatieff has noted, is a brilliant fusion of the liberal and republican conceptions of citizenship, and there is evidence that the cultivation of civic virtue and collective deliberation on the 'public good' was not far from the minds of many of the framers.

Take, for example, Thomas Jefferson, one of the great proponents of an actively engaged and publicly spirited citizenry, who believed that a citizen must have the feeling "that he is a participator in the government affairs, not merely at an election day one day of the year, but every day." So he was an advocate for public education, where American youth would be trained in the skills and temperament of citizenship and civic virtue. He was also preoccupied with reforms to the American system of democracy that would allow for the meaningful participation of all.

For a useful common definition of what we mean when we talk of citizenship today, the words of British journalist David Goodhart are instructive: "Citizenship is not an ethnic, blood-and-soil concept, but a more abstract political idea -- implying equal legal, political and social rights (and duties) for people inhabiting a given national space." So citizenship, in theory, is a status that constitutes membership in a political community and ensures equal legal, political, and social rights and duties for all members.

Goodhart's definition draws, in turn, on the work of T.H. Marshall, who famously grouped the various rights of citizens into three spheres: the civil, political and social. But it is very important for us to understand that, in each of these spheres, citizenship rights corresponds to specific citizenship responsibilities. The responsibilities give substance and meaning to the rights, and in some cases they protect and guarantee them. In the civil/legal sphere, for example, we are granted the right of "due process" that guarantees habeas corpus and a fair and speedy trial. In return, we have the duty to obey the rule of law and to serve on juries in order to decide the guilt or innocence of fellow citizens. In the political sphere, we are granted rights of association, free speech, and suffrage to ensure that ours is a system of government by consent, but we have the duty as citizens to remain informed on public issues, to be involved in civic and political organizations, and to make responsible choices in all elections by voting. We also rely on our government to provide for our security, which it is able to do because young men and women serve in the military. Of course, historically, this force was created as a popular militia, later through a mandatory draft, and now as an all-volunteer force. While the military has indeed become more professionalized, those who serve today are arguably fulfilling a duty of citizenship. Finally, in the social sphere, we have the right to a public education and to the benefits of the welfare state in the form of income, housing, and food assistance, if needed, as well as social security. In return, we have the duty to contribute a portion of our income in the form of taxes.

Although I will soon be discussing the reasons why our neglect of many of some of these duties is today a matter for serious concern, I also note that, in each case, choosing not to perform some of these central duties of citizenship may in itself become a political act that demonstrates civic involvement. Such is the certainly case for the many Americans who, throughout history, have engaged in war resistance, conscientious objection, and non-violent direct action and protest, and have considered their actions to fulfill the rights of citizenship.

Notions of Citizenship: Practice and Problems

We have so far been dealing in our "Citizenship 101" course with some of the more significant theoretical aspects of citizenship. But we are now living in the early years of the 21st century with attendant social, economic, and political challenges undreamed of even when the Greatest Generation returned from the Second World War sixty years ago. As my Maxwell colleague, Professor Suzanne Mettler points out in her new book, Soldiers to Citizens: The G.I. Bill and the Making of the Greatest Generation, when that remarkable group of Americans came home from war, they took full advantage of the extraordinary benefits in the G.I. Bill to gain a free college education or vocational training. By 1947, G.I. Bill users accounted for half of all the undergraduates attending U.S. institutions of higher education; within ten years, 2.2 million veterans had gone to college and 5.6 million had used the benefits for trade and vocational training.

Then, as they started raising their families, the Greatest Generation proceeded to become highly active and engaged citizens. They had done their duty to their country and had seen their country "give back" to them. They responded by joining civic organizations in unprecedented numbers, which caused membership to soar in fraternal organizations, professional associations, labor unions, churches and church-related organizations, and a wide array of local community organizations. And they became deeply involved in political life as voters, as political party members, as campaign workers, and they have remained so ever since! But the Baby Boom Generation, and to an even greater extent the Generation X'ers, failed to follow in their parents' (or grandparents') footsteps, perhaps because they were never the beneficiaries of what Suzanne Mettler calls "social provision." As a result, they participate less civic organizations, which has resulted in a multi-decade decline in memberships; many are alienated from the traditional political party structures and neither participate nor vote; and many exhibit a deep mistrust or, at least, a cynicism about government in general.

Indeed, to some, the decline in voter participation since the mid-point of the 20th century, as a useful proxy for civic engagement and citizenship, is nothing short of alarming. In 1960, for example, 63 percent of the adult population voted in the presidential election; but by 1996, only 49 percent voted and in 2000, only 51 percent. The percentage of those voting did re-bound somewhat in 2004, but the overall trend during the past 46 years has clearly been down, especially if voter turn-out in congressional bi-elections is included, and it is more pronounced among those with more education and income than among those with less.

There has been much speculation within the political science community about the meaning and significance of these trends. But we certainly know that this time period coincides with the period of the Vietnam war, with its attendant political protest and social alienation; as well as Watergate; the end of the Cold War in 1989; and most recently, a period in which many politicians have campaigned on a platform suggesting that government was part of the problem, rather than the solution. And to be sure, none of these historical events has helped to encourage young adults to follow in the footsteps of the Greatest Generation as active, civic-minded members of their communities.

At least three factors may be contributing to the disinclination of the younger generations to emulate the citizenship role model of their parents and grandparents. The first was the elimination of the military draft and the shift to the All-Volunteer Force following the contentious end to the Vietnam war. While from a purely military standpoint, the shift to the All-Volunteer Force has resulted in the recruitment of a better educated and more highly motivated group of soldiers; in terms of citizenship and the pursuit of civic duty, it has been nothing short of a disaster. From the founding of our Republic, volunteer military service to the country whenever the nation's security was threatened had been a duty and a cornerstone of citizenship, along with voting, jury duty and paying of one's taxes. (And, in fact, it was this basic quid pro quo that lay at the heart of the rationale for the G.I. Bill in the 1940s-that a grateful nation should offer this for the millions who had honorably served their country, many by means of the draft.) Now, suddenly, this duty to serve was eliminated; and for many, along with it the need to make any sacrifices whatsoever for the greater good. Recall that the only exhortation issued by the President of the United States in the wake of the terrible attacks on New York and Washington was to urge people to carry on with their normal lives and "go shopping" -- nothing at all was said, either then or later, about making any sacrifices, economic, personal or otherwise, for a nation supposedly at war.

A second factor that has caused the younger generation of citizens not to emulate the civic behavior of their elders is the fact that today's multi-media world-which includes the Internet, video games, and a seemingly infinite number of cable channels-offers diversions that simply did not exist as recently as a decade ago. According to some sociologists, this 24-hour a day connectivity may be causing young people to focus more of their energy and attention on the virtual world of electronic games and entertainment than on the real world of politics and civic engagement. The result, in many cases, is substantial disengagement not only from civic duties, such as voting and community volunteerism, but also from active interest in or knowledge of the domestic and foreign policy challenges facing our nation.

A third factor that may well be complicating the practice of citizenship in the early 21st century is how Americans think about their own personal economic and political role in a rapidly globalizing and inter-connected world. The challenge of balancing economic self-interest against the responsibilities of citizenship is one of long standing. But the advent of globalization, with the free and rapid flow of information, ideas, goods and people across national borders has in some respects complicated the question of national identity and loyalty, not to mention such ideas as duties and responsibilities of citizenship. Today, many Americans work for trans-national corporations that are based in another country; they get much or all of their information from the Internet, or through global electronic media; they buy housewares and clothing that is made in China or other developing countries; and their commercial product service calls are answered in India. Increasingly, therefore, people-and I am thinking here especially of younger Americans-may consider themselves as much as "citizens of the world" as they do as citizens of the United States of America. What are the implications of this global transformation? Does it have the potential to supersede historic national loyalties and patriotic allegiance?

Evolution Towards Transnational Citizenship?

This last point is worth unpacking. Today, over 100 million people reside outside their countries of birth, some voluntarily and far too many involuntarily. Environmental, economic, and political forces drive global migration across the boundaries of nation-states in ways that challenge the concepts of borders and national sovereignty. While global migration is by no means new, recent trends in economic and political integration have caused some scholars to suggest that the notion of the nation-state as the primary locus of citizenship may have diminishing relevance. This phenomenon has been called many things: cosmopolitan citizenship, post-national citizenship, or transnational citizenship, to name just a few. Yet, what all these formulations share in common is the observation that current global processes are decoupling the nation-state and citizenship. It may be hard for us to envision a denationalized citizenship, since we take so much for granted in the notion of national citizenship. Yet, it is important to remember that national citizenship is a fairly recent phenomenon. In Ancient Greece, for example, the city-state was the venue of citizenship, while for Rome it was the Empire.

Today, however, it is becoming increasingly acceptable for immigrants to maintain formal affiliations with their countries of origin, while at the same time naturalizing as citizens in their country of residence. This is known as dual and/or multiple citizenship, and it presses on the normal conception of citizenship as undivided loyalty. Furthermore, supranational institutions, most notably the European Union, have taken over certain aspects of citizenship (e.g., by guaranteeing freedom of mobility and freedom to work) and placed them beyond the reach of national governments. Political participation also increasingly crosses national borders, as we witness the emergence of networks of activists and social movements that address issues of transnational significance, such as the environment, arms control, women's rights, and labor rights, among others. As a result of these and other processes, our shared collective identities, which are manifested as patriotism at the national level, are increasingly located elsewhere. Most notable, perhaps, is the strengthening of a common planetary/humanitarian identity that has been facilitated by global media, and by increasing ecological and economic interdependence.

If you buy even a part of the argument that citizenship is becoming increasingly denationalized, then you must ask the subsidiary question: how do we understand our obligations under such a new paradigm? Do we now have global duties -- e.g., to restrain our consumption of carbon-based fuels in order to slow global climate change? Are we obligated, as trans-national citizens, to make more serious efforts to eliminate global poverty and disease? We may feel morally compelled to say yes, but there are practical problems of governance that arise. For example, how can the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, expressed for example in the institutions of the welfare state, be sustained if they are not anchored TO the nation-state and to feelings of national solidarity? If the experience of the EU is any indication, it appears that while significant transnational integration is possible, a supra-national identity will not necessarily take hold in the minds of national citizens. This is perhaps one of several explanatory factors in the recent rejection of the proposed EU constitution by French and Dutch citizens in their 2005 referendums.

Ruminations About These Trends and Their Implications

Whether or not you accept the view that we are evolving towards some sort of new transnational model of citizenship-and I place myself among the skeptics on this point-you undoubtedly understand that citizenship and active civic participation means something radically different in the 21st century than it did when the returning World War II vets brought such extraordinary new energy and commitment to the development of civic organizations in the mid-20th century. In fact, another of my Maxwell faculty colleagues, Professor Grant Reeher, who studies the role and impact of the Internet on political participation, has written a book entitled: Click on Democracy. Contrary to my earlier criticism of the Internet, Reeher is an enthusiast when it comes to its potential for increasing the level of participation and engagement by the average citizen, although he cautions that two major obstacles must be overcome: one is the "digital divide" -- meaning that as politics moves on-line, a solution will have to be found to the problem of the division between the technological "have's" and "have not's", which is as much an economic issue as anything else, and the other is the danger that virtual participation will encourage the worst aspects of our political behavior-namely, more negativity, less deliberation, and more balkanization of political views.

The explosive growth of the Internet is having an effect on the not-for-profit world as well; that is, it is providing a new tool for fund-raising and single-issue advocacy by thousands of non-governmental organizations seeking to mobilize citizen action on issues ranging from global warming to stem cell research and everything in-between, from both the left and right of the political spectrum. But as the distinguished Maxwell emeritus Professor Ralph Ketcham has observed: "The growth of large, by-mail-and-internet, fund-raising organizations that never meet and pursue single issues, as over against more broadly civic-minded associations, is ... evidence of the permissible, even useful vitalities of a free society, but they do not particularly sustain a genuinely civil society. Advocacy and special interest is acceptable, but there must as well be deliberation and the public good in view to achieve strong ... citizenship."

At the same time, another Maxwell colleague, Professor Arthur Brooks, who specializes in philanthropy and not-for-profit management, finds in his provocative, forthcoming book, Who Cares: The Surprising Truth About Who is Charitable, Who Isn't, and Why it Matters for America, that people who give regularly, either to political interest groups or to charitable organizations, are far more likely to engage in active citizenship than people who do not give. Brooks finds, for example, that in 2000, those who gave money or volunteered were more than twice as likely to attend a political meeting, participate in a political group, or belong to a group taking local action for political reform, as those who did not make philanthropic contributions or volunteer their time.

One of the interesting findings in the most recent edition of the Maxwell Poll on "Civic Engagement and Inequality," which is an annual, nationwide poll conducted by our Campbell Public Affairs Institute to measure the attitudes of Americans regarding engagement in public affairs, as well as their opinions on the extent of economic and social inequality in the United States, was the lack of engagement and participation by people who are participants in government assistance programs, such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, Welfare, and so on, are significantly less likely to vote or to be actively engaged citizens. The gap is particularly large for those who receive food stamps (23% less likely to report that they regularly vote than are non-recipients) and Medicaid recipients (14% less likely to report regular voting). While these effects may be largely explained by the specific circumstances in which food stamp and Medicaid recipients find themselves, the results do not seem to be explainable simply as a result of poverty or the lack of education. The ultimate irony, however, is that this under-representation has left many of these programs vulnerable to budget cuts in recent decades, since politicians do not face significant organized opposition.

There are, of course, many other factors that also may explain why individuals choose NOT to become actively engaged as citizens, whether measured through voting, voluntary service to the community, or service to the country. Among the various explanations that have been offered for today's apparent "citizenship malaise" are: (a) the ideological "gridlock" between the national parties in which little of any consequence can get accomplished that causes many people to become deeply cynical, (b) the blurring of the Constitutional separation of Church and State that has given those with extreme religious and ideological views inordinate influence and access, and (c) the perception, whether fair or not, that government at all levels has become increasingly corrupt and therefore untrustworthy.

At the same time, it certainly cannot be said that Americans lack patriotism. We saw this only too clearly in the outpouring of emotion and national unity following the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Never in my experience have I witnessed such a felt need quite literally to "rally 'round the flag" and to seek solace and comfort in the sense that the entire country was sharing collectively in the shock, grief and anger that followed the attacks in New York and Washington, DC. The President quickly declared a "Global War on Terror"; yet, strangely, he asked for NO sacrifices whatsoever from the American people. Now, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, just two months from now, the only major sacrifices are those that continue to be made by our brave soldiers who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by their families.

Citizenship and Immigration: Legal and Illegal

We cannot conclude our "Citizenship 101" course without making reference to the current debate concerning the status, treatment, and regulation of immigrants, especially those who have entered the country illegally, and its impact on our contemporary notion of citizenship. I will not attempt here to address the range of issues that are currently under debate in the Congress and the media regarding the enforcement and/or imposition of laws to exact more severe punishment for illegal immigration, or the pros and cons of building physical barriers to prevent illegal entry into the United States.

The fact of the matter, however, is that there are, by some estimates, as many as 11-12 million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S., with more arriving each day. The vast majority of these individuals come purely for economic reasons, seeking a better life; but it is also the case that they come to take advantage of the U.S. educational and health care systems, which is an expense that must be borne by taxpayers in the state in which they reside. While some, despite their undocumented status, work in the legitimate economy and therefore pay taxes; many others, fearing discovery and deportation, work only in the underground (or informal) economy on a "cash only" basis.

This begs the question of whether illegal immigrants should be entitled to any of the rights and services accorded routinely to those who are U.S. citizens? Should they, for example, be able to apply for unemployment compensation or welfare assistance? Should they have access to free health care? And if, due to their illegal status, they can neither vote, serve on juries, nor undertake any other duty of citizenship, should they be accorded the same political rights as those who have full citizenship status?

There are also significant issues regarding those who have entered the country legally and who have become -- or are becoming -- a naturalized citizen. For example, should assimilation to the dominant culture, including the achievement of fluency in English, be required as part of the naturalization process? If as a result of the Internet, cheap and easily accessible telecommunications, twenty-four hour global news, new citizens are choosing to remain apart from the mainstream culture, rather than assimilate as previous waves of immigrant groups have done, what are the implications for the future coherence of our "melting pot" democracy?

Reawakening the Commitment to Citizenship

Many proposals have been put forward over the years designed variously to encourage Americans to become more civic-minded and to vote in greater numbers. For example, there have been many calls to institute mandatory national service for all young Americans. Unfortunately, this idea, and many similar, have never gained sufficient political traction, and those that have been implemented have had little impact. President John F. Kennedy famously urged his fellow citizens in his 1961 inaugural address: "Ask not what your country can do you for you; ask rather, what you can do for your country." And many responded to Kennedy's challenge by volunteering for newly-established programs like the Peace Corps and its domestic counterparts. But today, there is a new generation who knows of President Kennedy's challenge only from the history books (if at all), who have grown up with 24 hour access to MTV and videogames, who have little interest in or knowledge of public events, and who do not read newspapers or watch the news on television. What can be done to reach this new cohort of citizens?

A number of specific efforts have been made to try to reach the Gen X'ers "where they live," so to speak. For example, the MTV network has aired a "Rock the Vote" program during each of the recent presidential elections to encourage young people to register to vote and to actually go to the polls. But it seems clear that the power of the media has really never been fully brought to bear on this problem-at least not as it has been for other public service messages, such as preventing forest fires or encouraging enlistment in the all-volunteer military. We need a sustained, well financed national campaign that uses the full range of multi-media channels to target young and middle-aged adults, while also working in parallel through the nation's K-12 schools and undergraduate institutions to deliver appropriate messages and activities about the importance of every individual taking advantage of their rights and meeting their responsibilities as citizens, delineating in the process exactly what those rights and responsibilities are. Moreover, states and localities could design and promote their own programs to parallel a national campaign.

Well, I'm pleased to say that you all have now successfully completed "Citizenship 101," and you are ready to move on to the more difficult, upper division course. The requirements for this advanced course are far more challenging because they involve actually practicing good citizenship and encouraging your family, your neighbors, and others in your community to do so as well. As you go about this effort, I'd like to leave you with words taken from the "Oath of the Athenian Citizens," which is inscribed on a prominent wall in the Maxwell School. Though the words are from a different millennium, they have enormous relevance to our time as well. They have, in fact, become the motto of those who pass through the halls of the Maxwell School, and go on to become civil servants, policy analysts, academics and university presidents. The words of the Oath, which speak through the ages to the ideals civic participation and giving back to one's community, are the following:

We will ever strive for the ideals and sacred things of the city, both alone and with many;

We will unceasingly seek to quicken the sense of public duty;

We will revere and obey the city's laws;

We will transmit this city not only, not less, but greater, better, and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.
 

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions and comments. 

This page current as of: July 25, 2006