When citizenship is connected to a national culture it implies that citizens belong to a political community with a specific cultural heritage and common culture that is valued and shared. It is this heritage and commonality that underpins public life and facilitates public life.
Nationality is what we have in common and what we share even though there is diversity within the commonality. An example of this commonality and sharing would be the emphasis on individual rights visa-vis the state in the USA. It is quite different to Australia, where the emphasis has been on utility not rights.
Another example is language. Though many people in the nation speak different languages English is what we have in common and share. Those who become citizens are required to have a working grasp of English and an understanding of our history.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at September 8, 2004 11:57 PM | TrackBackWhy does public life depend on the existence of nation-states and "national" cultures? I think that, as soon as you give some substantive definition to "nation" or "national," you'll find that there are other ways to organize our (political) relations that also allow for a public life. (And given the history of nationalism, I'm really hoping that's the case.)
Or are you just looking for a counterbalance for globalization?
Posted by: Brian on September 9, 2004 01:34 AMBrian,
We do live in nation states and people do talk about about themselves as Australians, Americans or Japanese. When they talk that way they are quite comfortable about doing so.They are okay with understanding themselves as a people.
That has to be the starting point for any philosophy that returns to everyday life.
That does not preclude being critical of some forms of the nation or nationality. Some forms are quite nasty (racist ones such as Wite Australian one) but that does not mean we dump the baby with the dirty bathwater.
Posted by: Gary Sauer-Thompson on September 9, 2004 09:05 AM