Citizenship. What is it? According to Dictionary.com Citizenship can be defined as 1. The state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen; and 2. The character of an individual viewed as a member of society; behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen: an award for good citizenship. Over the last semesters as I have gone deeper and deeper into Latina/o Studies and I have really seen how citizenship is viewed here in the United States. Citizenship, as we all know, is a huge dilemma within the Latino group in the United States. Not only documented citizenship, but the even bigger dilemma is the concept of cultural citizenship, the notion that you have to embody the United States culture, whatever that might be; to be a true citizen.
What makes you a complete citizen here in the United States? Is it the documentation you carry? Or is it how you carry yourself, how you speak, how you dress, what music you listen to. You can have the following; four guys standing on a corner two citizens and two immigrants, two white males and two Latinos and surely the Latino men will be the ones questioned for citizenship even if they are the documented pair. It’s because you can be a Mexican American born here in the United states; but if you are brown, speak Spanish, embrace your background openly to the public, and you do not embody the American culture you are not truly assimilated and you can’t possibly be a citizen.
I remember reading an article in my LLS 100 class, which mentioned that the United States always aspires to look like a uniformed country. Through the media, society says that being American is X and if you are not anything remotely close to X there is always a question of citizenship. From personal experiences I can say being Puerto Rican, my mom and I have experienced first hand exclusion because of the way we look and talk. I remember as a child my mom was constantly being hassled for her social security card and documentation because at first glance we did not appear to be citizens. I really didn’t understand why my mother would get so upset, replying “que se creen estos, que porque so negrita y hablo español no puedo ser de aqui, ¿que? nunca estudiaron geografia; I’m Puerto Rican hello…!” (What do these people think because I’m dark and I speak Spanish I can’t be from the U.S., what? They never took geography; I’m Puerto Rican Hello…!). While reading this weeks article I couldn’t help but think back to all my class, all that I have learn and read and wonder what our class thinks is a true American citizen? In your personal opinion, is there really cultural citizenship or is it just a matter of documentation? And if there is cultural citizenship, is it something that can be obtain or is it something that just comes natural to a person? Does it include a person straying away from their background, leaving their culture behind?
Although documentation is key to American citizenship status, I do not think it is paramount, generally speaking (according to the legal institution, documentation would be paramount). Joseph defines cultural citizenship as “the struggle for recognition, legitimacy, and cultural capital.” It doesn’t seem like cultural citizenship is something that is obtained per se, more something that one assimilates into. Some individuals just have this process easier than others. For example, a white child born into a middle-class American family would have it “easier” in becoming culturally civilized than a black child born into a poor family. The culture that you assimilate with and eventually identify with depends on your experiences. Also, an individual can be completely competent in a sub-culture of the mainstream culture (which seems to hold cultural citizenship). The idea of a person having to “leave behind” his/her culture in order to become a cultural/American citizen is interesting, especially because America is often referred to as a “melting pot” nation. I wouldn’t say an individual has to leave his/her culture behind; this is a deep root system and will always be attached. The strength of the tie though depends on the value that individual places on the culture he/she came from. However, the more one becomes assimilated into a new culture, the more one’s identity becomes vulnerable to hybridization and de-authentication. Culture is a constant cycle of production and consumption, with meaning serving as ever-evolving appendages. It is also a space of struggle given that cultural citizenship is tied to processes of representation, discourse, and hegemony.
ReplyDeleteMiller's concept of cultural citizenship was both straight forward and layered. The questions posed at the end of this week's post are valuable when applying the definition of cultural citizenship. What I found interesting about Miller's piece, which can be directly applied to the two posts above, is the focus on the consumer and consumer activism. Indeed, in a capitalist society consumption is an ideal strategy to "gain" cultural citizenship. Our capitalist society is based upon the questions, "Is it profitable? Does it sell?" Therefore to be a cultural citizen one must sell or commodify their existence.
ReplyDeleteIs there a way to be apart of the cultural citizens' club and maintain one's cultural authenticity; certainly- yet with public sacrifice. For example, how do I mask my sexuality in order to play the capitalist game while maintaining some sort of personal happiness? Alas, there is always the option to just rebel and say "I got my card, leave me alone." Yet where do you go from there?
The Joseph reading brought up the interesting idea of having cultural citizenship apply itself to a sort of social performance of "the self" and also includes in it a sort of "nomadic" being. I think I agree with this because it seems that in my experience I can definitely say that while not all Filipinos or Mexicans or Americans act a certain way, that I do things and know of certain social histories that help me to identify with those cultural identities. I may not speak my mother or father's native tongue but I view my own life through the frameworks they have shown me through their own experience, share foods that they identify their ethnic heritage with, and I'm sure other practices that seem so normal to me that I cannot recall them now.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to these identities, I also continuously perform and negotiate others such as male, heterosexual, atheist, bearded, not-too tall but not too-short, whatever. I perhaps had to be told explicitly or implicitly at many times that I belonged to these groups, but I also have to identify myself with these as well. It's one thing to be treated as a male but it's not the same thing to identify as one and understand what it means to be one.
Also, I think those that want formal documentation of whatever culture(s) limit me and themselves by not seeking to understand where my framework lies by giving me criteria to identify with. It's limiting to tell someone "what you are" formally because that seems to trap people in easily defined boxes and I don't think anyone is as simple as one, two, or three of their identities alone or, heck even in combination as we all know that identification is based much on social context. It's weird though because while I identify with all of these groups, I still want to be seen as an individual within them, both belonging and being unique at the same time.
The idea that "the corporeality of life shatters the legal frames of identity and belonging" meant to me that life is too complicated to easily define and the easier definition, the more harm we do in understanding ourselves and each other by missing all of the gray.
The Miller article is a very helpful jumping point for addressing the issue of cultural citizenship in the United States. I especially find the discussion of the neoliberal citizen to be very relevant when thinking of the consumer/citizen. Miller argues that the consumer and citizen have traditionally been regarded as separate identities, though in recent decades this distinction has faded. Instead, we have the neoliberal citizen - the individualistic, capitalist consumer who is solely responsible for all of his/her actions. The implications for those looking to gain American citizenship is that in order to be a "successful" citizen they must participate in this consumer culture that is so American. It is not simply about 'buying stuff' - there is a whole mentality of individualism, decentralization and homogeny. One's cultural identity is forfeited for the privilege of living within this system.
ReplyDeleteSo Neyshalee, I guess this is a very pessimistic answer. But, when we think of the term "Americanized" what comes to mind? My family has been described as Americanized - and this essentially means 'white' to me. We don't speak Korean at home, we don't live in a Korean neighborhood, and my parents work in all white offices. My parents are very much American consumers, living the "American dream." Americanization, or cultural citizenship, seems to mean the negation of all that is deemed other.
This makes me think of my recent interaction with African students (I am an African-American...per the US census). If you consider my birthplace I am simple a U.S. citizen. However I have a certain disposition within the united states that influences my cultural citizenship. I am essentially a displaced African. Ideologically I do not find myself in solidarity with many of the ways of the US. As a result of my afrocentricity this influences my economi citizenship because I have beliefs about communialism. This being said as I went to Ghana, I found that while many Africans are political citizens of Africa they are also cultural citizens of the West in particular the United States.While I am a cultural citizen of pre-colonial Africa while somehow maintaining certain cultural citizenship with the US. There are Asians here also who are Citizens who are never seen as political citizens no matter how much documentation they have. There are Mexicans who are not political citizens but are economic citizens. I think all of this complicates our matter.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the blog post and some of the comments, I thought of the Rajgopal and May article.
ReplyDeleteThe last question of the post says, "Does it include people straying away from their background, leaving their culture behind?"
Having two parents who came here from another country, it made me think about their lives and if they have assimilated to "American" ways and if they lost their culture in the process
Rajgopal states, "Dispora thus refers to a dispersion, a scattering, of people from one common culture/nation to the wide world beyond" and "Paradoxically, diasporic journeys are essentially about settling down, about putting down roots "elsewhere"
"Putting down roots elsewhere" is something that I feel my mothers side of the family has done, since her, her brothers and parents all came from the Philippines years years back. I personally do not think or want to believe that in order to gain a sense of citizenship in this country you need to let go of pieces of your own culture.
I feel that my mothers family has assimilated to this sort of cosumer/individual who betters the enconomy, but at the same time they still practice much of their filipino culture and although I was born in America and am naturally a citzen, I feel that I have taken on many parts of that filipino culture and made it my own... just as one of the commenters said, how can there be a way to call one person one thing and keep them in that small box.
I don't think it is necessary to leave any of the Puerto Rican culture behind. Culture should be a naturally-occurring phenomenon. I think that citizenship is a complicated subject, and that Miller does a good job of outlining what it is in his article "What is Cultural Citizenship." In this, he outline three zones that he considers to be the pillars of citizenship. The first is the political aspect, which includes the right to vote and other amenities. The second is the economic aspect, which means that the individual is allowed to work and gain success through the free market. The last one, which is the most complicated, is the cultural aspect. He defines this as "the right to know and speak." I think that this phrase refers not just to the dominant language of the country, but to know and speak of the culture of the country. This basically means being able to share meaning with other people in the country based on shared national ideologies, or culture that has arisen from the citizens themselves. However, the cultural aspect does not include ethnicity, nationality, or native language. It instead focuses on the way that citizens are able to interact with other citizens, and their knowledge of the country. For example, I think that knowing the meaning of the fifty stars on the American flag would constitute as essential cultural knowledge. I do not think though, that being of Puerto Rican descent should have anything to do with one's definition of citizenship.
ReplyDeleteSometimes trying to being a citizens can cause a heap of obligations and norms. Miller said,"Adopting the tenets of citizen, the citizen becomes a desirous, self actualizing subject who still conforms to general patterns of controlled behavior (p 30)." So when people try to get their identity out there, to show documentation of where they came from, they still get knocked back into dehumanization. There behavior is still controlled by the society who identify the citizens with the non-citizens. You probably make actualization about your history and how people should approach your culture, but they still see that your culture is still inferior. The label is still commodified as a cursed upon different race and ethnicity. My question is, why are people accepting the citizenship standard or norm?
ReplyDeleteThe quote from the Miller article that I found most intriguing was on page 32..
ReplyDelete"Washington export(ed) ideas of citizenship to the rest of the world...that export's policy was narcissistic, dangerous, and blind to the history of imperial and commercial powers annexing states and their labor forces"
It seems that the WASPs that have been in power throughout American history have created this ideal of what a 'true citizen' or American is like. If we look at propaganda and advertisements from any military or government campaign, they present images of citizens who have assimilated and conformed to "Citizen X" who enjoys the same consumer products as you but who also values your values and beliefs.
We come from a country with a web of laws that prevents citizenship on a legal level and an even bigger web of vague rules which prevent citizenship on a cultural level. But you're totally valid in asking, who defines these rules and to what extent does one have to go to be a 'true citizen'? Is it only generations of losing who they and their ancestors are to the point where they have no other cultural or ethnic ties to anywhere but here? Or is it simpler? Or does it all depend on what minority group one falls under?
I agree with the other bloggers in regards to the comment about how Miller’s article points out how the consumer and citizen have been viewed as separate identities. However, both are independently dependent upon each other in my opinion. In America we are viewed as not only citizens but as consumers as well. If one doesn’t consume they aren’t viewed as “Americans” because they are an asset to society. I don’t believe being a consumer is the only basses in regards to citizenship.
ReplyDeleteBeing a citizen in America does embody more than just documentation it is affect by the way you carry yourself. One has to portray a Euro-centric image in order to be viewed by society as an American citizen. Things that deviate from the Euro-centric norm are categorized as “other” or questioned. I do believe there is really cultural citizenship. The way one views another affects their assimilation into the American society. One has to fit into the status quo to not be alienated as a non-citizen. It is something that is obtainable, however various in degree from race to race. In some ways one has to leave their culture to emulate another in order to be accepted and viewed as a citizen. This all plays into the theory of double consciousness.
This year was the first time chance I've had to go through the delightful experience of border crossings, and re-entering the U.S. was interesting for a few reasons. Growing up as a born U.S. citizen, I don't give my default citizenship much thought. While abroad, citizenship takes on new meanings when it is no longer a as I'm sure many Americans can relate to, I was tempted to tell strangers that I was Canadian. In the passport line at O'Hare, however, it's another story. Both lines were incredibly long that day and wound through several rows, and I sort of felt like I had a FastPass at Disney World. Recalling the unfriendly border guards I had encountered as a foreigner in other countries, I would imagine that non-citizens coming into the U.S. don't have a very friendly reception either. While the Joseph reading addresses the conflicting identities within and alongside cultural citizenship, this is a situation in which the papers that you carry determine whether you're in one line or another. It is a binary classification, and every individual body is subjugated and defined as fitting into one category at the border of any country. An individual that has lived in a country for years, upon reentry, will have to be questioned with suspicion about their intentions. The question "what is a citizen?" does not seem to be answered adequately by our official documentation.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget how culturally-important it is to follow laws. If you break the law, if you are then declared a felon, you lose your suffrage rights in most of the country's states.
ReplyDeleteYour citizenship is rescinded, and you can no longer participate in what is often demonstrated as the most important part of your national heritage, your ability to vote.
I personally believe that citizenship is whatever or however being in a particular space allots you to express who you are. If the right to be the individual that is striving to belong to a specific culture is taken away then technically, you are not yourself and as a result of that, you lack the ability to incorporate anyone else's culture into your own. It's also important that we rediscover the definition of culture in that it's going to be egregiously different depending on whom you are referencing. There are a multitude of cultures that practice extreme privacy while there are others choosing to bask in the [I believe] generic and the restrained definition of cultural citizenship as highlighted by Joseph. Joseph distinctly states that cultural citizenship "privileges the importance of the self in performing identifications with social identities in public ways..." In this sense, if you are not supremely open with your cultural attachments, technically you are not a citizen of that particular culture.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that your situation as you were growing up was justified, however it is how some Americans negotiate their knowledge of Americanism. Technically, I view it as a perspective balancing based in schemas; "if you don't fit my particular representation of what a citizen is, then you're not one". It doesn't make the assumption incorrect, simply founded in ignorance.
TO Matthew Simcox, and quote:
ReplyDelete"I do not think though, that being of Puerto Rican descent should have anything to do with one's definition of citizenship."
Citizenship for Puerto Ricans is a very interesting one. American citizenship for Puerto Ricans comes with small letters and "hidden" notes. A simple example: we are American citizens, yet we say we are Puerto Rican. We speak Spanish, yet we are American citizens, WE DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT, but we have US citizenship, and serve the US military... The decisions made by Congress affects us directly, but our Congress man does not vote either....
When you have Puerto Rican immigrants in the mainland, they are American citizens, yet they are not treated like citizens....
Citizenship, I would dare to say, even though some pro-state communities will disagree (Because they believe they are "true" Americans... whatever that means to them..)..
I'm not American citizen... but my passport says so..
In Miller’s article, he said that “the consumer has become the classless, raceless, sexless, ageless, unprincipled, magical agent of social value in a multitude of discourse and institutions, animated by the drive to realize individual desires”. This is so true! If you have more money and power to make consumptions, then you can get bigger chance to let your voice be heard. And this seems to be a universal rule! As I know, people in other countries can now get the immigration opportunities to the United States through financial investment. This again, demonstrates how the distinction between consumer and citizen has become more and more ambiguous in our modern society.
ReplyDeleteYes, the United States has always been referred to as a “melting pot”. But once people jump into this “melting pot”, they have to abandon part of their authenticity in order to be really involved in this culture and belong to the mainstream things. Well, I guess no food can keep 100% original taste if it has been mixed with so many different kinds of ingredients in the pot. It’s the same thing when it comes to citizenship. No citizen can stay 100% authentic if they live in a surrounding of such diverse cultures, especially when he intends to immerse himself into this blended culture.
It is interesting to think how arbitrary the term ‘citizenship’ really is. If you asked a given number of people “What does it mean to be an American citizen?” “What is citizenship?” everyone would probably come up with their own semi-subjective answers. The term ‘democracy’ is similar. “What is democracy?” “Is our society really democratic?” “Is media a democratic institution?” To think that our lives our defined and disciplined by such terms, but the terms/concepts themselves are blurry in a sense, is somewhat discomforting. We are made to believe we are citizens of a democracy, but is this really the case given discursive power formations?
ReplyDeleteResponding to the Miller quote in Quian19’s post…consumers are driven by their desire for fulfillment in some sense, and in this seeking (in trying to find an identity), they lose themselves (irony). This is such a key notion underlying consumerism which our culture obscures. Consumers can never reach plentitude. The search for plentitude touches on the notion of authenticity. However, how is authenticity consumed? Or is it only inherent? For example, when you eat true ethnic cuisine or buy clothes produced out of a particular cultural heritage, you are consuming authentic commodities, but that doesn’t make you, your self, more authentic. Like notions of citizenship, democracy, and choice, the notion of authenticity seems socially constructed.
Legal Citizenship is just documentation. However cultural citizenship is about adapting to the culture by speaking the language and indulging yourself into that particular culture. However I do not feel it is necessary to give up your culture in order to be more American or whatever the case may be.Because citizenship is not determined by how much of yourself you can lose in the process.
ReplyDelete