Two months into my European adventure, I feel as though I have solidified my conception of Italian citizenship in relation to American citizenship. Americans can generally be categorized by blind pride in the democratic system while Italians can be identified by their constant skepticism in their political leaders. Americans wave flags outside of their homes and wear them on every article of clothing, but they cannot describe the components of the Affordable Care Act. Italians, on the other hand, display their flag minimally and are highly critical of the young prime minister and their local governments. At a café in Santa Croce, I overheard two older men complaining bitterly about the economic situation, referring to it as the ultimate disaster. Yet, while on the Tuscany trip, I realized that Italians have more pride than I acknowledged in my previous journal. In each Tuscan town, the citizens I encountered bragged endlessly of all that their individual town had to offer. Regional pride, however, divides the country, differentiating it from the national pride that extends from Maine to New Mexico.
In both the United States and Italy, citizens can give no real reason for their respective excitement or disdain. They simply grew up with that mindset and saw no reason to change it. How do we know this is how it has always been? Mostly people will adopt the view of their parents or the often over exaggerated position of national news sources. These are good starting points, but it is dangerous for the youth population to rely solely upon them. In the case of our parents, times have changed since their maturation, so their perspectives may not be as relevant to our positions. Media sources always carry a bias as an organization, and each writer carries his or her own bias. Moreover, our generation views tabloids and magazines over legitimate newspapers, diminishing the validity of their information they receive.
In my opinion, we should all work towards the common good. Yet, do we really want everyone participating in the public sphere even if they do not have the proper preparation in the private sphere? Can a person who votes only in the presidential election for the party they feel obligated to belong to fully contribute to the public good? It is my opinion that they cannot. If a person votes for party in America’s case or against whatever the current government is in the case of Italy, he or she has no idea whether or not the candidate’s long term plans will benefit or harm the larger population. Voting a person, such as Matteo Renzi, out of office immediately because his promises have yet to come to fruition diminishes the potential success these programs may have. Simultaneously, voting for a person like Obama because he promises abstract ideals like hope and change can lead to exaggerated expectations and future disappointments with his concrete policies.
In order to rectify the extreme skepticism of Europe and the extreme optimism of the United States, citizenship needs to be redefined as responsive rather than participatory. It is no longer enough for people to cast a vote and hope for the best. If we want to enact change in the public sphere, we have to be able to evaluate all of the available options to determine which one would have the most longevity and the most benefits. In order to evaluate the proffered solutions, we need to have an understanding of the current situation and its problems. Therefore, citizens need to read and watch multiple news sources and respond to what they like and dislike.
This past weekend, Sam and I took a trip to Rome. While in Rome, Sam introduced me to her friend Pat, a Wake Forest student whom I had somehow never met. Throughout the weekend, I found myself having multiple political conversations with Pat, ranging from education to welfare. He wants to go into politics, so he was telling me his plans for a new educational system similar to charter schools that he believed would fix the problems with our current model. It was almost as though we followed Socrates’ dialectic model. We talked about what we thought was wrong with the current model. Next, he shared his model with me. I questioned him on some of the points I disagreed with, and he responded with defenses. I didn’t agree with him in the end, but I understood and appreciated the points he made. They were backed by research and supported by passion. They were a response to what he thought harmed the public good.
These conversations made Sam want to take more political science courses so that she could keep up with our conversations. As a political science major, I was ecstatic because I think more people should take advantage of these. However, one does not need to take these classes or be able to have a conversation as in depth as Pat and I had to contribute to Arendt’s public sphere. A citizen can just be enthusiastic about a candidate. It’s okay to say that Romeny’s wife would make a great first lady, but you must also say something about his platform. A citizen should also be skeptical. It is a good thing to criticize your government. If our representatives believe that everyone is satisfied, they would have no reason to change policies, and we would be a stagnant country. However, it’s important not to be too negative to the point that nothing the government does will be good enough. We would end up with the same results in this case because the politicians wouldn’t change policies for fear of losing their position. The perfect citizen, in my theory, would be able to defend his or her point with positives and in light of the negatives. You can be enthusiastic or you can be skeptical as long as you have a reason for your opinion.
I can hear the opposition in my head. This model is impossible. You haven’t taken into account the educational disparities between socioeconomic classes. This is true. I did not take into account the situational differences between countries and among social classes. This is not a solution, however; it is an ideal. It is something I wish I would see more of. I want to see more people react to policies and news stories as they see it relating to themselves or to the larger population. When the public responds to particular policies or events, the government will know which areas they should focus on or what steps ought to be taken to better society. Informed decisions can also decrease the low opinion ratings of presidents because the populace will have realistic expectations rather than the inflated ones they gather from surface level campaigning.
There is no way to force people to be interested in politics. I cannot tell people that they have to read the news or watch every presidential debate. We are in the midst of the most basic participatory model of citizenship and far off from the responsive model that I picture in my head. I can only hope that my personal involvement can encourage others to become more involved as it did with Sam. I can only hope that participation can progress logically from minimal to moderate and finally to maximum attention to details. Until then, I will continue to respond to my surroundings in accordance with my model of citizenship. After all, citizenship is just another theory that depends on the person you ask.