Questions for Sessions 2

1. Questions for Sessions 2 • What are the main characteristics of polis? • What are men and women’s position in a polis? • What does katha phusin zoon politikon mean in the context of the Ancient Greek citizenship? • Why did the political concept of polis decline in the fourth century? • What did Diogenes proclaim? Why did he do so? • Is Immanuel Kant’s concept of cosmopolitanism the same as the one introduced in the fourth century Greece? • How do the Roman democracy differ from Ancient Greek democracy? Indicate the main characteristics. • How did the Stoics (e.g. Epictetus) view about the relationship between the Universe and God? • Insofar as citizenship is concerned, what was debated by the Stoics? • Why are many people still worried about the concept of ‘universalism’? • What are St Augustine’s two concepts of ‘city’?

2. Ancient ‘Democratic’ Citizenship • ‘Citizen’ (French: citoyen, citoyenne; Greek: polis, polites; Latin: civis, civitas) • Greek, Greeks, Athenian • Polis (ancient city-state): mythology of the identity of the civilized West • Ideal and Image of polis: (public space) democratic, civilized, creative and dynamic • Aristotle: ‘the citizen is both the ruler and the ruled’ • Collective decisions of common interests • Decisions were not yet considered as rules and laws • Men = head of household, owner of ‘good’ (oikos (private space)), step out of oikos being the infrastructure for managing polis • Women cannot leave oikos, because theymust manage oikos and slaves. It is not ‘humane’ • Politics is good as it is ‘public good’. • Human being must rule him/her-self (kata phusin zoon politikon)

3. Ancient ‘Democratic’ Citizenship • Fourth century: the decline of polis and civic virtues • Cosmopolitanism (world citizenship) • Diogenes Laertius proclaimed himself as ‘citizen of the world’ (‘I am a citizen of the world’). Polis was no longer the first claim of individual’s political loyalty. • His idea of world citizenship attempted to criticize polis, not as a vision of human community which is universal • Note: Imannuel Kant (18th century) employed a more positive concept of world citizenship to promote a more rigorous moral duties among members of sovereign states. In the post Second World War, various movements used to promote world citizenship for defending individual and collective duties to support the development of effectively global-institutions to handle global poverty and inequality

4. Ancient ‘Democratic’ Citizenship • Roman (Romans) • Like the Athenian, Roman democratic is marked by • organizing through ‘face-to-face’ society based on oral and writing tradition. • having elements of popular participation Unlike the Greek, the Roman distinguished morality from legality, citizenship from democracy Citizenship refers to a legal status in Roman political community, res public (legal community) Gaius Gracchus: universe can be defined through jurisprudence into ‘human being, action and good’ or res This definition shifts from something ideal (Aristotle) to something real; no a longer political being (Aristotle), but legal who is being ruled by law. Not as someone who has to leave his oikos, but one who possesses good or thing (long before market existed; materialism); St Paul: one is free to act and be protected by law (legalis homo).

5. Can a cosmopolite be a nationalist, and vice-versa? Stoics: can a citizen of the universe (cosmos) be a patriot? • For Epictetus, universe refers to God. A citizen is a subordinate of the universe and obey law of universe. • The duty of a stoics is to live harmoniously according to the universe. • Individual is the center of a concentric circle, in which state, ethnicity and the world is the periphery. • Cicero: it is the duty of a Roman to respect and to defend the bond and friendship, replacing all concepts that distinguish members of human race. • The Stoics introduced a concept of oikument or world-state. To them, differentiating gender, ethnicity and class is not relevant. They welcome students from all nationalities, and reject Aristotle’s doctrine, that a certain state is more suitable for slaves. They respect human being (universal), rather than ethnic and national identity. This refers to ‘reason of the universe’ • Two republicae of the stoics: a small one (state) and a bigger one (cosmopolis) may lead to ‘universalism’ interpreted as imperialism (Britain in the past) and neo-imperialism (USA)

6. St Augustine: ‘De Civitas Dei’ • St Augustine (neo-platonist): Civitas Dei and Civitas Terrena • Civitas Dei: City of God (citizens of the heavenly city) • Represented by Jerusalem or Sion which is the truth (veritas) reflecting self-sacrifice and modesty • Civitas Terrena: City of man (citizens of worldly city) • Represented by Babylon, a vanity (vanitas), which is full of lust (concupiscentia) and arrogance. • Cititas Dei is favored because the history of our life is not determined by human being, but by divine providence (Providentia Dei) • Influenced by such thinking, religious radicals are obsessed to turn ‘city of man’ or ‘worldly citizenship’ into ‘city of God’

7. Review Questions • Some political commentators are inclined to use Ancient Greek polis to reflect the condition of Indonesia (state). Can we adopt the life of the polis? Why? • Which one best describes a (post-) ‘modern’ polis, Jakarta or Singapore? Why? • Are we ‘citizens of a nation’ or ‘citizens of the world’ (the universe)? Explain. • How would you explain to your students the relationship of nationalism to universalism and cosmopolitanism? • How would you explain to your students the difference between Civitas Dei and Civitas Terrena? • What are the implications may bring to people who are obsessed with Civitas Dei? • What do you think about the idea of ‘universalism’ and ‘universal rights’? • Have the idea of ‘res public’ been used properly in Indonesia by many commentators and intellectuals?

8. Reflecting Cosmopolitanism – An Analogy of a Pebble • ‘I am the pebble and the world is the pond I have been dropped into. I am at the center of a system of concentric circles that become fainter as they spread … My duties are exactly like the concentric ripples around the pebble; strongest at the center and rapidly diminishing toward the periphery … any duties to those on the far periphery are going to diminish to nothing, and given the limited resources available to any ordinary person, his/her positive duties will barely reach beyond a second or third circle.’ (H. Shue,1988)

9. Questions for Sessions 3 • What do ‘early modern democratic thinkers’ such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau view about citizenship? • What is the social thought of citizenship? • How do liberal individualists think about citizenship? • How do Marxists think about an ideal society? • What does Francis Fukuyama’s ‘the end of history’ mean? • What are the difference between ‘old social democracy’ and ‘neo-liberalism’? • What does ‘third way’ (Robert B. Reich, Anthony Giddens) mean? • Why do we need to consider contemporary views of citizenship? • What are the contemporary theories of liberalism, republicanism, communitarianism and radical view on citizenship? • What are the ‘civil communities’? • What are the ‘future of citizenship strategy’?

10. Modern Democratic Citizenship • Early Greek and Roman traditions inspired the concepts of common good, common welfare and civic virtues that re-emerged in Europe in resistance to the autocratic power of monarchs, and with the growing power of the urban middle classes. These concepts fed and were fed by the Protestant Reformation of seventeenth century Europe, but it was the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment that gave effective shape to contemporary constitutional democracy, liberalism, republicanism, humanism and modernity. • Early Modern Democratic Citizenship Citizenship is a ‘relationship existing between a natural person and political society, known as a state, by which the former owes allegiances and the latter protection.’ (Gould and Kolb1964:88) • This definition derives from the notion of the ‘social contract’ and the thinking of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, that sees human beings as fundamentally self rewarding and self interested, and human associations as necessary evils. Individual and group interests necessarily clash, but can, with effort, be civilly accommodated (Pratte 1988:27).

11. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Madison • Thomas Hobbes saw unified sovereignty as standing above civil society, and its self-interested subjects accepting the bonds of state for the peace and protection they brought • John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government (1681-3/1980) proposed a different version of the social contract, in which civil society was not subject to the sovereign state, but constrained it. • Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) looked to a more ‘natural’ form of the social contract that would nurture better people and liberate them from the undue bonds of government. His The Social Contract opens with the famous statement: ‘Man is born free, and yet we see him everywhere in chains’(Rousseau 1762/1947:5). • While Rousseau placed his trust in human nature, James Madison’s Federalist (1788) was critical of it. He considered that pure democracies in which a small numbers of citizens assemble and administer the government in person, ‘have always been intolerant, unjust and unstable.’ (Held 1996:89).

12. Citizenship in Democratic Socialism • The emergence of the socialist theory, with its emphasis on social justice, collective action, common property and social duty was primarily a reaction against the human suffering caused by the European industrial revolution and unfettered capitalism. The form it took varied with the political, economic and cultural conditions of different countries • In industrialized Britain and Germany socialism had nationalist overtones, and grew from labor movements that looked to change through social consensus rather than revolution. Something like Rousseau’s ‘just society’, was believed to be attainable because people could be rational and benevolent, and because socialist cooperation could achieve more than selfish capitalism or liberal individualism. • Liberal individualism stresses the abstract choice of the individual, where the state is only an agency for maximizing satisfaction. The organic theory of society opposed this, denying that morality could be left to individual choice. According to Hegelian organic theory, as the product of natural historical evolution, the state has exclusive and unlimited coercive power to regulate individuals and enforce law. Without it, civil society would be chaotic.

13. Marxism and Citizenship • In the second half of nineteenth century Marxism emerged as a powerful force for changing society and its class system. Its economic determinism and obsession with class structure and conflict meant that individual citizens, with rights and obligations, were less significant than the class to which they belonged. • Although Marxism was the dominant ideology of the East European countries, its influences were minimal in Western Europe where different strategies were adopted to tame the injustices of capitalism, principally union movements and the growth of the welfare state. • These strategies encouraged (or at worst tolerated) citizen participation, whereas Marxist thinkers have always been suspicious of democratic citizenship. They preferred an organic conception of democracy, which tends to underestimate the rights of liberty, pluralism, and the rule of law. Citizenship rights were perceived instrumentally, as a gradual goal in themselves

14. Social Citizenship v Neo-liberalism • With the collapse of communism in the last decade of the last century, many countries are moving towards new forms of democracy, requiring revised concepts of citizenship. Francis Fukuyama has tagged this collapse ‘the end of history’, signaling the triumph of Western political and economic liberalism (Fukuyama 1992). • Social liberal = Old Social Democracy (Welfare state) • State intervention to shape a more equal society • Full use of legal and political status • Neo-liberal = New Right • Antipathy to social citizenship, reducing the citizen to a condition of dependency on the ‘nanny state’ • St John: ‘The poor always ye have with you’ • Third Way = New Social Democracy • State control (regulation) v Free Market (responsiveness) • Public sector reform: turning state-own schools, hospitals, etc, so that they respond to market-like ways for users’ demand without being privatized.

15. Contemporary Views of Citizenship • This brief summary is necessary to define the terms used in this subject and as a background to discussion of contemporary issues in Indonesian citizenship, the political strategies of successive regimes to legitimize power relations in Indonesia, and thus the discursive structures of Indonesian citizenship education. • Political science recognizes a primary divide between the political right and left, in Australia, for example, traditionally represented by the Liberal and Labor parties, but acknowledges the existence of a number of overlapping factions and political perspectives under these broad heads, whose taxonomic definition varies with different commentators. Similarly, contemporary views of citizenship recognize broad categories, but differ in the way they divide, subdivide and categorize these.

16. Liberal Theories • Liberalism is characterized by its emphasis on the rights of citizens, while republicanism emphasizes their duties (Heater 1999). The liberal tradition has been reworked by social-liberal theorists, such as T.H. Marshall (1992) and John Rawls (1971), although Delanty (2000) sees Marshall and Rawls as liberal communitarians. • Generally, social-liberal theorists are concerned with social inequality in societies, drawing particular examples from capitalist countries. Neo-liberal theory centers on the work of Friedrich Hayek (1960,1944) and Robert Nozick (1974), and is concerned to limit the political world as much as possible in order to allow the individual the maximum amount of freedom. Neo-liberals are particularly opposed to the welfare state and in favor of the free market (Voet 1998).

17. Communitarianism • The main concern of liberal communitarianism is the participation of citizens in the community (Alasdair MacIntyre 1988, 1981, Michael Sandel 1982, Michael Walzer 1983 and Charles Taylor 1989). • It rejects moral individualism in favor of a collective conception of citizenship, and argues that in liberal capitalism there is ‘no common morality which could provide a general endorsement of rights’ (Abercrombie, Hill and Turner 2000) • Etzioni (1996) considered that communities need to balance the centrifugal and centripetal forces within them. Centrifugal forces such as individualization, self-expression and sub-group liberty may endanger social cohesion, and in the extreme produce social anarchy. Centripetal forces, such as national or community service, regulation and mobilization foster social bonds and shared normative conceptions, but may lead to excessive collectivism.

18. Radical-Democratic Citizenship • Radical democratic citizenship is expressed through participation in grassroots or direct democracy. It should be located neither in the state nor in depoliticized civil society, but in collective action (Delanty 2000). • This perspective sees citizenship as consisting in more than a legal status based on rights and obligations, but also implying participation and identity in a political community that may transcend state and nation and have international, global, transnational and post-national dimensions (Sassen 2002, Delanty 2000, Ong 1999a, Linklater 2002, 1998, Turner 2001). • Feminist theories of discursive democracy (Voet 1998, Habermas 1999) argue that universalistic assumptions of the liberalism should be relativitized to take difference into consideration (Delanty 2000).

19. Republicanism Reconstructed (Janoski and Gran 2002) • Consensual: communitarianism and civic republicanism • Communitarianism stresses community goals, good society is built through mutual support and group action, not atomistic choice and individual liberty; a strong community based on common identity, mutuality, participation, integration and some autonomy. • Republicanism emphasizes civil society, the virtues of good citizens who act on behalf of others, not state obligations • Participation: neo-republicanism and expansive democracy • Neo-republicanism emphasizes 3 points: 1) act publicly with other citizens in civil society (not as individuals), 2) enact an office with formal rights and duties, and 3) organize a plurality (not a majority) to guide their community of fate. It requires amount of competency to operate through deliberation, debate and tolerance • Expansive democracy emphasizes the rights and increased participation of the lower classes, women, and other groups.

20. Civil Communities (John Kane, 2000) Thin community Thick community Moral citizenship (Global/environment / ecological citizen; standing on one’s feet without state assistance) Civil communitarianism (inculcation and practice of civic virtues (public good); moral order and action; Civic Republican) Active citizenship Liberal individualism (non-interference of individual liberty; Radical autonomy: no commitment to a common good/duties) Strong communitarianism (preservation of particular socio-cultural community; Family values, obedience to authority; Communal solidarity; Conservatives) Passive citizenship

21. Good Citizen – The Future of Citizenship Strategy(Department of Constitutional Affairs, 2007) Reactive Citizens Proactive Citizens TRIBAL (community inward looking) citizenship GLOBAL citizenship Resource Constrained CHARITY BEGIN AT HOME citizenship REMOTE- SELF citizenship Resource Rich

22. Review Questions • How did Indonesia’s founding fathers adopt and adapt the ideas of citizenship of the Ancient and Modern Europe (and the U.S.A)? • Has Indonesia’s citizenship education considered issues debated by contemporary theorists of citizenship? • Considering the Reformasi movements and/or democratization in Indonesia in the last decade, how would you relate it to the foregoing contemporary theories of citizenship? • Give two examples (cases) of ‘thin community’ and ‘thick community’ in Indonesia. • Give two examples (cases) of ‘proactive citizens’ and ‘reactive citizens’ in Indonesia or in another country. • Do you think the Indonesian government has properly addressed various problems and issues faced by Indonesian people in the last few years? What makes you think so? • What are the functions of the state?

23. Functions of the State (World Bank 1997) • Minimal Functions • Providing pure public goods • Defense, law and order • Macroeconomic management • Public health • Improving equity (protecting the poor; anti-poverty program; disaster relief) • Intermediate Functions • Addressing externalities (education, environment protection) • Regulating monopoly (anti-trust, utility regulation) • Overcoming imperfect education • Consumer protection, financial regulation, social insurance • Activist Functions • Industrial policy (Coordinating private activities: fostering markets, cluster initiatives) • Wealth redistribution