Citizenship vs. Social Membership
Throughout the introduction and fourth chapter of Fit to Be Citizens, Natalia Molina continually touches on the significant differences between “citizenship” and “social membership.” She describes how being a legal "citizen” of a country/society often does not necessarily grant an individual “membership" in the social realm of that country/society.
To quote the text, Molina states that “the highest levels of government determine legal citizenship, but institutions, such as public health departments, determine who has access to social membership.”
Depending on how you define "social membership," do you think it is just that institutions other than the government are in charge of deciding who is worthy and who is unworthy of societal participation? If not, whose responsibility should it be to decide this? Why do you think this responsibility has fallen upon the public health department, and what makes them good or bad candidates for deciding who is a deserving member of society?
In terms of the bigger picture: in your personal opinion, how should the government determine who can be citizen of this country? What factors should they weigh into their decision and why? Should everyone who is a citizen automatically have access to social membership in that country? Why or why not?
Every citizen should be treated equally, and everybody should be treated with basic dignity and human respect. Granting someone citizenship should be granting them equal access to social institutions no matter their ethnicity or race. That applies to all social institutions, as citizenship should be the point at which you are granted access to the resources all fellow citizens have had access to. Otherwise, you hierarchize citizens in a way that devolves the word "citizen" of any meaning. To me, citizenship should be social membership, all instances in which its not represents the forms of inequality we try and purge our society of. Most civil rights issues represent issues in which citizens are not granted "social membership."
ReplyDeleteOn the question of determining citizenship, I have no idea. The issue of immigration is complex, and I don't feel I can give an informed opinion on the issue.
To answer the last question first, I think that if someone is granted citizenship that they expect and deserve social membership within that country. The public health department's first and foremost worry should be treating all members of society, and since I am stating that citizens should be members of society, that should include everyone. I am enjoying thinking about the difference between citizenship and social membership because I feel like that is something that is super prevalent throughout history. People may be living in the US legally but are not given the same opportunity and acceptance that other people have. I think acceptance is a big part of it. For example, a minority may be given citizenship to a country but due to racism may be held from parts of the country, a big one that shows up in Fit to Be Citizens: health care. Going off a little, I think that health care is the one thing that should be easy to access for everyone. I found a vicious cycle in the book: minorities are put in terrible living conditions because they are "lesser" leading to illness spreading quickly within these communities leading to validation of minorities (specifically Mexicans being biologically lesser) and finalizing in further discrimination.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading just the short sections of the text so far, my eyes have been opened something so central to our discussion of race in Los Angeles and the effects of institutionalized racism. I hadn't previously considered the discrepancy between citizenship and social membership. If you are granted citizenship, you should be assimilated into society as any other; obtaining the same rights and access to the same opportunities. In reading that the public health department had such a huge influence on this, my views have definitely shifted. While the government does decide legally who and who doesn't obtain citizenship, other institutions decide those worthy of participating in society as an equal. These institutions can be anything as general and large as the people of a community perpetuating prejudice or bias against certain social groups or individuals to something smaller like the workplace. I don't think these other "institutions" have any say in deciding the social membership of these citizens. They are indeed citizens and should be treated as such, with equal respect and acknowledgement. As far as the responsibility having fallen on the public health department, I'm not sure if this is entirely true. Before reading, I had no idea of the influence they had on determining one's social membership. I don't think they should have this power, but I think it has fallen on them because of what has occurred in the past. They took into their hands to find a scapegoat, to find an out, someone to blame. I'm not sure of the active influence they have now, but I'm sure that their actions and perspectives proposed in the past still linger today.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how should the government determine who can be citizen of this country now since there are many factors to be considered, but this is something I would be interested in looking into.(sidebar- I also think it would be a good topic of discussion for our class since immigration and citizenship are a huge part of LA). Still, I do believe in the notion that anyone who is a citizen should What factors should they weigh into their decision and why? Should everyone who is a citizen have access to social membership in each respective country. If the government is deeming someone a citizen, they should be recognizing them as a member of society as well. There should be no discrepancy between the two. Citizenship is social membership.
I think it is interesting and kinda weird to think of any institution, including government, being "in charge" of social membership.. its like a helicopter mom swooping in and structuring the child's social life rather than letting it shape itself naturally.... Like people have been saying, citizenship should translate into social membership: every citizen deserves access to the resources and opportunities that any other citizen is allowed. I think government has the ability to synthesize the two concepts, but has failed to. In chapter 4, Natalie Molina's line, "In the words of the historian Vicki Ruiz, 'rhetoric exploded into action,'" stood out to me because it defined the impact government has on society. The choice of language and the choice of action taken by those in government--those in authority-- can dictate social acceptance. This is very problematic, especially in the situation of immigration because people take from the views of their politicians--even when they are straying from truth-- and that heavily shapes society's social climate.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who is a citizen in this country should be entitled to the same rights and I do not believe that "social membership" should be a thing. However it is important to note that that this "membership" is quite expansive in our society and I believe it is seen most in the workplace (what type/race of people works certain jobs) and what they're entitled to in our country because of it. For example, Los Angeles is home to a number of exclusive golf resorts that let in a small amount of members each year based on a number of different factors. What these factors have to do with, I will let you decide (smh), but it is important to note that a gardener who is a minority and who may work on the golf course could never become a member at the course because of where his or her "social membership" has landed here even though him or her and the members of the club are all American citizens and they should be entitled to the same things. However this is one of a multitude of different examples displaying how this is not the case across the country.
ReplyDeleteAs we've seen from the book, being a citizen does not necessarily mean that one is also a working member of society. I'd like to say that that is not the case today, but unfortunately I do not think that it is true. Obviously there are benefits to being a citizen like different social programs and government funded facilities, so those who are granted citizenship should be a part of those, to be a part of the community and to be an active social member. The Public Health Department is designed to make people safe and t ensure that the population isn't susceptible to large scale disease outbreaks. When responsible for this task only, the Public Health Department can be very successful; however, when the innate racism that we saw to be present in the 19th and 20th centuries plagues the PHD, then they can no longer be successful in creating a safe and healthy society.
ReplyDeleteI think interest in social programs and being a citizen of a country should be enough to grant citizenship. If someone is interested in participating in our democracy and being an active member of society, they should be granted citizenship Moreover, citizenship should also grant social membership because I believe that you cannot have one without the other.
I completely agree with what Molina says. Citizenship is a legal label; something that is used for more logistical and governmental reasons. We can obviously see that this legal aspect can effect the lives of citizens and non-citizens alike, but the idea of societal membership is not only more important on a more micro level, but also accessible by people actually trying to attain citizenship. In other words, the government's label should not affect how people assimilate into "American Culture" (whatever that means). I am not saying that the label does not effect how they fall into society, I am saying that it should not. I think that everyone deserves social membership anywhere. While social membership is a very vague term, I still think that even if someone is coming to America for vacation, they still deserve to be treated in an inclusive and respectful way. Someone who is coming to America with the goal of gaining the legal label of citizenship should have social membership once they step into the country.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am sure we can all agree that every citizen should be treated with respect and care. We can all agree that all citizens, no matter race or ethnicity, should have equal opportunity to pursue their interests. Although we can all agree that all citizens deserve these opportunities, we would not be doing a conversation justice if we assume that this is possible. In order to break down the social standards and perceptions, I think the government should look into quotas that promote the qualities of all citizens.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of immigration, it is my opinion that the United States should admit people based on merit. While it would be great if everyone in pursuit of the American Dream could become an American, it is impossible to do so without hurting current lower and middle class Americans.
I believe that everyone should be responsible for determining wether someone has a societal membership or not-- not just the government. People should be able to decide on the worthiness of someones "social membership" based off of one's personality and heart, not the color of their skin. I don't believe that this responsibility has somehow been given to the public health department, but instead they took this responsibility when given the chance. They made a problem involving diseases to a race problem. I believe that people should be made citizens if they offer some sort of benefit to the country be it a job, special skill, family member they want to be with, etc. While my thoughts on allowing citizenships can be seen as conservative, I believe that once becoming a legal citizen of the country, they should instantly be granted social membership no matter where they're from or what race they are.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the government should have sole responsibility for deciding who is worthy and who is unworthy of societal participation, I think that it should also be up to the people. I believe that any citizen should be treated equally and have the same, equal opportunities. I am not sure how the government can determine who can be a citizen. I think that many people come to America in hopes of attaining the “American Dream” and receiving all the opportunities that American has to offer. However, I think that citizens should want what is best for America and come into the country with the hopes of participating and making it a better country. Citizenship then becomes social membership with the idea that everyone should be able to receive the opportunities and resources that our country provides and that citizens have the privilege to use.
ReplyDeleteAll citizens should have social membership.
ReplyDeleteEntrance into the social sphere should not be predicated off of the tools and assets that one brings in with them. It's an unconditional acceptance of an individuals basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The use of the public health department as a mechanism to determine which citizens deserve social membership is wrong. obviously, if statistics indicate certain populations have higher rates of disease, that would justify public health department action to mitigate that problem, but in the way that such polices are articulated in Fit to Be Citizens, public health policy desolves into neofascism.
Citizens need social membership. Everyone has the duty to be a part of a larger society that lives in sanctity under a certain amount of values allowing them to succeed and thrive with other people rather than in solitude. The health of a society is imperative to the success of a society and so when certain sections of a city are blamed for certain uncontrollable actions splits go from simple folk theory to actually borders. Once borders are established it becomes harder and harder to join in and desegregate a city. These borders are preventable. As long as associations and equality from areas of leadership remain impartial and give everyone the same opportunities. If these qualities and aspects of society remain the same then one can expect some form of unity and citizens enjoying unity and all aspects that go along with it.
ReplyDelete