>It is indeed ridiculous to pretend as if we could take the word
>citizen & make it mean whatever meaning we choose to assign just like
>that, without changing relevant laws. For instance, I may
>symbolically claim that "I am an American citizen" especially given
>that I have lived in the USA longer than some American citizens, but
>that won't fly, especially when it comes to dealing with the state
>(INS, IRS, FBI, etc.).
If we're gonna talk citizenship, I'm gonna have to talk (gratifyingly basic) Habermas.
I do think the word, and an explicit debate concerning its definition, are of great political significance. That critical idea of defining something (and the conditions necessary for that definition to be honoured in practice) in precisely the terms implicit in the legitimating norms du jour (eg. liberalism) is a beaut. It's all very well talking formal rights and obligations - but the point has to be made that citizenship is a *practice*, much of it necessarily communicative (not just an occasionally ignored vote, but actually exercising the right to information and voice - not one or the other, but a logically necessary coexistence of both). From there you can go an awful lot of useful places. Not least a damning critique of media, media ownership, education, universal access to IT (from telephones to the Net), special programmes for immigrants, and, generally, useful public speculation on the conditions necessary for something approximating a public sphere.
Liberalism is as contradicted as anything else, and we live in times when the extensions and expansions of its apparent corollary, capitalism, are putting those contradictions in bold relief. Articulating nagging doubts, reservations and grievances is good politics in general, and talking citizenship/democracy is a particularly good idea in particular, I submit. Especially in lands where people reckon bravery and freedom are essential to who they are ...
Cheers, Rob.