A Good Citizen

Few definitions are static: some are deleted, some are replaced, others narrowed down, yet others enriched. There is a need for vocabulary and concepts to develop organically within its non-static environment. What constitutes a good citizen is debatable; Berelson (1952) expresses a classical definition of the concept. Since then, societies have changed, and with recent exponential developments in technology and globalization, the revision space seems ample. The young citizen is a person increasingly disengaged in politics in its conventional form, a person that more and more searches for purpose and like-mindedness in semi-autonomous online communities (Bennett, 2008). This essay will argue that the old ideal of a good citizen is outdated

On the topic of the ultimate good citizen personality, Berelson states that one of the requirements is “a nice balance between submissiveness and assertiveness.” The dutiful citizen, as described in Bennett (2008) may well fit into such a description, but the modern youth, or the actualizing citizen, would with its mistrust of both politicians and media unlikely submit to submissiveness. As further described by Berelson, there are three types of interest demanded from a good citizen: spectator, citizen and partisan interest, signifying interest in the campaign, interest in deciding how to vote, and interest in the success in one’s candidate The stereotype of the actualizing youth citizen may subscribe to the notion of interest in a different manner, where the importance of politics may lie afar from the political spectacle of campaigns, distant representatives and even voting. From the actualizing citizen it can be more important with grassroots community engagement like volunteering and “voting with your money” by supporting pressure groups that may seem more interested in your personal engagement than representatives from political parties. The requirements of knowledge seem outdated too. Berelson’s informed citizen is a person who takes in pieces of information from official sources and the media and from this constructs

Youth people are evidently engaged in online activities, but as much of the debate is focused on entertainment and socialization, is this really civic engagement? Peter Levine (2006) outlines a few useful points in this debate. Firstly, while the general knowledge seems to diminish, many subgroups in the population may be engaged in issues that are of specific value to them. Secondly, there are certain overlooked trends in youth engagement like a higher degree of volunteering, that contribute to a positive citizenship. Lastly, the decline in participation in classical institutions such as voting and the conventional press may signify not disengagement but instead a deliberate choice to not participate in what the youth sees as a flawed system. So how do we increase youth engagement? In a society where the up-and-coming electorate is spending increasing hours and engagement on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, the innovation of political candidates runs slow, using the same channels to reach an audience that simply is not there to be found. In order to reach this crowd, especially educators need to realize that their citizen role does not necessarily fit with the students. There is a need to meet the new type of citizens on their half of the pitch, using their forms of community and engagement in order to integrate an old system with a