Post by jjnickell on Apr 4, 2016 6:35:24 GMT
After reading the pieces from Asen, and Rufo & Atchison (as well as Chavez, whose discussion helped to clarify several points for me), I feel compelled to carve out a position in this debate. I enjoyed both articles quite a bit, and found myself largely agreeing with both as a read them – as well as disagreeing on various points. While I read Asen, I continued to find an answer to the question that he never answers, and one that Rufo & Atchison and Chavez pose in response: if the mode of citizenship is so expansive, is there anything that does not qualify as an act of citizenship? At the very least, after reading Asen’s piece, I am not sure I can draw a distinction between acts of citizenship and rhetorical acts. On the other hand, I feel as though Rufo & Atchison do not really treat Asen’s discourse theory of citizenship as a point for discussion and refinement as Asen posits it in his own article, and rather, simply aim to bash it. The problem with this type of approach is that it encourages unfair readings on the part of the respondent. Sure enough, in this case, Rufo & Atchison are quick to claim that Asen’s approach will lead us down the path to fascism because it erodes the distinction between the private and the public. I understand their argument, but never once do they address the somewhat normative (emphasis on “somewhat” – see my other post) discussion offered by Asen, in which he theorizes Dewey to explore the new “type” of democracy available to us once we revise our view of citizenship from status to process. While he is a little vague, I do think Asen’s argument makes sense to me here; as such, it follows we are only at risk of fascism if we fail to understand our acts as expressions (or not expressions) of citizenship (of some type or another). It seems to me that we can almost view Asen’s piece as a project rather than just a theory.
All that to say: I am definitely on board with Rufo & Atschison’s complaints, but at this point, I think I buy Asen’s overall theory as a starting point for further refinement. What do you all think? I’ll be interested to hear Asen’s response to this, and more particularly, his discussion as to what modes of behavior are not expressions of citizenship.
All that to say: I am definitely on board with Rufo & Atschison’s complaints, but at this point, I think I buy Asen’s overall theory as a starting point for further refinement. What do you all think? I’ll be interested to hear Asen’s response to this, and more particularly, his discussion as to what modes of behavior are not expressions of citizenship.
