Being A Citizen: The Definition Of Being A Citizen

In order to reach the best conclusion on what it means to be a citizen, a discussion of the most primitive answer to the question must be established. To put it bluntly, a citizen, without any outside considerations or sophistications, is a person who is associated with a group of people. This definition is necessary, but not sufficient to define what a citizen is. To generalize what a citizen is under a set of definiens creates complications with regards to analyzing different cultures within different time periods when those cultures existed. The best way to orient the definition is to, first; give broad sufficent definiens for the concept of being a citizen. To address the issue of varying cultures and time periods, these definiens will …show more content…
Beginning with nomadic peoples, a citizen would be a person who maintains a locational association with their group during each movement of that group. As nomadic groups began using agriculture they eventually became stationary. The people would have locational association if they lived and contributed around and into the general epicenter of that territory. This idea of contribution of the citizen within the territory helps establish the concept of the sovereignty of the land to those people. This sovereignty means that the people controlled the land and who used it. Even if another sovereign territory wished to use the land they would need to have express permission by the people of the previously defined state to do so. This allows for the definien of locational association to stand true as long as the land is in continual control by the original state. Locational association is sufficient but not necessary for a citizen. This is due to the idea of economic …show more content…
The reason there are holes in the previously mentioned definiens is that there may be different cultures within a state that do not associate with the state. This begs the question, can a broad definition of a citizen be sufficient if there is not a cultural epicenter for those peoples who may not contribute to the economic epicenter of their state or associate with the locational association of that state? The best example is to look at the Roma people in Europe. These people do not have locational association or economic association with any predefined state and move nomadically. They define their citizenship to the Romani people through cultural association. These people are spread across large distances and do not have any economic epicenters. Cultural association is sufficient for defining a citizen as it fills in the gaps previously