Dietz piece focuses exclusively on the
implications of citizenship rights. National laws regarding earning citizenship
range from not being able to gain citizenship or gaining citizenship after living within the country
for a set amount of time. However, even with the benefits of gaining citizenship or being born with
citizenship, the guarantee of accessibility to the benefits of citizenship does
not exist for all. Dietz states, “a second tenet of liberal political thought
is that society should ensure the freedom of all its members to realize their
capabilities”. In essence, accessibility
is fundamental to reaching these
personal capabilities.
It is evident that, although minorities are
born within US borders they are still not afforded the same rights at their
white counterparts. Even more even though women are born in the US or have
gained citizenship , they still not provided with the same resources as that of
men. Feminist politics raises awareness of the disadvantages of being a citizen
but not being treated as a citizen. Or the implications of being “equal” but
still being different levels of equal.
I agree with Joseph's point on Dietz's emphasis on citizenship and its necessity to all the constituents of a particular culture. I also think that Dietz wants citizenship, much like democracy, to be an open discourse that is not only fluid but open to everyone. However, as Jeff mentioned, not everyone has access to this discourse and thus the counter-theories often involve diametrically opposed viewpoints that equally exclude certain voices and groups of people.
ReplyDelete