How citizenship has changed through history
The Ancient World
Early civilizations and kingdoms had no real idea of citizenship. If you were from Babylon or lived there you were Babylonian. They thought of people as being from an area, and there were not a large number of rival states needing to clearly define their borders and people. Thus, they truly lacked a conception of citizenship, as there was no real reason to have it. More often than not, the people believed their king was a god, or related to the gods in some form or another, thus it was more religious than political, and to disagree with the king was to go against your gods.
Israel
The first group that could be argued as having an idea of citizenship were the Israelites. They believed themselves to be a distinct group, different from all others in both faith and beliefs. Not only that, they managed to retain their culture, traditions, and language despite being forced
from their lands several times and spread throughout the world. They could retain their identity as they thought of themselves as being something, and a part of something bigger than
themselves.
The Greek Cities
Later in history, new forms of governance emerged from the Grecian peoples, as diverse as the cities that started to dot its shores. The Ancient Greek ideas of citizenship were tied to their cities, such Athens, Thebes, and Sparta. None of them saw themselves as being 'Greek' but as being Athenian, Spartan, Theban, or whatever city they were from. They thought citizenship was the non-familial ties between individual and city, required to follow the rules of law set there. If a Athenian decided to take up residence in another city and start being active politically there, many would consider him now a citizen of that city, if he met their requirements. A citizens rights were more his obligations to the state, than personal freedoms.
Many cities had extremely limited citizenship, though, based on birth rather than participation. Sparta followed this model, with the Spartans known as Spartiates being the only true citizens, a status inherited from their parents. They lacked any sort of method for new groups to become citizens, which fitted with their fears of foreigners. If you weren't a Spartiate, you couldn't participate in the government, or even serve in the army. But at the same time, Spartans were forbidden from doing any sort of commerce. This created a sort of harmony, where freemen or Helot slaves would do the business in markets and other places, while the Spartans ruled and fought wars. Spartans were fully equal to other Spartans under the law, even females got the nearly same treatment and equality as the males would, unheard of in nearly every other city of Greece at that time. They could own land and participated in matters of state. The only thing Spartan women couldn't do was serve in the army.
Athens, on the other hand, started out almost as aristocratic as Sparta. It had a very limited view of citizenship, but later on it expanded citizenship. It started believing all freeborn Athenians should participate in government, and developed a sort of 'Mob Rule' style democracy, where whatever was the most popular was the decision chosen. A few great leaders, such as Pericles, were able to point it in the right direction, at times, but Athenians grew to have a deep distrust of anyone holding power for a very long time. They developed a practice known as 'ostracizing' to combat this. Anonymous votes were held from time to time, where if a person was voted to be ostracized, they would be banished from Athens for up to ten years, as a way to prevent the rise of tyrants and facilitate the expulsion of threats. They had a very narrow view of citizenship, excluding any who were non-native male Athenians living within Athens.
Rome
The Ideas of citizenship that came from Rome began long before the Romans overthrew their Etruscan overlords in 509 B.C. Romans had started to adapt Greek cultural practices, like the idea that citizenship should be limited to very few people who would get say in government and the practice of tracing citizenship through bloodlines. Citizens of Rome were citizens of the city itself, not the territory controlled by it. Like Greece, citizenship was thought to be an active participation in government. Rome did have a few practices different than Greek ones, but in large they were about the same.
Something unique that didn't exist in the Greek cities was the ability for social mobility and foreigners becoming citizens. Roman Emperors could bestow citizenship, as could the senate. This was only conferred upon people who were very Romanized however, or when Rome was in dire need for new recruits for their army.
Feudalism to Modern
During the Middle Ages and until the Renaissance (when old, more Roman ideas of citizenship resurfaced), the main type of citizenship was a reciprocal kind between serfs and nobility, known as the feudal system. It worked well for the chaotic times, but eventually people started disliking the hierarchical and strict nature of that system.
Roman ideas resurfaced among the Italian city states of the Renaissance. The citizens would help run the city, defend it, and do many of the same things that Greek cities did during the Greek Classical Era. These ideas would develop and expand over time, with rising nation-states, or states based around a common culture, adopting the ideas of the Italian cities to tie their people together even more with codified ideas and rules for citizens to follow.
The American revolution would change these even further, with their own culture having been fostered in democratic colonial legislatures and a very freedom based society, Americans would create the idea that citizenship was based around what the state should do for the individual and vice-versa, to create a reciprocal and fair system. Other nations would soon adopt this stance, creating the ideas we have today.
Early civilizations and kingdoms had no real idea of citizenship. If you were from Babylon or lived there you were Babylonian. They thought of people as being from an area, and there were not a large number of rival states needing to clearly define their borders and people. Thus, they truly lacked a conception of citizenship, as there was no real reason to have it. More often than not, the people believed their king was a god, or related to the gods in some form or another, thus it was more religious than political, and to disagree with the king was to go against your gods.
Israel
The first group that could be argued as having an idea of citizenship were the Israelites. They believed themselves to be a distinct group, different from all others in both faith and beliefs. Not only that, they managed to retain their culture, traditions, and language despite being forced
from their lands several times and spread throughout the world. They could retain their identity as they thought of themselves as being something, and a part of something bigger than
themselves.
The Greek Cities
Later in history, new forms of governance emerged from the Grecian peoples, as diverse as the cities that started to dot its shores. The Ancient Greek ideas of citizenship were tied to their cities, such Athens, Thebes, and Sparta. None of them saw themselves as being 'Greek' but as being Athenian, Spartan, Theban, or whatever city they were from. They thought citizenship was the non-familial ties between individual and city, required to follow the rules of law set there. If a Athenian decided to take up residence in another city and start being active politically there, many would consider him now a citizen of that city, if he met their requirements. A citizens rights were more his obligations to the state, than personal freedoms.
Many cities had extremely limited citizenship, though, based on birth rather than participation. Sparta followed this model, with the Spartans known as Spartiates being the only true citizens, a status inherited from their parents. They lacked any sort of method for new groups to become citizens, which fitted with their fears of foreigners. If you weren't a Spartiate, you couldn't participate in the government, or even serve in the army. But at the same time, Spartans were forbidden from doing any sort of commerce. This created a sort of harmony, where freemen or Helot slaves would do the business in markets and other places, while the Spartans ruled and fought wars. Spartans were fully equal to other Spartans under the law, even females got the nearly same treatment and equality as the males would, unheard of in nearly every other city of Greece at that time. They could own land and participated in matters of state. The only thing Spartan women couldn't do was serve in the army.
Athens, on the other hand, started out almost as aristocratic as Sparta. It had a very limited view of citizenship, but later on it expanded citizenship. It started believing all freeborn Athenians should participate in government, and developed a sort of 'Mob Rule' style democracy, where whatever was the most popular was the decision chosen. A few great leaders, such as Pericles, were able to point it in the right direction, at times, but Athenians grew to have a deep distrust of anyone holding power for a very long time. They developed a practice known as 'ostracizing' to combat this. Anonymous votes were held from time to time, where if a person was voted to be ostracized, they would be banished from Athens for up to ten years, as a way to prevent the rise of tyrants and facilitate the expulsion of threats. They had a very narrow view of citizenship, excluding any who were non-native male Athenians living within Athens.
Rome
The Ideas of citizenship that came from Rome began long before the Romans overthrew their Etruscan overlords in 509 B.C. Romans had started to adapt Greek cultural practices, like the idea that citizenship should be limited to very few people who would get say in government and the practice of tracing citizenship through bloodlines. Citizens of Rome were citizens of the city itself, not the territory controlled by it. Like Greece, citizenship was thought to be an active participation in government. Rome did have a few practices different than Greek ones, but in large they were about the same.
Something unique that didn't exist in the Greek cities was the ability for social mobility and foreigners becoming citizens. Roman Emperors could bestow citizenship, as could the senate. This was only conferred upon people who were very Romanized however, or when Rome was in dire need for new recruits for their army.
Feudalism to Modern
During the Middle Ages and until the Renaissance (when old, more Roman ideas of citizenship resurfaced), the main type of citizenship was a reciprocal kind between serfs and nobility, known as the feudal system. It worked well for the chaotic times, but eventually people started disliking the hierarchical and strict nature of that system.
Roman ideas resurfaced among the Italian city states of the Renaissance. The citizens would help run the city, defend it, and do many of the same things that Greek cities did during the Greek Classical Era. These ideas would develop and expand over time, with rising nation-states, or states based around a common culture, adopting the ideas of the Italian cities to tie their people together even more with codified ideas and rules for citizens to follow.
The American revolution would change these even further, with their own culture having been fostered in democratic colonial legislatures and a very freedom based society, Americans would create the idea that citizenship was based around what the state should do for the individual and vice-versa, to create a reciprocal and fair system. Other nations would soon adopt this stance, creating the ideas we have today.
|
What is a Citizen?
by iCitizen Forum Colonial Williamsburg |