Interview with Maria Ravisco on citizenship was interesting. Her series of questions on citizenship and belonging evoked other questions about feeling worthy and freedom of personal expression. These are the points which I did not talk about.
I like the negatives such as a negative of a film, a negative of a thought. From there the positives can be highlighted and can be more appreciated. Every concept comes as pairs.
To me the value put into being a citizen comes from the experience of not being a citizen or from the fear of not being a citizen. The fear of losing...
When you are not a citizen, there is a feeling of being a runaway, being isolated from fundamental needs, to have something to hide. The ever growing 'unworthiness'. Unworthy of feeling a life!!!
Suddenly all these 'Unworthy People' gather together to heal their own wounds and assure each other that they are more worthy than "The Others". There is a belonging in a group and being a citizen of that group is necessary for the survival of the self. The way it can be achieved is creating another division. Becoming a citizen of the new division...
Nature loves fractals and is based on fractals. It produced more of what is put in.
It Manifestation of group of Unbelongers, would bring its own dynamic and belonging concept. Would this empower the urge of and need of establishing cults where it is safe and ok to have a personal expression towards an idea is more acceptable, until it is not!
What is the correlation between citizenship, belonging and personal expression? What citizenship means to an artist whose living is from personal expression? Aren't we all worthy of every good feelings and the abundance in the nature from birth? Don't we like to support each other in a perfect balance, not too much to make the person enable, not too little to make the person cripple?
Living beings, animal, humans, plants want to live in a group of their kinds. It is safer, more fun, social, and easier to find a right mate and grow siblings.
'Citizenship' should be a tangible concept which embraces and allows the citizens to be safe and be free to create and play together, to enable exploration of differences so the tools for the society and 'citizens' to evolve could be created and assembled. In today's practice, does citizenship enforces the citizens to be conformist instead of mobile thinkers and doers?
Whilst belonging allows great amount of unspoken, oral, written, physical exchange, it can also be restrictive because of the insecurities and the fears of the citizens. As a paradox, these insecurities and fears are a necessity to fit into the needs to be a citizen in today's way of living. Citizen is a person who fears and has insecurities, he who should be protected from the Unbelongers.
Naturally occurring rules to live in a harmony together and to create the safe environment is not as the way it sounds. This is why the concepts of citizenship and belonging become a paradox for the people who like their free will and mobility and harmony. It is enforcement, an enforcement of the predefined rights and wrongs. The citizens and belongers should fill these requirements to obtain the fundamental necessities to live as oppose the Unbelongers.
When I know so deep down in my bones that there are times more than rare where rights can be wrong and the wrongs can be right. Certainly there are times that it is right to be wrong and wrong to be right.
To be or not to be !!!