{"title":"沙发上的公民身份:新冠肺炎大流行及其后的公共参与和私人规范","authors":"C. Hobden, Heidi Matisonn","doi":"10.1080/05568641.2022.2026246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The tension between the public and the private spheres is not new: while feminists (among others) have long called for public protection to be extended to the private sphere, liberals argue for the need for the ‘defence of the “private sphere” from encroachment by the public’ (Geuss 2001: 114). Although we acknowledge the problematic nature of the distinction, we nevertheless recognize its utility in delineating who we are engaging with and what, therefore, we owe them. Traditionally, citizenship, when seen as a role (rather than a status), belongs to the public sphere. We are citizens when we walk into the voting booth, when we attend a ward council meeting, or write to the paper. At home, we might think, we are not citizens but, stripped of our roles in society, we assume the most fundamental roles in our lives—as family and friends—with freedom to pursue and express our interests and desires. It may appear then, that the citizen and the person, or the public and the private, co-exist only insofar as they are understood to be enacted in different spaces, each with their own norms and rules. Drawing upon Christine Hobden’s account of citizenship, we challenge this stark divide between the public citizen and private person. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to retreat (physically) to the private sphere, yet the rise of social media has provided us with greater opportunities to engage (virtually) with public challenges; this article analyses this reality through the lens of Hobden’s account of citizenship, exploring our civic responsibilities within the blurry public-private realm of social media. We examine some of the implications of this ‘citizenship from the couch’ and suggest that one possibly fruitful way to navigate the blurry line between these roles is to return to the fundamentals of political society: the social contract—the project of living together.","PeriodicalId":46780,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Papers","volume":"50 1","pages":"407 - 434"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citizenship from the Couch: Public Engagement and Private Norms in the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond\",\"authors\":\"C. Hobden, Heidi Matisonn\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/05568641.2022.2026246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The tension between the public and the private spheres is not new: while feminists (among others) have long called for public protection to be extended to the private sphere, liberals argue for the need for the ‘defence of the “private sphere” from encroachment by the public’ (Geuss 2001: 114). Although we acknowledge the problematic nature of the distinction, we nevertheless recognize its utility in delineating who we are engaging with and what, therefore, we owe them. Traditionally, citizenship, when seen as a role (rather than a status), belongs to the public sphere. We are citizens when we walk into the voting booth, when we attend a ward council meeting, or write to the paper. At home, we might think, we are not citizens but, stripped of our roles in society, we assume the most fundamental roles in our lives—as family and friends—with freedom to pursue and express our interests and desires. It may appear then, that the citizen and the person, or the public and the private, co-exist only insofar as they are understood to be enacted in different spaces, each with their own norms and rules. Drawing upon Christine Hobden’s account of citizenship, we challenge this stark divide between the public citizen and private person. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to retreat (physically) to the private sphere, yet the rise of social media has provided us with greater opportunities to engage (virtually) with public challenges; this article analyses this reality through the lens of Hobden’s account of citizenship, exploring our civic responsibilities within the blurry public-private realm of social media. We examine some of the implications of this ‘citizenship from the couch’ and suggest that one possibly fruitful way to navigate the blurry line between these roles is to return to the fundamentals of political society: the social contract—the project of living together.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Papers\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"407 - 434\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Papers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2022.2026246\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2022.2026246","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Citizenship from the Couch: Public Engagement and Private Norms in the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond
Abstract The tension between the public and the private spheres is not new: while feminists (among others) have long called for public protection to be extended to the private sphere, liberals argue for the need for the ‘defence of the “private sphere” from encroachment by the public’ (Geuss 2001: 114). Although we acknowledge the problematic nature of the distinction, we nevertheless recognize its utility in delineating who we are engaging with and what, therefore, we owe them. Traditionally, citizenship, when seen as a role (rather than a status), belongs to the public sphere. We are citizens when we walk into the voting booth, when we attend a ward council meeting, or write to the paper. At home, we might think, we are not citizens but, stripped of our roles in society, we assume the most fundamental roles in our lives—as family and friends—with freedom to pursue and express our interests and desires. It may appear then, that the citizen and the person, or the public and the private, co-exist only insofar as they are understood to be enacted in different spaces, each with their own norms and rules. Drawing upon Christine Hobden’s account of citizenship, we challenge this stark divide between the public citizen and private person. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to retreat (physically) to the private sphere, yet the rise of social media has provided us with greater opportunities to engage (virtually) with public challenges; this article analyses this reality through the lens of Hobden’s account of citizenship, exploring our civic responsibilities within the blurry public-private realm of social media. We examine some of the implications of this ‘citizenship from the couch’ and suggest that one possibly fruitful way to navigate the blurry line between these roles is to return to the fundamentals of political society: the social contract—the project of living together.
期刊介绍:
Philosophical Papers is an international, generalist journal of philosophy edited in South Africa Original Articles: Articles appearing in regular issues are original, high-quality, and stand-alone, and are written for the general professional philosopher. Submissions are welcome in any area of philosophy and undergo a process of peer review based on initial editor screening and refereeing by (usually) two referees. Special Issues: Topic-based special issues are comprised of both invited and submitted papers selected by guest editors. Recent special issues have included ''Philosophy''s Therapeutic Potential'' (2014, editor Dylan Futter); ''Aging and the Elderly'' (2012, editors Tom Martin and Samantha Vice); ''The Problem of the Criterion'' (2011, editor Mark Nelson); ''Retributive Emotions'' (2010, editor Lucy Allais); ‘Rape and its Meaning/s’ (2009, editor Louise du Toit). Calls for papers for upcoming special issues can be found here. Ideas for future special issues are welcome.