A recent tweet by John Cleese[1] started another debate about national identity and what it means to be a citizen of a country or member of a community. In this post, I want to take a quick look at whether we even need to define this and how we could define it.

First of all, is it necessary to define who belongs to a place or community? Consider the following. If you are living in a certain city, then you have special rights, such as the right to have your garbage collected and removed by your city’s waste management. For obvious reasons, you don’t want to allow all of India to upload their waste in your city but rather only those people who belong to your city. There are many reasons why the same is true for the country-level as well. For example, if you don’t believe that everyone in the world is entitled to vote in your country’s elections or receive welfare then you need to define who is and who isn’t entitled. 

This would be completely non-controversial if we were talking about e.g. a golf club. Of course, only people who pay the fees and abide by the rules should be able to use the golf course. When it comes to countries this is suddenly a big deal. 

And if you really believe such categories do not exist and that I could just identify as a Chinese and expect to be accepted as one then, frankly, you’re a fool.

But to know what rights and duties apply to what people isn’t the only reason to desire such a definition. By supplying an inclusive but workable definition that also takes into account the human desire to be part of something bigger, we can create a strong and cohesive community in which everyone who is committed to it is also seen as a member.

Part of why America is better at assimilating immigrants is its ability to unite people under one flag. This kind of belonging does currently not exist in Germany and is one reason why e.g. the loyalty of Turkish immigrants is to Turkey and not Germany, there simply isn’t anything other than ethnicity that’s uniting Germans.

Here is a rough definition I believe to be adequate to decide who should belong to a certain community or place. First, an abstract version of the definition followed by a concrete example.

Abstract version: In order to be a member of a community one should meet at least 4 of the criteria below (sorted according to importance in descending order (#1 is the most important criterion)):

1. Respect and abide by the rules of the community.
2. Maintain the social cohesion of the community by being a team player.
3. Be loyal to the community and identify with it.
4. Be willing to defend the community and its interests against outside aggressors.
5. Make sure that you are easily able to communicate with other members of the community.
6. Maintain historical connections with the community.
7. Own a document provided by the community that acknowledges membership.

A concrete example of the above definition: In order to be German, one must meet a majority of the following criteria (sorted according to importance in descending order (#1 is the most important criterion)):

1. Respect the German constitution and be a law-abiding citizen.
2. Blend in with the dominant German culture.
3. First and foremost be loyal to Germany and self-identify as a German citizen.
4. Be willing to defend Germany and its values against outside aggressors.
5. Speak German.
6. Be of German ancestry.
7. Have a German passport.

Explanation: One of the goals of the definition is to ensure that any combination of criteria has some minimal usefulness in keeping society cohesive and functional. In doing so, the definition incorporates three important things:

1. left-wing inclusiveness (e.g. you could be a Muslim without ethnic ancestry and still be German).
2. right-wing patriotism and penchant for ancestry (you are either loyal/useful or pure-blooded/culturally assimilated).
3. technocratic realpolitik (it ostracizes the most subversive foreigners that are useless, disloyal and culturally incompatible).

It’s basically a compromise that accounts for the most cherished criteria of the three largest political groups (left/right/centrists).

Some further comments:

Regarding ancestry: It might be irrelevant from your and my perspective but it is an integral part of human nature to judge people’s social affiliation based on their ethnicity. It would, therefore, be a major shortcoming to leave it out completely. But as my definition only requires one to meet 4 criteria, it is not a necessary criterion. Further, when people have deep historical connections to a place or community then this should be acknowledged because removing them from the community is worse than removing someone who has very little connection to it.

Regarding German culture and values: The values might be fuzzy but they clearly exist. Some of them are encoded in the constitution. It becomes apparent that they indeed exist if you compare German culture to e.g. the culture of Saudi Arabia. Also, the point of criterion #2 is not necessarily to share all values but to conform to such an extent that one does not stand out. This is important because blending in or being a team player is important for social cohesion and trust. You can’t have a community where everyone follows widely different norms and expect them to cooperate effectively.

Regarding loyalty and willingness to defend your community: A state and its institutions rely on loyal citizens with shared values who are willing to defend it. There is also a reason why #3 and #4 are distinct. You don’t need to share the values in order to defend them (see e.g. French foreign legion). 

Note: I didn’t put effort into this. So you should expect that this post can easily be steelmanned.

[1] https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1133604249693110272