ABSTRACT
The problem I want to address is this: if, on the one hand, we want to see good citizens around us, what we tend to look for are people who think originally, who search for new solutions to old problems, dare to ask questions and seek ways to protect the individual against the majority or the govemment; in short it seems that we look for nonconformists. If, on the other hand, we want good citizenship, then what we want is a strong sense of community, where people care for and about others in a way which goes beyond their care for themselves. Moreover, often citizenship reflects a 'conception of the purpose of the political community' (McLean, 1996). If this is so, then we are looking for - indeed assuming - community. I' 11 take these two assumptions, namely that the search for the good citizen implies a search for the nonconformist and that good citizenship implies community, for granted, given that both enjoy wide acceptance. They form part of OUf 'common sense' thinking about citizens and citizenship.2 However, I want to address a certain problem which these assumptions give rise to: it seems, or so it has been argued, that community contradicts, not to mention oppresses, nonconformism. If this is true, how can we square the circle? How can we encourage nonconformism (good citizens) and community (good citizenship) at one and the same time? In fact, this is the social expression of a problem which may sound more familiar to you: how can we both be loyal to our values and achieve progress at the same time? Since progress derives from a process of critical reflection, is it impossible for a society to progress when its members are expected to be loyal?
