Kemmis' Good Citizen

The good citizen in this articale seems to be someone that has common sense. I think that it goes much further than that. A good citizen is someone who is willing to pull their own weight, and help their fellow citizens for the greater good. The answer to my topic is solely based on the idea of good citizens. If we are going to get the homeless off the streets and create better living conditions for them, then we have to come together for support. The idea of paying more money, or donating money to this cause is based off of the idea that people will rise above their everyday problems and help their fellow citizens who are unable to help themselves.

Kemis and Habermas

Regarding Kemis's "Good Citizen" and Habermas's ideal of the public spere, I think they have alot in common. The examples of the public sphere that Kemis gave looked alot like Habermas's ideal, a space where anyone could come, have their opinions heard (and those opinions would matter), and could evoke change. However, our group in class was debating (politely of course!)whether or not the two were "synonymous". We felt like the public sphere is now more of a place where you do often "self-abstract", but in Kemis's "Good Citizen" the faces and personal stories of those citizens who are changing their cities and communities are important. They have to be physically a part of the community to evoke change in their public spaces. However, citizens do in a way, have to "self-abstract" from their own biases, in order to come together and make strides towards solving the issues their cities face. Both sides have to come together and meet in the middle. This requires a more mild form of self-abstracting. A self-abstraction from the personal need to argue, to be "right, and ultimately "win".