What Does It Mean To Be A “Good Citizen”??

When we observe the current scenario, we can see that social, political, and cultural transformations have deeply impacted the way individuals relate to the world and to others. The certainties that once seemed stable no longer occupy the same place, as they now give way to new ways of interpreting reality. Thus, values, opinions, and identities begin to be constructed based on personal experiences, emotions, and bonds of belonging. There is the figure of the “good citizen” among these constructions, which is a figure that presents itself as a moral and social reference, but also reveals tensions and contradictions typical of this time. This change runs through everyday life and influences simple conversations as well as broader positions about society. It is here that it becomes possible to better understand certain behaviors and worldviews that mark the present.

So, what would the “good citizen” be?

The so-called “good citizen” is someone who believes they are on the right side of society, and they defend values such as order, morality, and justice. However, if we take a closer look, this image is not as simple as it seems, because this subject builds their identity through opposition to others, as they perceive differences as threats. In other words, what they understand as “good” becomes a rigid criterion of exclusion. An example of this is when someone claims to defend justice but supports police violence without questioning it, depending on who the target is (often Black and peripheral bodies, who go through the process of racial profiling). Or when they say they value freedom but reject the rights of minority groups.

But how does hate come into this? It can be socially fueled because it blends with fear, insecurity, and the desire to belong to a group. When someone shares similar discourses—whether on WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.—the individual feels that they are part of something larger, and this reinforces aggressive or intolerant attitudes without them perceiving them as problematic.

The idea of post-truth helps to understand this scenario. It points to a moment in which objective facts lose strength in the face of narratives that appeal more to emotions and personal beliefs. It is not that truth ceases to exist, but rather that there is a dispute over versions that make more sense to certain groups, even if they have no concrete basis. For example, someone goes and shares false news without verification, simply because it confirms what they already believe. Another case is when someone rejects scientific data, such as about vaccines or the environment, but continues to use technologies that depend precisely on that knowledge.

And we also have fascism here, but why? Because it connects with this type of mentality: the valorization of identity, authority, indifference, and the transformation of opponents (Black people, women, for example) into enemies. And if these ideas find space in societies that already live this mixture of belief, emotion, and denial of facts, conditions are created for authoritarian practices to gain strength.

Given this, what can be perceived is that these dynamics are part of the ways people construct their worldviews and relate to one another, and that we need to understand these processes in order for us to achieve a way of looking more carefully at the reality we live in today.