There's been a little agitation about the lack of continuation of the Metics series, so I thought I had better get cracking and continue the story. After all, I'm sure there's a world of people out there waiting to hear about this one.
Ok, so I lied. Mostly you'd like to hear me ranting about race relations. But we can't have rants every day of week without appearing slightly unbalanced, so back to the rationalisation of this problem we go.
Why I named this series 'Metics' is because I'm certain that there exists within almost any nation-state a society that is the 'real' nationals. The specific dimensions of that society are more often the not the subject of a domestic debate (i.e. what does it mean to be a 'real' New Zealander), but that a national group exists is not up for debate. All you have to do is ask someone "what's an American?", "what's an Australian?", or "what's a Italian?" to get an opinion about what that group is.
You might note of course that this is can easily be an outside perception of that a nation is. But outside perceptions are as important as the inside ones. As with many things, what you say you are and what others see you as are two very different, though interrelated, viewpoints.
I've come to the conclusion that one angle into the problem is this: people can say whatever the heck they want about New Zealanders for example, but unless you are a genuine member of the nation your opinion counts for naught. The next question then becomes, "but who's a genuine member?" And that's where the equation begins to loop back around. Someone can feel completely at home in a country, but have their opinion denied validity in political and social circumstances.
More often than not, "genuine" belonging is determined through one of two mechanisms, undeniable verification, or subjective agreement. The former is something like being born into a citizenship. If you're born and raised in New Zealand, you're a New Zealander even though you might not actually like rugby or eat meat pies. The latter is a little more difficult, but is true if you can pass one particular test. Try saying to someone you think is an actual New Zealander, "I'm a Kiwi". If they laugh, smirk, look baffled, or patronise you, you're not.
It's the latter test that many fail. And there is a philosophical basis to it, as you might guess. A famous French guy called Pierre Bourdieu wrote a lot about what he called 'social capital', which is (in a nutshell) the idea that we each accumulate a lot of kudos around the things we either do, or are. Good education, big kudos, high social capital. Inheriting old money, big kudos, high social capital. Get busted for something shifty, low/no kudos, low to negative social capital. You get the idea.
I took a shine to Bourdieu's idea because it goes long way to explaining why it is that someone is automatically excluded from any particular society, and suggests a lot about nation-building as a form of socialisation. Even when they might have high social capital that is. The example that is often used is of Black people in France. They may well have a great education, a perfect French accent, have been brought up in a good family with heaps of cash, and be highly cosmopolitan in approach and outlook, but their skin and hair colour automatically places them outside the boundaries of that it is to be "French".
Problematically this undermines my previous point about undeniable verification, but that's more a commentary on the realities of racism than nationalism. The fact of the matter is that being Black isn't always going to prevent an individual from being regarded as "French". Should a Black individual accumulate just the right kind of social capital, then they're likely to overcome barriers like racism, and maybe even damage the barrier itself (witness the adulation of Aboriginal AFL players in Victoria).
Social capital is important for any member of a nation though, because it contributes a great deal to the amount of governmental belonging the individual has. Even though you might fit all the external indicators of national membership, i.e. right colour, right accent, unless you can apply a little of that social capital you'll never be in a position to speak for the nation.
And that's what it often boils down to, in my humble opinion, is the ability to speak and be both heard and recognised. It's natural for groups to not listen to people who are not members. And if you are a metic, according to the definition I've spaced out over these ten blogs, then what hope do you have of having your opinion heard? Very little, I will continue to argue.