Heroic citizenship, is the pursuit of the good life by taking on responsibility and sacrificing oneself for the common good. Heroism is embedded in the process of creating citizenship.
Citizenship goes to the heart of sociology in the sense of what people’s relationships and obligations are regarding care for others in the political sphere. Care is a practice linked to all dimensions of balance, but the dimension of citizenship gives it a more elevated meaning that is not merely local. Citizenship, in a broader and more substantive sense, is citizenship as a status within a particular nation. It is citizenship as action, duty, struggle, and engagement in the political sphere (Arendt, 1998; Etzioni, 1996; Mouffe; Marx; Weber). Seymour Martin Lipset, drawing on Aristotle and Tocqueville, discusses the idea of humans as political animals and how this is expressed through civic participation (Lipset, 1963). The “heroic dimension” has been analyzed by philosophers such as Nietzsche, Erasmus, and Weil, and by sociologists such as Weber, Furedi (2017), Tocqueville, and Taylor (Taylor, 2007). The heroism that is the focus here is that which is linked to engaged citizenship. Heroic citizenship is a set of habits and practices in which the individual is “heroic” in the sense of taking productive and ethical risks for the collective and bearing responsibility. This is not the form of heroism in which the hero typically stands outside of society, as in superhero stories; rather, this hero is part of the citizenry (Bregman, 2025).
Imbalances
“De-heroization” is the state of being disconnected from the heroic. There is no struggle for something greater or different. There is no radical assumption of responsibility (Mckerracher, 2023). It is the “last man” with a blasé attitude (Nietzsche, 2006; Simmel, 1971), the one who is more focused on their own private affairs and pleasure. It is thus a state closely linked to flourishing as a dimension. De, heroization can take several forms:
Moral laziness. There is no effort to live a more moral life through various practices. There is a low or nonexistent degree of “moral ambition” (Bregman, 2025). It can also be a form of “banal relativism” (Engdahl, 2024; Taylor, 2007). This is a moral view that morality does not play a significant role beyond actively refraining from physically harming anyone; otherwise, it is not even one’s own responsibility, a moral task that is delegated to others. Part of moral laziness is “lax well, meaning” (Teslo, 2024), caring about others but failing to grapple with the complexity of understanding how best to help them and what might cause harm.
Radicalism without accountability (McKerracher, 2023) refers to activists who engage in activism without taking responsibility for whether it actually leads to a better outcome, a form of ideologically informed pseudo, action that can also have negative effects such as increased polarization and hyperpoliticization (Jäger, 2026).
Pseudo-virtue, in which one displays a false facade of virtue. One form of pseudo, virtue is “virtue hoarding”, the practice of hoarding virtues for oneself and making it harder for others to act virtuously, for example, by cultivating a sophisticated sense of what constitutes the “correct” way to express oneself (Liu, 2021). It can also involve “signaling” virtue without actually possessing it. Signaling virtue becomes a way to survive and climb various status hierarchies.
Heroism as self, dramatization and narcissism (Taylor, 2007). The act of becoming a hero becomes a way to avoid having normal relationships with other people; instead, everything must be viewed through the prism of the heroic. It is a state of solipsism in which one becomes a hero, but the only spectator is oneself. Heroism becomes theater for oneself, a form of self, intimacy.
Hypercitizenship is an imbalance characterized by an overload of misdirected emotions. Hypercitizenship turns everything into politics. A hallmark of hyperpolitics is an overreliance on demonstrations and protests, coupled with an underestimation of the importance of organizing and institutionalizing the political measures one wishes to see (Jäger, 2026); the intense commitment fails to channel itself into change. It is also a form of citizenship that has a high degree of conflict built into it, leading people to turn against the rest of the citizenry and politicians. Brennan uses the term “hooligan” to describe certain elements of this, namely that it is more important for one’s own side to win (2016).
Lifestyle-oriented/privatized. “Privatized” means being trapped in a sphere where one’s closest circle is the most important, in the private struggle. Sennett describes “privatization” as an over, intimization, a mobilization of narcissism, with an excessive focus on individuals rather than substantive issues in politics (personality politics), accompanied by a pursuit of “authenticity,” which trivializes politics and leads to isolation from the social sphere in the public realm (Sennett, 2002). This may be the family, or, as has become increasingly common, the networks of which one is a part, which one protects and strengthens with oneself at the center (Lasch, 2018). Privatization can be seen as a “shield” against an economic order marked by various forms of shocks (Sennett, 2002). Privatization stems from various other imbalances: an over, reliance on wage labor as a marker of good citizenship; being trapped in a gamified and hedonistic existence; an infantilized existence characterized by an unwillingness to bear responsibility and, instead, primarily viewing oneself as a victim or standing outside of society; this may be accompanied by depressive hedonism (Fisher, 2011), but also by a form of depressive eudaimonism where one has tried to pursue something but failed, leading to giving up; or where depression stems from an ideal of being good but being consumed by a paralyzing sense of powerlessness, a reactionary or conservative passivity. The private struggle without civic struggle becomes increasingly difficult to bear; private relationships are left to bear the brunt of all the tension in one’s life, tension that only civic struggle can provide. One of the causes of privatization is the decline of the “third space”, that is, places where people can meet outside their private sphere and the workplace (Oldenburg, 2001). A central aspect of privatization is viewing oneself primarily as a customer. The “customerized” individual is steeped in the ideology, practices, discourse, and interactions of consumerism, a state of dependence on consumption to sustain a certain life project (Bauman & Lionidis, 2013; Barber, 2006). Privatization goes even further when the private struggle takes over completely, so that citizenship is no longer present but has become an indistinct background noise that occasionally makes itself felt through complaints about corrupt politicians, whose presence, if one lives in a functioning democracy like Sweden, is one’s own fault. This is when the most important things in life become solely private love and happiness, and love and happiness for fellow citizens are gone. In embedded autonomy, love, compassion, and kindness toward fellow citizens are always somewhat cooler; but if they become too cool, it turns into a form of indifference or a blasé attitude (Simmel) and an imbalance. Where the private struggle takes over completely and we retreat into the sphere of intimacy, it is a form of unembedded autonomy if it is an individualistic form of private life.
Post-citizenship is based on Crouch’s concept of post, democracy, in which politics has become a spectator sport, where people would rather be spectators than get involved (Crouch, 2011; Manin, 1997). Spectators may differ in their level of emotional engagement. Some behave like hooligans, cheering for their team without caring much whether that team has sound policies (Brennan, 2016). Post, citizenship and hyper, citizenship are states between which one can oscillate. Post-citizenship can also be seen as a form of empty citizenship and an escapist-citizenship (Alvesson, 2011; Bailes, 2019). One flees from one’s shared responsibility, allowing others to bear more of the burden. This can occur at the elite level, where they adopt a form of “lifeboat ethics” by saving themselves first; some would argue that this lifeboat ethics prevails when the upper middle class purchases private health insurance, thereby alleviating the pressure on this class to make demands on the public healthcare system (Lapidus, 2023).
Simulated heroification, or being heroified without citizenship, is a situation into which certain individuals, such as sports stars, musicians, and entrepreneurs, may find themselves; they are held up as heroes but without any connection to the process of citizenship, building. They are viewed as “heroes” within a particular sport, which is really just a misuse and vulgarization of the concept of a hero, since no genuine risks have actually been taken on anyone’s behalf. The entrepreneur as a hero may also turn out to be an anti, hero; one of the clearest contemporary examples is Mark Zuckerberg, where the creation of Facebook has likely resulted in more negative consequences than positive ones. Musicians share a commonality with sports stars in that they create powerful moments that open the door to resonant experiences (Rosa, 2019), moments that move people. Musicians and athletes can be elevated during events as heroes to the status of near, demigods. They become heroes because they succeed in creating powerful experiences of collective elation and serve as a shared focal point for the masses. This form of hero worship is linked to an imbalance in the dimension of specialized systems thinking. The individual is highly specialized without giving any thought to how they contribute to society in a systematic way. This is brought to a head when well, paid golfers are asked in which countries they would not be willing to play in exchange for a generous payment. People in the cultural sector can also be elevated to the status of heroes; again, this hero worship can take a highly specialized form, simply sitting in their room, writing and writing for the sake of art itself.
Excessive Care. “Cramp like goodness” (Alvesson, 2019) is a concept referring to a desire to do good, a search for the good life, but carried out in a way that does more harm than good. It is a form of help that does not build resources or make accurate assumptions about other people, leading it to view others solely as victims without agency.
Care deficit. A care deficit can be a lack of care for the self, or it can be the wrong kind of attempt at care that does not lead to genuine care (Tronto, 1993, 2013). Paulsen (2020) points out that much of the care we devote to others is actually care for the self, and this self, focused care
Uncritical acceptance, or doxastic citizenship, occurs when citizenship serves to reproduce the existing order, where one exercises citizenship without much reflection. Some members of various elites, for example, those who are visible and vocal in debates, may engage in symbolically violent citizenship, where they are committed to writing opinion pieces; however, these pieces serve more as a means to win an argument against other debaters rather than to contribute to a culture of deliberation and democratic learning. The texts that are written become mere chatter and something that excludes rather than invites, even though there isn’t much to invite people to, since the debate is dominated by dissent. Here, citizenship can become a spectacle, something done for appearances and superficiality, and the debate is conducted performatively, as if it were a role being played. Part of what is taken for granted is that one has identified something as foolish yet functionally adapted to make it work (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012; Paulsen, 2017). It means being part of political parties with positions one does not support. It means adapting to the way things are, carrying on, and pushing critical thoughts aside. Life goes on, which differs from cynicism or “enlightened false consciousness” in that one is more aware of the world’s problems.
Intellectually passive citizenship refers to the citizen who reads a lot of newspapers, and even books. It can also refer to the debater. However, there is an imbalance in that there is no action taken to organize genuine resistance. Either there is too much faith in pure discussion, and one fails to see how public discourse is systematically distorted, colonized by the system, and dominated by power (Habermas, 2023). Or it is part of a defense mechanism, a form of escapism, arising from the inability to change the world, but the ability to focus on understanding it, which leads to a “purifying identity” (Reisman, 1950). This form of citizenship may be critical of the structures but underestimates its own agency to contribute to change.
The “culturally educated” citizen is often particularly active in the cultural sphere and frequently mentions the term “education.” Civic education and various civic virtues are rarely discussed. Instead, the focus is on cultural education, which is supposed to lead, in some unclear way, to a positive impact on society. Culturally educated citizens are also those who have learned a great deal and exhibit a low degree of humility. These are people who are entrenched in their ideological convictions and are not even aware of what might cause them to change their minds (Friedman, 2020).
Work centered citizenship refers to citizens who place too much faith in the idea that what they do in paid work is sufficient for good citizenship. This form of citizenship can be characterized by many virtues, such as courage, patience, and a high degree of care. This is a form of specialized thinking that overlooks the need to be more involved at the systemic level so that one’s work is not eliminated or undermined in other ways. Consider, for example, the teacher who struggles at the individual or classroom level but faces an uphill battle because they are not politically engaged at the systemic level. There is a high degree of compliance here and a reification of the idea that the systems are the way they are and cannot be changed. Laborized citizenship is too consensus, oriented in that it overestimates the power of wage labor, while at the same time there are conflicts within society that cannot be resolved solely through a one, sided focus on wage labor. “Work, centered” citizenship is an internalization of the dynamics of the work society (Paulsen, 2010; Arendt, 1998) and is reproduced to an excessive degree without any form of resistance.
Anti-citizenship is a misalignment based on the concept of anti, politics, in which actions actively counteract the practice of politics. Anti, citizenship is a reformulation of authoritarian personality traits but without the problems associated with the theory surrounding this concept. Anti, citizenship consists of actions that diminish, minimize, or support the withering and erosion of citizenship.
Victim citizenship is a form of citizenship that primarily involves constructing oneself as a victim (Campbell & Manning, 2018). It is based on the justification that others should change. It is a psychotherapeutic form of citizenship.