Category: Reviews

TV, Movies, Books, etc…

The Social Aspect of Reaction Videos: Fostering Community and Shared Experience

· Leave a comment ·

In the digital age, few trends have captured audience attention quite like reaction content. From YouTube to TikTok, creators are finding success by simply reacting to other people’s content. This phenomenon, while not new, has exploded into mainstream entertainment, raising questions about our evolving media consumption habits and the nature of content creation itself.

The Origins and Appeal of Reaction Videos

Reaction videos have been around since the early days of YouTube, with one of the earliest viral examples being reactions to the infamous “2 Girls 1 Cup” video in 2007. The concept is simple: creators film themselves reacting to various media, from music videos and movie trailers to viral clips and news events. But what drives the popularity of this seemingly basic format?

  1. The Social Aspect of Solitary Viewing

One primary reason for the popularity of reaction videos is the sense of shared experience they provide. In an era where streaming services and on-demand content have made entertainment increasingly solitary, reaction videos offer a simulacrum of watching with friends.

As one commenter noted, “It turns out, a lot of people don’t actually enjoy consuming media alone. I’m in that group. I like watching TV and movies with other people, specifically people I like. For me, entertainment is an experience best shared.”

This sentiment echoes a broader trend in media consumption. The era of appointment viewing, where everyone watched the same show at the same time and discussed it the next day, has largely passed. Reaction videos fill this void, providing a sense of community and shared experience in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

  1. Combating Loneliness in the Digital Age

Building on the social aspect, reaction videos also serve as a balm for the loneliness that can come with modern digital life. As one observer put it, “People don’t have friends. That’s the biggest reason by far. And to a large extent, that cannot be their fault; it’s a problem with the culture.”

Reaction creators often build parasocial relationships with their audiences, becoming virtual friends who share in the excitement, laughter, or shock of experiencing new content. For viewers who may feel isolated, these parasocial interactions can provide a sense of connection and belonging.

  1. Diverse Perspectives and Open-Mindedness

Another appeal of reaction videos is the opportunity they provide to see content through different eyes. As one commenter noted, “It’s also good because it allows people to get a different full perspective on something… It’s always good to be open-minded.”

By watching multiple reactions to the same piece of content, viewers can expose themselves to diverse opinions and interpretations. This can be particularly valuable for controversial or complex topics, helping viewers challenge their own preconceptions and consider alternative viewpoints.

  1. Discovery and Curation

In the vast sea of online content, reaction videos can serve as a form of curation. As one supporter of reaction content pointed out, “There are dozens of interesting channels I found exclusively through reaction content. Otherwise, I would not have known about their existence.”

Reactors often serve as tastemakers, introducing their audiences to new creators, songs, or shows they might not have discovered otherwise. This can be especially valuable in niche interests or subcultures where word-of-mouth discovery is crucial.

The Controversy Surrounding Reaction Content

Despite its popularity, reaction content is not without its critics. The genre has faced numerous controversies and criticisms, particularly around issues of copyright and originality.

  1. Copyright Concerns

One of the primary criticisms of reaction videos is that they often use copyrighted material without permission. While many creators argue that their videos fall under fair use due to the addition of commentary and transformation of the original work, the legal landscape remains murky.

Some original content creators feel that reactors are profiting unfairly from their work. As one commenter suggested, “I wish YouTube would make it so if you made a video using some other YouTuber’s content, your video would only be seen as a feature on the main video and to get to the reaction you’d have to click through to whoever has a reaction.”

  1. Lack of Original Content

Critics often argue that reaction videos represent a lack of creativity, with reactors simply piggybacking on the success of others. As one detractor put it, “The problem with YouTube is people aren’t creating content because they have good ideas; they’re creating content for the sake of creating content.”

This criticism is particularly pointed when reactors provide little substantive commentary or insight, essentially re-uploading others’ content with minimal transformation.

  1. Attention Economy and Clickbait

The reaction video format has been accused of contributing to the broader issues of clickbait and the attention economy on platforms like YouTube. As one observer noted, “Current generations have the attention span of a goldfish so need things to be FLASHY, say OMG WTF!, or have the creator looking stupid and shocked in the thumbnail.”

This race for attention can lead to exaggerated reactions and sensationalized thumbnails, potentially detracting from more substantive content.

The Future of Reaction Content

Despite the controversies, reaction content shows no signs of slowing down. As the format evolves, we’re likely to see increased collaboration between original creators and reactors, legal clarifications around fair use in the digital age, diversification into new areas such as live reactions to events, and quality improvements as reactors strive to provide more insightful commentary and higher production values.

The Mirror of Modern Media Consumption

Reaction videos, for all their controversy, serve as a mirror reflecting our changing relationship with media and each other. They speak to our desire for connection in an increasingly disconnected world, our hunger for diverse perspectives in a polarized landscape, and our struggle to navigate the overwhelming abundance of content available at our fingertips.

As we continue to grapple with the implications of our digital media landscape, reaction videos will likely remain a significant part of the conversation. Whether viewed as a creative new form of commentary or a symptom of diminishing attention spans, they undeniably represent a key aspect of how we consume and interact with media in the 21st century.

The challenge moving forward will be to balance the undeniable appeal and potential benefits of reaction content with the need to respect original creators and maintain a diverse, vibrant media ecosystem. As viewers, creators, and platforms navigate this balance, the evolution of reaction content will continue to provide fascinating insights into our digital culture and the future of entertainment.

The Complexities of Modern Content Creation

The reaction video phenomenon is more than just a trend; it’s a reflection of the complexities inherent in modern content creation and consumption. It highlights the blurring lines between creator and consumer, the challenges of copyright in the digital age, and the evolving nature of social interaction in online spaces.

On one hand, reaction videos can be seen as a natural evolution of media criticism and commentary, providing a platform for diverse voices and perspectives. They can introduce audiences to new content, foster a sense of community, and encourage critical thinking about the media we consume.

On the other hand, the proliferation of reaction content raises valid concerns about originality, intellectual property rights, and the potential for a feedback loop of increasingly superficial content. The ease with which reaction videos can be produced may disincentivize the creation of original, high-quality content.

As we move forward, it’s crucial that we continue to examine and discuss the implications of reaction content. Platforms may need to develop more nuanced policies around fair use and content attribution. Creators may need to find ways to add more value through their reactions, perhaps through deeper analysis or by connecting disparate pieces of content in innovative ways.

Ultimately, the reaction video trend is neither inherently good nor bad. Like any form of media, its value depends on how it’s created and consumed. As viewers, we have the power to shape this landscape by supporting thoughtful, engaging reaction content that adds genuine value to the conversation.

In the end, reaction videos are a testament to our innate desire to share experiences, even in the digital realm. They remind us that even as our media consumption becomes more personalized and fragmented, we still crave connection and shared understanding. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, reaction videos will likely continue to evolve, reflecting our changing relationship with media and with each other.

Repurposing Trauma: Lessons from “The Bear”

· Leave a comment ·

In the journey of life, we often encounter challenges that shape our experiences and mold our perspectives. Traumatic events, in particular, can leave lasting imprints on our psyche, influencing our behaviors, relationships, and overall outlook on life. However, how we choose to interpret and respond to these experiences can significantly impact our personal growth and well-being. By examining the themes explored in the TV show “The Bear” and combining them with timeless life advice, we can gain valuable insights into the process of repurposing trauma and fostering resilience.

The Power of Imagination and Dreaming

The advice, “Imagine freely, don’t take limitations,” resonates deeply with the concept of overcoming trauma. In “The Bear,” characters like Carmy Berzatto struggle with limitations imposed by their past experiences. Carmy’s journey is a testament to the power of imagination in breaking free from these constraints. Despite the trauma he has endured in high-pressure kitchens and his tumultuous upbringing, Carmy dares to imagine a different future for himself and his restaurant.

This ability to imagine freely is crucial when dealing with trauma. Often, traumatic experiences can create mental barriers, convincing us that certain futures or outcomes are impossible. However, by allowing ourselves to imagine without limitations, we open doors to new possibilities and paths for healing. This connects seamlessly with the advice: “Have specific dreams.” For Carmy, his specific dream of transforming The Original Beef of Chicagoland into a high-end restaurant becomes a driving force, helping him navigate through his trauma.

Childhood Dreams and Inner Child

The advice “Don’t forget your childhood dreams” and “Never lose the child inside you” offers another perspective on dealing with trauma. In “The Bear,” we see glimpses of Carmy’s past, including his childhood aspirations and the events that shaped him. The show illustrates how reconnecting with one’s inner child and early dreams can be a powerful tool in the healing process.

For many trauma survivors, childhood represents a time before the traumatic events occurred. Reconnecting with childhood dreams can serve as a reminder of one’s core self, untainted by later experiences. This connection to the past can provide a sense of continuity and identity, often disrupted by trauma.

Moreover, maintaining a childlike sense of wonder and curiosity can be incredibly healing. Children possess an innate ability to find joy in simple things, to be present in the moment, and to approach the world with openness. For trauma survivors, cultivating these qualities can be a powerful antidote to the heaviness of their experiences.

Learning from Mistakes and Experiences

The advice, “If you’re not listening for your mistakes, then you’re not in the right place,” is particularly relevant in the context of trauma recovery and the themes explored in “The Bear.” Throughout the show, we see characters grappling with their past mistakes and the consequences of their actions. Carmy, in particular, struggles with how his unresolved issues manifest in his leadership style, inadvertently mirroring the abusive tactics he endured in the past.

This advice underscores the importance of self-reflection and accountability in the process of healing from trauma. It’s not enough to simply acknowledge past mistakes or traumatic experiences; one must actively listen for them, understand their impact, and learn from them. This process of introspection and growth is vividly portrayed in “The Bear,” as characters like Carmy and Sydney confront their past experiences and attempt to channel them into their work.

“Try to learn from everything” further emphasizes this point. In the context of trauma, this mindset can be transformative. It suggests that even the most painful experiences can offer valuable lessons and opportunities for growth. In “The Bear,” characters like Chef Tina use their opportunities not just to improve their skills but to overcome their challenges and insecurities.

Overcoming Obstacles

“Brick walls are not there to stop us from getting something; they’re there to check how badly we want something.” This powerful advice speaks directly to the theme of resilience in the face of trauma. In “The Bear,” the characters face numerous obstacles, both internal and external. These challenges, much like brick walls, test their resolve and commitment to their goals.

For trauma survivors, this perspective can be particularly empowering. It reframes obstacles not as insurmountable barriers but as tests of determination. This shift in mindset can be crucial in the journey of healing and growth. It encourages perseverance and resilience, qualities essential in overcoming the lasting effects of trauma.

Life as a Game: Embracing Challenges

“Imagine your life as a game, see challenges as adventures, enjoy every day” offers a unique perspective on dealing with trauma. This approach encourages a shift in perception, viewing life’s difficulties not as burdens but as opportunities for growth and adventure.

In “The Bear,” we see this philosophy at work in how characters approach their culinary challenges. Despite the high-stress environment and personal struggles, there are moments when the characters find joy and excitement in their work. This ability to find enjoyment even in challenging situations is a powerful tool for resilience.

For those dealing with trauma, adopting this mindset can be transformative. It doesn’t diminish the reality of their experiences but offers a new way of engaging with life’s challenges. By viewing obstacles as part of an adventure rather than insurmountable problems, individuals can maintain a sense of agency and optimism in their healing journey.

Helping Others and Building Community

The simple yet profound advice to “Help others” is beautifully illustrated in “The Bear.” Throughout the show, we see how the characters’ individual healing processes are intricately linked to their relationships with others. The kitchen becomes a microcosm of community, where characters support each other through their struggles and growth.

For trauma survivors, the act of helping others can be deeply healing. It can provide a sense of purpose, foster connection, and help shift focus from one’s own pain to the needs of others. Moreover, building a supportive community is crucial in healing from trauma. In “The Bear,” we see how the characters’ shared experiences in the kitchen create a sense of belonging and understanding that is essential for their personal development.

Repurposing Trauma: The Central Theme

The overarching theme of repurposing trauma, as explored in “The Bear,” ties together all these pieces of advice. The show demonstrates how characters attempt to channel their past traumas into their work and personal growth. Carmy’s “trauma dishes,” Sydney’s ambitious food tour, and Tina’s culinary school journey are all examples of how traumatic experiences can be transformed into sources of creativity and growth.

This process of repurposing trauma is not about denying or minimizing painful experiences. Instead, it’s about finding ways to create meaning and value from these experiences. It’s about taking the raw material of trauma and shaping it into something that contributes to personal growth and, potentially, the betterment of others.

The Complexity of Trauma Recovery

While “The Bear” and the life advice we’ve explored offer valuable insights into dealing with trauma, it’s important to acknowledge the complexity of this process. The show doesn’t shy away from portraying the ongoing struggles of its characters, even as they work towards healing. Carmy’s battle with post-traumatic stress disorder, manifesting through intrusive thoughts, anxiety, and outbursts of anger, serves as a reminder that recovery is often a non-linear process.

This realistic portrayal aligns with the advice to “Try to learn from everything.” It suggests that setbacks and struggles are not failures but opportunities for deeper understanding and growth. The show’s nuanced approach to trauma recovery emphasizes that healing is a journey, not a destination.

Balancing Trauma Focus with Joy

It’s worth noting that some viewers and critics have found the relentless focus on trauma in the latest season of “The Bear” to be overwhelming at times. This observation raises an important point about balance in dealing with trauma. While it’s crucial to acknowledge and work through traumatic experiences, it’s equally important to create space for joy, lightness, and celebration of life’s positive aspects.

This balance is reflected in the life advice to “Never lose the child inside you” and to “enjoy every day.” These principles remind us that even amidst working through trauma, it’s vital to cultivate moments of joy and maintain a sense of wonder about life.

Conclusion

The intersection of life wisdom and the themes explored in “The Bear” provides a rich landscape for understanding trauma and resilience. From the power of imagination and specific dreams to the importance of learning from mistakes and helping others, these principles offer valuable guidance for those navigating the complex terrain of trauma recovery.

Repurposing trauma, as vividly portrayed in “The Bear,” is not about erasing painful experiences but about transforming them into sources of strength, creativity, and growth. It’s about finding ways to channel past hurts into meaningful action and personal development.

Ultimately, the journey of healing from trauma is deeply personal and often challenging. However, by embracing the wisdom encapsulated in these life principles and illustrated in “The Bear,” individuals can find new pathways to resilience and growth. As we navigate our experiences of trauma and challenge, we can draw inspiration from these insights, remembering that within every struggle lies the potential for transformation and renewal.

Ethics of Immigration: Commentary #5

· Leave a comment ·

The Moral Dilemmas of Guestworker Programs by Lea Ypi. By and large, I found her argument very convincing, particularly her argument showing class exploitation. In this commentary, I want to explore the idea of long-term positive effects and investigate a comment she says in passing: “[economic] growth and exploitation are perfectly compatible with each other.” (p. 170) I want to suggest that significant economic growth can outweigh even the “collective” exploitation she describes.

Let us begin by granting her general argument and assume guest worker programs are exploitative in all the manners she explained. I imagine Ypi would be quite satisfied at this point; indeed, my comments go beyond the scope of her aims and do not explicitly engage her arguments. I want to highlight a practical concern: would the guest worker care if they were being exploited? I think, as an empirical fact, generally no. When deliberating whether to take part in guest work programs, people have the capacities to weigh the costs, like giving up certain rights, with the benefits. Taking such an opportunity away from the worker because it is exploitive is to disrespect the worker as a rational, autonomous agent.

Now, a worry here might be that this misses the point of what it is to be exploited. Ypi gives two conditions for exploitation: “an offer that he could not refuse, on pain of being left with not enough resources to lead a minimally decent life,” and “the transaction is less beneficial or most costly than it would be if the agent started to bargain from a point of sufficiency.” (p. 162) The thought is that exploitation takes away the choice (“an offer that he could not refuse”) and does so on the basis of the worker’s disadvantaged economic position. The lack of a choice (or reasonable alternatives) may undercut the claim that taking away such opportunity disrespects their autonomy since they do not have any choices anyway.

I think this is a sort of victimization of workers; namely, it imagines workers as subjects of exploitation who need to be rescued. Again, this conception, I think, disrespects the worker as a rational, autonomous agent. Let me illustrate my point with a hackneyed (Frankfurt-style) example from free will arguments. Imagine you want to exit a room and had two doors to choose from, A and B, and, unbeknownst to you, A is unlocked and B is locked. You freely choose A, and you are happily out of the room. In reality, you did not have much of a choice, since only A could have led you out of the room, but we might say you still exercised your free will. Similarly, the worker could have no other choice in exploitative scenarios, yet still exercise their capacities as rational, autonomous agents. This analogy is not perfect, but I think it still fits.

 This is all very fast, and much more objections to this view must be dealt with. The obvious reply is saying we can have both long-term economic growth as well as non-exploitative practices. I think this is a case of having your cake and eating it too; in short, restructuring practices will ultimately lead to a loss of opportunity for some, meaning a loss entirely of long-term economic growth. More must be said, but here I merely wish to raise some interesting commentary.

Ethics of Immigration: Commentary #4

· Leave a comment ·

I want to focus on Arash Abizadeh’s argument against the special obligations challenge. He mounts this reply by attacking the premise that “compatriotic special obligations justify restricting immigration if immigration would harm the domestic poor.” (p. 107) He essentially investigates two questions: What grounds national obligations? And what force does it have to motivate more closed borders? The second question is an assessment of the first question, and it relies on a distinction made from the onset between “additive” and “prioritizing” special obligations. Here, I want to raise some subtleties with this central distinction, especially with “prioritizing” special obligations.

There are a lot of subtle (at times, implicit) premises loaded onto the additive-prioritizing distinction. Additive special obligations are the sorts of special obligations which require more sacrifice from you to your intimates. In contrast, prioritizing special obligations do not require any sacrifice from you; rather, it is about how you are required to weight moral decisions. He adds some further stipulations: he is open to the fact that special obligations can arise for non-instrumental reasons; also, special obligations (at least the additive special obligations) are couched in our general natural duties. He seems to allow additive special obligations in most cases – as he notes, the special obligations challenge needs the prioritizing special obligations. Let me now briefly suggest some of the more subtle baggage of the conception of prioritizing special obligations.

He seems to require that prioritizing special obligations must be considerably strong to outweigh the “duties of justice to the foreign poor.” (p. 109) Why is this important? It seems that when we have to make moral decisions, our reasons for picking out a particular choice must be significantly greater than the competing choices. This seems counterintuitive. Even a slight difference in weight would tip the scale to one side. Take for instance the rescue case: two people are drowning – one is a stranger, the other is a close intimate – and you can only rescue one. The author seems to think that we need significantly weightier reasons to save our intimate. These significantly weightier reasons seem present in this rescue case in virtue of the fact that they are a close intimate, but we can change this variable. Imagine again the two people drowning, however, this time one is a stranger and the other is a distant neighbor who you only exchange polite smiles with. Here, ceteris paribus, I have a slightly weightier reason to favor rescuing my neighbor over the stranger.

One more final, brief point about prioritizing special obligations: they seem, in principle, not to show equal respect to everybody. Again, this issue seems less problematic with additive special obligations because we may direct our beneficence to intimates without violating the equal respect for others. (p. 108) Clearly, when we prioritize intimates for the wrong reasons, we fail to show respect to non-intimates affected by our prioritizing. However, even when they are the right reasons, there is a sense in which we fail to show equal respect. I cannot go into the details of what “respect” precisely entails, so I will rely on just an intuitive conception. Going back to the rescue case, might say that our reasons to save our intimates is that we have some sort of relationship with them which he do not have with the stranger. We want to maintain that this move does not commit us to a disrespect of the stranger as a moral agent. Still, I think this is all too fast. We have residual feelings of compunction, and even if our actions were permissible, it does not mean that a wrong was not done.

Ethics of Immigration: Commentary #3

· Leave a comment ·

I would like to focus on Carens’ reply to the objection for open borders on the basis of special priorities for compatriots (in his penultimate chapter). I think he moves all too fast here (I will also be guilty of that here); in other words, Carens does not sufficiently address the objection.

Carens concedes that special obligations are salient features of our moral lives, but he also adds that such obligations might be outweighed by other more pressing duties. In short, Carens takes the right to movement as so fundamental that it trumps obligations (the content being something like directing resources) to compatriots. Here, I think he short-changes the weight (i.e. the content) of the special obligations owed to compatriots.

First, there seem to extreme cases where special obligations to compatriots do outweigh the fundamental right to movement. Imagine a state with a scarcity of resources; to use the family analogy, a starving family. Clearly, in these instances, the state has a duty to prioritize its citizens over respecting the right to movement of a noncitizen. Similarly, the parent would have a duty to feed their child over anybody else’s child. But perhaps this is a fringe case; a mere stipulation to open borders: after all, Carens does admit that states do not have a duty to admit refugees until the state can “no longer function.”

Let us move on to a second, more contentious, issue with Carens’ reply. If Carens’ reply rests on the rights of noncitizens (i.e. movement being fundamental) outweighing the rights of the compatriots, then a counter might be to argue that the rights of the compatriots are just as fundamental. What sorts of rights could they be? I think an argument can be made for property rights. Citizens contribute to the funds and resources which allow noncitizens to enter their borders and enjoy similar rights. It might be a stretch to say that citizens have first-order property rights to these funds and resources; however, they do have a direct claim to it since it must be used in the interest of the citizens. If we are weighing between the citizens’ right to do what they wish with their property and the noncitizens’ right to movement, the state ought to side with the citizens (this is where the weight special obligations tip the scales).

This second line of thought, I think, is a more principled objection against open borders. Citizens ought to have the right to do what they want with their property, and this extends to how the state distributes its wealth. If citizens choose to have the state divert resources and funds to allow noncitizens inside their borders, so much the better – however, citizens choosing to do so is supererogatory.

This argument amounts to border remaining closed to respect the property rights of its citizens. I do not think this relies on the assumption of a majoritarian democracy; in fact, I suspect Carens is assuming a constitutional democracy, and this argument stands even on his own terms. This is all very sketchy, but I think property rights can be defended (with some work) as fundamental as the right to movement.

Ethics of Immigration: Commentary #2

· Leave a comment ·

I want look at the rhetorical structure of Carens’ argument; specifically, the arrangement of chapter 10 and 11. I want to focus on the rhetorical structure rather than the content because I suspect that any comment I would make on these two chapters will be dealt with in his last section.

Let me begin by commenting on how Carens orders his argument in this section, and how this order has rhetorical impact. His discussion on the rights and moral claims of refugees begins with the least controversial and existing practice. He often begins his chapter by appealing to a common ground or shared intuition (often a sympathetic vignette). Here, the uncontroversial stance Carens begins with is the principle of non-refoulement (appealing to the existing practice established under the Geneva Convention). It does not take much to move from this point to the idea that refugees seeking asylum have the moral claim on the state not to be sent back into peril. Carens subtly moves the reader from their own views to his own views.

So, Carens jabs, we agree that the principle of non-refoulement gives refugees moral claims on the state, but there are also implications to holding this view (what Carens calls “the moral logic”). As it stands, the principle does not fare well with our shared belief of equality (or justice): that is, there seems to be an issue with proportionality insofar as states being more burdened than others. This line of thinking is intuitive – for instance, if you and I had the duty of taking out the garbage whenever it is full, and I took it out for the past two months, I have grounds to complain that we are not sharing this duty equally. So what is a way that we can share the burden of the principle of non-refoulement? According to Carens, a formal duty for all countries to admit some refugees – going back to the garbage example, everybody now has a duty to take out the trash, not just the one who sees that it is full.

Since all states have a duty to accept some refugees, can we really deny entry? Again, it seems to be a consequence or implication of our shared beliefs in equality and freedom. This is Carens’ knockout punch, which seemed so far off in the distance at first, but he weakened our guards with his previous argument. He established that all borders should be somewhat open to meet the proportionality need of refugees. Now that we believe that all borders should be somewhat open, the open borders pill is much easier to swallow (and it essentially uses the same consistency reasoning as before – Carens calls this the “cantilever argument”).

I think we can learn from Carens about the importance rhetorical structure for philosophical argument. Philosophers often purport to be the pinnacle of abstract thinking, but many bias and preconceptions subtly disrupt our thinking. Rhetoric can be used to mitigate this. As someone who argues for a counterintuitive position, Carens makes excellent use of this rhetoric.

Ethics of Immigration: Commentary #1

· Leave a comment ·

I would like to focus this week’s reflective commentary on an objective Carens addresses at the end of chapter 8. His conditions for social membership (and by extension, any moral claims) rest on two conditions: residence and time. But is physical presence within the boundaries of a state sufficient for social membership? Carens thinks so, but I am hesitant to agree.

I was relieved to see Carens address this worry about his criteria for social membership (viz. residence and time) being too loose to justify social membership. Carens adds that his motivations were to make the conditions for social membership as verifiable as possible – in his words, “relevant, objective, and easy to measure.” However, the concern is that the conditions for social membership are not rigorous enough to filter out cases where people do not seem to meet Carens’ notion of “social membership.” Imagine a non-native born person that hides under a rock for twenty years. It is hard to say that this person fits Carens’ notion of “social membership” despite meeting his criteria.

Carens responds by saying that such “hypothetical questions” are the fringe cases; however, he does entertain the objection. Carens asks us to imagine the recluse (i.e. no job, no social ties, no political contributions; essentially living under a rock) native born person. We would not say that this recluse is not a citizen, so we should carry that intuition to cases of non-native born persons. I think this is specious.

If I want to push back on Carens’ point, I would have to find some non-arbitrary difference between the native born recluse and the non-native born recluse. I do not have anything fully substantive to offer, but I want to suggest that there is something different about the native born recluse which affords them social membership which the non-native born recluse does not have. I think this thing is the simple the fact that they were born here.

Let me try to explain a little more while also building a possible third condition. I think a shared narrative is essential to social membership. By this I mean how one’s life narrative – entailing whatever their conception of a good life, like projects, relationships, career, etc. – is tied with their society (whatever the “social” part of “social membership” entails). Now, how does this idea connect to the aforementioned objection?

The native born recluse has their narrative tied simply in virtue of birth. The must have had ties to parents, a network of medical professionals, and some minimal provisions to subsist at their birth. Their narrative is minimally and inextricably tied to their society by birth, granting them necessary social membership; the non-native born recluse, however, does not have this privilege.

Is this narrative condition substantive enough to be a condition for social membership? It might be in that it seems to measure one’s ties to society. One’s tie to society might be verified through personal ties, one’s career, or even knowledge of the society’s narrative (this might justify testing for citizenship, that is, through knowledge of the society’s principles and practices).

My conception of “narrative” is suggestive and vague. Nevertheless, I want to say that Carens’ two conditions for social membership are too broad.