Citizenship as cultural: Towards a theory of cultural citizenship

"Concepts of citizenship have been formulated and thought about for centuries, from Plato and Aristotle to more recent accounts by the likes of Jürgen Habermas and Michael Ignatieff. All of them rely on a particular and divisive view of human nature. The division generalises between those who think that people can lead themselves and those who think that people need to be led by others. But such a division relies on both a misreading of human nature and the classical literature of citizenship and democratic theory. I intend to chart the development of the definition of citizenship and how the theory of citizenship differs from the actuality of citizenship. Part of this process will involve examining and clarifying the various misreadings of citizenship, which continue to this day. Once this is accomplished, it is then possible to look at how the theory of citizenship acts as a “conceptual cover” for the practice of citizenship. States use this “conceptual cover” to discriminate against some of their citizenry. That is, they undermine or completely negate the citizenship rights of some of their citizens, whilst at the same time claiming to respect equally the rights of all citizens under their jurisdiction. How they utilise this cover will be examined in detail within the context of a new theory of citizenship."

Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto, 2013

Since the 1990s the idea of global, cosmopolitan, multicultural and cultural citizenship gained prominence. The notion of cultural citizenship originally suggested inclusiveness and diversity. It intended to recognise cultural rights of various groups in society, in other words multi-ethnicity and diversity. This inclusive notion has been challenged lately, and increasingly it also has been interpreted in the opposite way. The contradictory readings of this concept, for instance in various Member States of the European Union, question its usefulness. The focus on the cultural dimension of citizenship might even prove risky. Only a broad, "comprehensive" understanding of citizenship can reflect the interconnectedness and multiplicity of political, social and cultural ties between the citizen and the polity.

2017

While societies have never been socially and culturally homogeneous, postcolonial and post-Cold War migration have provoked a sense of ever-increasing cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic diversification – some even say “super-diversification” (Vertovec 2007) – in spite of homogenizing tendencies due to globalization. These processes of globalization and cultural diversification seem to generate both a “closure of identities” (Geschiere and Meyer 1999), with discourses of nationalism, separatism, autochthony (Geschiere 2009; Ceuppens and Geschiere 2005) and “homogeneism” (Blommaert and Verschueren 1991), and imageries of cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism and hybridity. In this context, citizenship has emerged as a vibrant area of research for scholars across a wide range of fields, making important contributions to our understanding of shifting configurations of belonging. This issue of COLLeGIUM presents a selection of extended papers presented at the HCAS Symposium on “Citiz...

Law & Social Inquiry, 1994

2012

The institution of citizenship has traditionally been understood as equal membership of a political community. Developments in the Theory and Practice of Citizenship comes at a time when this is undergoing a period of intense scrutiny. Academics have questioned the extent to which we can refer to unified, homogeneous national citizenries in a world characterised by globalisation, international migration, socio-cultural pluralism and regional devolution, whilst on the other hand in political practice we find the declared Death of Multiculturalism, policy-makers urging for active, responsible citizens, and members of social movements calling for a more equitative, equal and participatory democracy. Citizenship is being reassessed and redefined both from above and from below in politics and society. The contributions to this volume engage in analysis of the processes which are bringing about an evolution of our understanding of citizenship and the individual s relationship to the state, the polity and globalisation. Through empirical case studies, they highlight how in practice the terms of membership of a citizenry are negotiated in society through laws, political discourse, cultural associations, participatory processes, rituals and ceremonies. In doing so, these contributions offer an illustration of the diversity of venues and processes of citizenship and illustrate the benefits of an understanding of citizenship as a social practice. The book thus provides an opportunity to pose theoretical, practical and moral questions relating to these issues, as well as offering avenues for further research in the future.

Questions of citizenship and national identity are very closely related since the former commands the definition and representation of the nation, that is national identity itself, and addresses the jurisdictional process that led to specific legislation being formed, which gradually brought about the determination of legal distinctions between citizens and foreigners. From this perspective, what was this process in French modern history after the collapse of the monarchy and the establishment of a new republican model in 1792? Indeed, contrary to what has been argued in the political debate of the last twenty years, the ‘right of soil’ or jus soli – which means for those born on national territory the legitimate right to become French in due time – did not prevail over the ‘right of blood’ or jus sanguinis – which allows only the children of Frenchmen to claim French nationality – over a long period of our modern and more recent history. This chapter has three aims. Firstly, to explain broadly how the French nationhood has been defined over the last two centuries; secondly, to reveal the vicissitudes of a legal process that finally led to the French people becoming a ‘melting pot’ of nations from the beginning of the 20th century until today, and thirdly, to show how the definition and limitation of citizenship suffered considerably from the changing economical and politi- cal context, especially during the Second World War and, from the 1970s in a long period of economical and social crisis. The conclusion will question the legitimacy and consistency of the French model of integration and also the French ‘melting pot’ issue that is the crucial question of national identity.

French Politics, 2019

This special issue engages with the "cultural backlash hypothesis"-that citizens dissatisfied with democratic regimes tend to support the emergence of non representative democracy. The first article challenges classical notions of citizenship and shows that critical citizens actually call for more competent representatives. The second piece asserts that critical citizenship is more complex than what previous research has shown and that only certain types of citizenship are more likely to result in protest votes. As the introduction points out, the two pieces together paint a far more complex picture of citizenship than previously understood through an innovative approach that combines normative political theory with survey research in a country setting. A new research agenda that comes out of these findings is also proposed.

This article takes a critical look at equality and the masked instances of exclusion throughout citizenship theorising. One way this is done is to examine the spaces for democratic citizenship and how citizens are supposed to engage in this space; the goal of a common good allows for the deconstruction of abstract conceptions. This analysis highlights the gendering of spaces and practices, structural inequalities marginalising citizens, and concerns arising from a universal idea of citizenship values. The status of citizen is assigned to those able to measure up as a ‘good’ or ‘active’ citizen, and consequently the rights received reflect the duties performed. However this conception is modelled off a very small percentage of the population and does not deal with structural barriers limiting an individual’s agency to actively participate. In our increasingly globalised world, citizenship theorising needs to broaden its horizons and embrace fluid and diverse identities, but this introduces questions of maintaining a shared citizen sentiment. Future discussions will need to tackle issues of diversity and inequality, as well as continuing to build on T.H. Marshall’s social, political, and civil rights, as these are increasingly not enough for all citizens; their implementation and definition need to be expanded.