Citizenship comp Flashcards
(47 cards)
Bosniak, L. (1998). The Citizenship of Aliens
Citizenship is being reclaimed in 3 ways. 1) by theorists focusing on democratic participation and civic virtue, 2) arguing for forms of differentiated citizenship that takes in to account distinct group identity and concerns in a multicultural society, 3) scholars that look outside of the nation-state, and how non-status persons are excluded.
She primarily argues the third point, saying that citizenship is primarily a nationalist project.
She sees two possibilities, the first is to calls for non-status persons to act or perform as citizens, and the second is to scrap the idea of citizenship altogether, until or unless it is removed from being tied up in nationalism.
Bosniak, L. S. (1994). Membership and Its Boundaries: Membership, equality, and the difference that alienage makes.
In this work she is looking at Walzer’s work, arguing that his work lets us think “inside” and “outside” of boundaries.
The significance of Walzer’s argument has not been fully appreciated. Scholars see his argument as normatively justifying immigration restrictions. He does see the world as needing to be bounded, but he also says that admission criteria of political communities are constrained by “shared understandings of moral action” (1070), (for instance having racial quotas in US is wrong, because that already established ideas of pluralism). He also says that the rights of states to close their borders are constrained by needing to lend a hand and provide mutual aid.
Bosniak argument in line with Walzer’s, in relation to boundaries, saying that in the legal system non-status persons face two “regimes of regulation and relationship” (1138), the first over admission to community membership “inside” and the second over territorially present persons “outside”
Bosniak, L. (2000). Universal Citizenship and the Problem of Alienage.
Citizenship theorists ignore issues of noncitizenship (she uses term alienage). They see citizenship as universal and don’t consider how boundaries are enforced from within..
In order to address questions of noncitizenship, we need to look at ideas of liberal citizenship and rights.
Bosniak-The Citizen and the Alien (2008)
1) To consider alienage, we have to have an inward-looking view of citizenship (ie a frame that is boundary conscious).
2) Citizenship can take on new meanings, but it’s constrained by its associations to community belonging, or the particular (ethnically speaking).
3) Citizenship and civic society (academia, corporations, churches, activism, community organizations) has been seen in opposition to each other, where citizenship only being political, but many scholars argue otherwise, where they see abroadening of citizenships in the range of applications and what people see as political. She says this is happening at the local and transnational levels, where with activism, people are engaging in “global civil society”.
Foucault, M. (1978). Lecture: 11 January 1978. In Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège De France
Developing term bio-power which are a “Set of the mechanism through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of political strategy, of a general strategy of power” (16).
Apparatuses of security, which has 4 features 1) spaces of security, 2) treatment of the uncertain, 3) “form of normalization” associated with security and 4) impact that these security measures have on populations.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory.
Arguing that we need a theory of citizenship when it comes to issues of identity. They argue that citizenship requires some sort of a balance between rights and responsibilities.
Citizenship is not just a status defined by some rights and responsibilities. It is also an identity, meaning an expression of “one’s membership in a political community”
Brubaker, R. (1990). Immigration, citizenship, and the nation-state in France and Germany: A comparative historical analysis.
Argues that the politics of citizenship in relation to immigrants has been informed by distinct national self-understanding that are “deeply rooted in political and cultural geography and powerfully reinforced at particular historical conjunctures”.
Provides a comparison of Germany and France:
France is jus soli, universalist, assimilationist, and state-centered. Germany is jus sanguinis, particularist, and based on ethnocultural unity. France citizenship more accessible than Germany.
Marshall, T.H + Bottomore.-Citizenship &; Social class
Marshall:
Makes the argument that there are three forms of citizenship rights, these being civil, political and social.
Duty being tied to rights.
Bottomore:
We need to reconsider the relationship between social class and citizenship. Marshall ignored gendered and racialized analyses.
We need to look at civic, social and political rights through human rights and not through citizenship as Marshall had originally conceived.
Taylor, C. (1994). The Politics of Recognition in Multiculturalism.
He argues that our identities are partly shared by the recognition and misrecognition of others and that people can be distorted when people or society mirrors back a negative view of themselves.
Discourses of recognition can be expressed in two levels 1) intimate sphere where identity forms in continuous dialogue with significant others and 2) in the public sphere, where politics of equal recognition (emphasizing equal rights and entitlements of all citizens) becomes more important. Politics of equal recognition and politics of difference come into conflict.
Bloemraad, I., Korteweg, A. C., & Yurdakul, G. (2008). Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State.
This review suggests that globalization places challenges on understandings of citizenship as being state controlled and centered. But, they further argue that nation-states continue to hold considerable power over the formal rules and rights of citizenship and in shaping institutions that provide differentiated access to participation and belonging, which has important consequences for immigrant incorporation and equality.
Lister, R. (1997). Citizenship: Towards a feminist synthesis.
Lister is aiming to propose a theory of synthesizing rights and participatory approaches, linked through notions of human agency, to come up with a feminist theory of citizenship. Secondly, she examines citizenship’s exclusionary tendencies which work to exclude women and minority groups of full citizenship.
She calls for a “differentiated universalism” which particularizes the universal.
Orloff, A. 1993. Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States
She argues that the “power resource model” provides a good starting point to look at gender in the context of state social provision. The “power resource model” where these scholars have developed a mode of evaluating the content of social provision.. they began from the idea that workers are oppressed by capitalism, which transfers labour power into commodity. Political rights allow workers to mobilize for their interests.
Gender is absent from this model, where it assumes that civil and political rights are available equally to all persons
Young, I.M. (1990). Social Movements and the Politics of Difference.
Young is critical of the universal liberal democratic conception and is proposing an alternative. Sees the problem being between the public and the private and that we need to bring everyone to the public. Calls for a group differentiated citizenship, and a heterogeneous public, where differences are recognized and seen as irreducible, where no perspective takes precedence. In order for everyone to be included in public discussion and decision making, we need group represenation.
Anthias, F. & Yuval-Davis, N. (1992). Whose Nation? Whose State? Racial/Ethnic Divisions and “the Nation”.
They are looking at ideas of nationalism and racism, specifically looking in the case of Britain. They are looking at the changing boundaries of British national collectivity and how legislation and ideology affect them. Arguing that theories of the state need to be separate from the nation and “civil society” in order to analyze racism and nationalism. When considering issues of racism and nationalism, we need to look at class division.
Balibar, E. (1991). Racism and Nationalism.
Arguing that nationalism and racism are entangled, but that the weight of nationalism is much less contested. He makes the argument that there are many racism (internal, external theoretical and spontaneous).
Bannerji, H. (2000). Charles Taylor’s Politics of Recognition: A Critique.
She is critiquing Taylor’s work calling his work “non-official elite multiculturalism”. She wants to put forth a historical materialist perspective. She wants to move beyond the liberalism/communitarian debate.
Counter to Taylor’s call for recognition, she says its not recognition that we call for, but a struggles to end injustice and exploitation.
Chatterjee, S. (2019). Immigration, anti-racism, and Indigenous self-determination: towards a comprehensive analysis of the contemporary settler colonial.
Chatterjee is analyzing the land, labour, and dispossession and exploitation, proposing a no-borders politics as a tool that can be used to challenge settler colonialism, that can help us understand problems/movements on both sides. Wants to build an anti-racist politics that can meaningfully respond to settler-colonial project of resettlement and dispossession without binarizing.
She argues that privileging “spatialized belonging” underpins the notion of immigrant settlerhood and that this idea should be unpacked.
Walia, H. (2010). Transient servitude: migrant labour in Canada and the apartheid of citizenship.
Walia is arguing through a case study of SAWP and LCP in BC that global capitalism exerts a structural violence over populations, forcing people to move from their homes and forcing migrants into positions of being subjects of cheap labour, where they are excluded from the nation-state, and maintained in a state of vulnerability.
Balibar, E. (2004). Homonationalis: An anthropological sketch of the nation-form.
Balibar is critically examining the relation between the nation, “nation-form” and “nationalism”.
Nation-state as a structural institution does not mean it is static, but rather, it is also changing and transforming itself.
National identity is a secondary identity which presupposes primary identities. Our identities are formed through outside sources and ideologies and we create our identities through accepting or rejecting the roles imposed upon us. Primary identities have to be deconstructed in order to fit into the national imaginary (to belong must assimilate).
Glick Schiller, N., L. Basch, and C. Szanton Blanc.1995 “From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration.”
They are looking through an ethnography of transnational migration to see the ways that immigration in the US can be seen as a nation-building project which works to restrict the loyalties of transmigrants.
Argue that there is a re inscription of the border happening which serves to counter transnational identities and create a terrain wherein immigrants are drawn into defending what they have achieved or obtained by defending in against those that do not hold status. Therefore, they are drawn in discourses of identity which link them to the US nation-state and the bounded structures of laws and institutions.
Itzigsohn, J. (2000). Immigration and the boundaries of citizenship: The institutions of immigrants’ political transnationalism,
Arguing that in our current age new forms of political action and citizenship that go beyond territorial and political boundaries of the state have emerged. Looks at the Dominican Republic, Haiti and El Salvador to consider the transnational activities in each, arguing they all develop similar patterns of immigrant political transnationalism, these being demands by home country for extension of political rights of migrants, demands to political rights in their home country and right to dual citizenship .
Argue that although transnationalism has opened a space for participation of previously marginalized groups, that it doesn’t subvert the current economic order.
Maira, S. (2009). Cultural Citizenship & Transnational Citizenship: Flexibility and Control.
Rights and obligations of civic citizenship are mediated by race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, and class.
Citizenship membership based on ideas of social morality and cultural beliefs around defining what makes a good citizen and these beliefs are racialized, gendered, and classed. There is a tension between formal legal citizenship and cultural citizenship.
Citizenship is increasingly individualized and privatized, with some arguing that it is related to being a consumer of social goods, than anything else.
She draws on Ong’s ideas of flexible citizenship, seeing it as related to post national/denationalized citizenship, emerging in response to changes in the institution of citizenship within nation-states, where receiving citizenship the youth felt would shield them to from human rights abuses, but where she says getting a passport still does not mean you will be seen as an american.
Ong, A. (2006). Mutations in Citizenship. Theory, Culture and Society,
Arguing that we are moving beyond the citizenship-stateless nexus and that there are many kinds of partial citizenship, where she develops flexible citizenship, which is a term used to describe the maneuvers of mobile subjects who respond in ways that are fluid and opportunistic towards borderless market conditions .
She describes a democracy in action against lack of rights and benefits, and against corruption. Says that human rights discourse are western construct and biased towards Asian countries. Protests in streets in Asian countries, not about human rights, but about ethics of culture and religion.
Forming global citizenship
Health based claims (biological citizenship) have been important in the west.
The opposition between territorialized citizenship and deterritorialized human rights can’t capture the various assemblages that are the sites of contemporary political claims, arguing instead that we need to also include new claims (postnational/flexible/cyber-based/biological) as grounds for protection, entitlement, and resources.
Stasiulis, D., & Bakan, A. (2005). Negotiating Citizenship in an Era of Globalization.
Proposes a theory for conceptualizing citizenship experiences of women from the South migrating as caregivers.
Argue that nation states are still the most important governance site for allocation and regulation of citizenship rights, responsibilities, and burdens. But, that the power relations that underlie national citizenship are not confined to dynamics in the nation-state, instead they reflect and reinforce global relations of power, for instance the hierarchy of states in the overarching world system of states, and the increasingly transnational character of resistance in civil society.
