![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
In an age of transnational flows and interdependencies, democratic citizenship can no longer be conceptualized exclusively within national boundaries. This paper presents a conceptual map that allows tracing emerging and proposed forms of citizenship within and beyond the nation state in a comprehensive and differentiated way. We disentangle two anchor points: membership in a political community as the fundament of citizenship and the arena of political decision-making as the focal point of citizenship rights, identities and practices. For the former we differentiate between a single national community, the universal community of humankind and multiple (national) communities. For the latter we distinguish the national, supra-national and transnational arena. Our typology thus consists of nine different forms of democratic citizenship. It is used to provide a brief overview over normative proposals and empirical findings leading to the following insights: while membership in a particular national community still dominates the reality in all three political arenas, in the normative discourse it is perceived as deficient. Membership in the universal community of humankind is widely endorsed in the normative discourse, but almost nonexistent. In contrast, membership in multiple communities is not only a growing reality but also normatively promising for democratizing a transnationalizing world.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful for helpful comments on a previous version of this article by participants of the Workshop on “Migration and Democracy” of the Working Group on Migration Politics of the German Association of Political Science in 2011, especially by Nicola Pieper, Stefan Rother and Daniel Naujoks. We are also indebted to the critical comments of the anonymous reviewers as well as to the continuing support of the editor of this journal, Aurel Croissant. We gratefully received a small grant of the Research Commission of the University of Lucerne for language polishing. Last but not least we would like to thank Samuel Schmid for his fast and dedicated formatting support.
Notes on contributors
Andrea Schlenker is senior researcher and lecturer at the Institute of Political Science, University of Lucerne, Switzerland. She received her PhD from the Free University of Berlin in 2007 with a dissertation on “Democratic Community in Spite of Ethnic Difference” (published in German by VS Verlag in 2009). Her research interests cover democratic theories, migration and transnationalism, citizenship and European identity. Her most recent publication is an article on “Cosmopolitan Europeans or Partisans of Fortress Europe? Supranational Identity Patterns in the EU”, published by Global Society in 2013. Together with Joachim Blatter, she currently leads a research project on “Dual Citizens: Hazard or Vanguard of Citizenship in the Post-Westphalian World Order” financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Joachim Blatter is Professor for Political Science with an emphasis on Political Theory at the Institute of Political Science, University of Lucerne, Switzerland. He has previously held positions at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands, the University of Konstanz, Germany, Free University Berlin, Germany, and the University of St Gallen, Switzerland. His research interests include transformations of governance, citizenship, and democracy. Among his most recent publications is a monograph on Case Study Methods: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research (with Markus Haverland, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2012) and an article on “Dual Citizenship and Theories of Democracy”, published by Citizenship Studies in 2011.
Notes
1. Keohane, Institutions, 194.
2. For example Wolf, Die neue Staatsräson.
3. Archibugi and Held, Cosmopolitan Democracy; Held, Democracy; Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism.
4. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, 515.
5. Calhoun, “The Class Consciousness,” 95.
6. Ibid., 89.
7. Bloemraad, Korteweg, and Yurdakul, “Citizenship and Immigration,” 169.
8. The brackets indicate that the power distribution in transnational relations often creates asymmetric dependencies instead of interdependencies on an equal footing.
9. For example Bloemraad, Korteweg, and Yurdakul, “Citizenship and Immigration”; Delanty, “Models of Citizenship”.
10. For example Beiner, Theorizing Citizenship; Taylor, Wieviel Gemeinschaft.
11. For example Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship; Mouffe, “Feminism”; Young, Inclusion and Democracy; see also Kabeer, Inclusive Citizenship; Gaventa and Tandon, Globalizing Citizens. While some feminists argue that citizenship depends per se on a particular set of gendered arrangements and practices (for example Pateman, The Sexual Contract), we opt for a sensible inclusion of power and gender differences instead of abandoning the notion of citizenship altogether.
12. Although we do not explicitly discuss the preconditions of political communities, we keep in mind that the private conditions the public and is therefore not apolitical but deeply implicated in power relations (for example Lister, Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives).
13. See for example Brubaker, “Immigration,” 380.
14. League of Nations, Convention.
15. Soysal, Limits of Citizenship.
16. Archibugi and Held, Cosmopolitan Democracy.
17. Goodin, “Enfranchising”.
18. Bauböck, “Stakeholder Citizenship”.
19. Soysal, Limits of Citizenship.
20. For example Archibugi and Held, Cosmopolitan Democracy .
21. Koenig-Archibugi, “Fuzzy Citizenship”.
22. For example Goodin, “Enfranchising”.
23. For example Guarnizo, Portes, and Haller, “Assimilation and Transnationalism”.
24. Portes, Guarnizo, and Landolt, “The Study of Transnationalism,” 218.
25. For example Sandel, Democracy's Discontent; Jacobson, Rights Across Borders.
26. Walzer, Spheres of Justice, xv.
27. Rawls, The Law of Peoples, 39.
28. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty,” 48.
29. See also Carens, “Aliens and Citizens”; Nussbaum, “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism”.
30. Soysal, Limits of Citizenship, 18; also Bosniak, The Citizen; Sassen, “Towards”.
31. Soysal, Limits of Citizenship, 21.
32. Bauböck, “Stakeholder Citizenship”; Hayduk, Democracy for All.
33. Earnest, “Neither Citizen nor Stranger”.
34. Koopmans and Statham, “Challenging”.
35. Joppke, Challenge to the Nation-State; Waldinger and Fitzgerald, “Transnationalism in Question”.
36. Hammar, Democracy.
37. Hansen, “The Poverty of Postnationalism”.
38. Joppke, Citizenship and Immigration, 82–96.
39. Bauböck, “Studying Citizenship Constellations,” 484.
40. Blatter and Schlenker, “Between Nationalism and Globalism,” 27–33.
41. For example, if diplomatic protection in a third country is provided by the country of descent, it seems acceptable that the country of residence is not granting this right to its immigrants.
42. Bauböck, “The Rights,” 480.
43. Morgenthau, Scientific Man.
44. Jackson and Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations.
45. Archibugi and Held, Cosmopolitan Democracy.
46. Reus-Smit and Snidal, The Oxford Handbook.
47. Held, Democracy.
48. Rosenau, Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier.
49. For example Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism.
50. Ibid., 35f.
51. Archibugi and Koenig-Archibugi, Debating Cosmopolitics.
52. For example Koehler, “From the National”.
53. See Appiah, The Limits of Being Liberal.
54. Archibugi, “Cosmopolitan Democracy”; see also Archibugi and Held, Cosmopolitan Democracy; Held, Democracy.
55. For example Kymlicka, “Citizenship”.
56. Dahl, “Can International Organizations be Democratic?,” 19.
57. For a discussion, see Macdonald, “Boundaries beyond Borders”.
58. Cohen, “Changing Paradigms,” 247.
59. Miller, “Bounded Citizenship,” 61f.
60. Bohman, “Introducing Democracy across Borders”.
61. Archibugi, “Cosmopolitan Democracy,” 438.
62. Norris, “Global Governance”.
63. Schlenker, “Cosmopolitan Europeans”; also Pichler, “Cosmopolitanism”; Hannerz, “Cosmopolitans and Locals,” 239.
64. Koehler, “From the National”; Smith, Chatfield, and Pagnucco, Transnational social movements.
65. Tarrow, The New Transnational Activism, 43.
66. Calhoun, “The Class Consciousness”.
67. Bellamy and Warleigh, Citizenship and Governance.
68. Eurobarometer 73.1; see also Duchesne and Frognier, “National and European Identifications”; Schlenker-Fischer, “Multiple identities in Europe”.
69. For example Lord and Beetham, “Legitimizing the EU”.
70. For example Fuchs, Magni-Berton, and Roger, Euroscepticism.
71. For example Szczerbiak and Taggart, Opposing Europe.
72. For example Marsh, “Testing”.
73. Spiro, “Dual Citizenship”.
74. Bauböck, “Stakeholder Citizenship,” 2400.
75. Vertovec, “Transnationalism and Identity,” 17; Martiniello, “Political Participation,” 100.
76. For example Jones-Correa, “Under two flags”.
77. Bauböck, “Stakeholder Citizenship”.
78. Joppke, Citizenship and immigration, 63.
79. For example Lopez-Guerra, “Should Expatriates Vote”; Fitzgerald, “Rethinking Emigrant Citizenship”.
80. Koenig-Archibugi, “Fuzzy Citizenship”.
81. For example Goodin, “Enfranchising” 2007; Näsström, “The Challenge”; Schaffer, “The Boundaries”.
82. Dahl, After the Revolution, 49.
83. Ibid., 51.
84. Held, Democracy, 237.
85. Warren, “Democracy and the State,” 386.
86. Whelan, “Democratic Theory”.
87. Goodin, “Enfranchising,” 55.
88. Blatter, Erdmann, and Schwanke, “Acceptance of Dual Citizenship”; Brondsted-Sejersen, “‘I Vow’”; Faist and Kivisto, Dual Citizenship.
89. Spiro, “The Impossibility of Citizenship”.
90. For references see Guarnizo, Portes, and Haller. “Assimilation and Transnationalism”, 1213; Waldinger, “Between ‘Here’ and ‘There’”.
91. For example Faist and Kivisto, Dual Citizenship; Koopmans and Statham, “Challenging”.
92. Levitt, The Transnational Villagers; Portes, “Conclusion”.
93. Spiro, “The Impossibility of Citizenship”; Renshon, The 50% American.
94. See also for the following Blatter, “Dual citizenship”.
95. Koenig-Archibugi, “Fuzzy Citizenship”.
96. Blatter, “Dual citizenship”.
97. Blatter and Schlenker, “Between Nationalism and Globalism”.
98. For example Song, “The Boundary Problem”.
99. Escobar, “Dual Nationality”; Jones-Correa, “Under Two Flags”.
100. Bloemraad, “Who Claims Dual Citizenship”; DeSipio et al., Immigrant Politics.
101. Whatever we expect in the name of citizenship we need to acknowledge that it does not capture all dimensions of power that condition inequalities (e.g. Yuval-Davis, “Women, Citizenship and Difference”).
102. Appiah, “Cosmopolitan Patriots”.
103. The authors have received a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation to study quantitatively and qualitatively citizenship identities and practices of dual citizens in the domestic, supra-national, and transnational realm. First results will be available by the end of 2013.