U10A1-12 - GLOBAL ISSUE – ANALYSIS (PHASE 3) - SEE DETAILS.

Citizenship

Key Themes in Sociology This outstanding introductory series covers major theoretical perspectives and key concepts refl ecting contemporary society. Written in an engaging style and accessible format, these concise volumes are designed to stimulate student discussion and thought. Pedagogical features such as primary read- ings, chapter summaries, key terms, and further suggested reading ensure these student-friendly volumes will be an essential aid to the study of the key themes in sociology.

Published

The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research Amy S. Wharton

Science and Technology in Society: From Biotechnology to the Internet Daniel Lee Kleinman

Citizenship: Discourse, Theory, and Transnational Prospects Peter Kivisto and Thomas Faist

Citizenship Discourse, Theory, and Transnational Prospects

Peter Kivisto and Thomas Faist

© 2007 by Peter Kivisto and Thomas Faist

blackwell publishing 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of Peter Kivisto and Thomas Faist to be identifi ed as the Authors of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy- ing, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

First published 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2007

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kivisto, Peter, 1948– Citizenship : discourse, theory, and transnational prospects / Peter Kivisto and Thomas Faist. p. cm. – (Key themes in sociology) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4051-0551-4 (hardback : alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-4051-0552-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Citizenship. I. Faist, Thomas, 1959– II. Title.

JF801.K57 2007 323.601–dc22 2006034413

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 10 on 12 pt Sabon by SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd, Hong Kong Printed and bound in Singapore by COS Printers Pte

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.

For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: www.blackwellpublishing.com

Contents

1 Introduction 1

Expansion or Erosion? 3 Four Themes 6 The Future of Citizenship 13

2 Inclusion 15

The Dialectic of Inclusion and Exclusion 17 Multiculturalism as a Mode of Inclusion 34 The Lesson to Be Drawn from Existing Theory and Praxis 47

3 Erosion 49

Dimensions of Citizenship 50 T. H. Marshall and the Expansion of Citizenship Rights 51 Critiques of the Welfare State 56 The Triumph of the Market over Citizenship? 66

4 Withdrawal 75

Individualism and Its Discontents: Tocqueville Revisited 77 Enter Putnam 84 The Third Way and Social Democracy 96

5 Expansion 102

Dual Citizenship 103 Which Nations Permit and Which Prohibit Dual Citizenship? 111 Nested Citizenship 122 Toward Global Citizenship? 128

6 Future Trends 130

Internal Factors Shaping Citizenship Regimes 131 Citizenship and Globalization 138

References 141 Index 161

vi CONTENTS

1

Introduction

Citizenship was long a neglected subject in the social sciences, but in a dramatic reversal it has more recently become a focal point for wide- ranging and varied discussions concerning the democratic prospect in an increasingly global society. Indeed, it is fair to say that we are currently witnessing an effl orescence of interest in the future of citizenship, or what David Scobey (2001: 20) has referred to as the “‘return of the citizen’ in public and policy discourse.” Moreover, this effl orescence is a refl ection of a growing belief in many quarters that we are living in what sociologist and former President of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso (2000) has referred to as “an age of citizenship.”

This renewed concern stems from two interrelated and shared convic- tions on the part of those who have entered into the fray: fi rst, citizenship is important, and second, citizenship is changing. However, commentators begin to part company with others when it comes to specifying in what ways citizenship is presumed to be important and similarly over identifying the changes that are thought to be transforming – for better or worse – its signifi cance and character. Not surprisingly, the normative evaluations attached to various prognostications also vary considerably, as do the emotional reactions, which range from deep pessimism to a rather rosy optimism.

At one level, citizenship can be succinctly defi ned in terms of two com- ponent features. The fi rst is that it constitutes membership in a polity, and as such citizenship inevitably involves a dialectical process between inclu- sion and exclusion, between those deemed eligible for citizenship and those who are denied the right to become members. In its earliest articulation in ancient Greece, the polity in question was the city-state. In the modern world, it was transformed into the nation-state. Second, membership brings with it a reciprocal set of duties and rights, both of which vary by place

2 PETER KIVISTO AND THOMAS FAIST

and time, though some are universal. Thus, paying taxes and obeying the law are among the duties expected of citizens in all polities, while the right to participate in the political process in various ways – by voting, running for offi ce, debating, petitioning, and so forth – is an inherent feature of democracy.

However, at another level, when one begins to look more closely at the substance of citizenship in the world today, it quickly becomes quite clear that there is no singularly agreed-upon answer to the question Derek Heater (1999) posed in the title of his book What is Citizenship? A rather cursory review of the literature reveals something of the capacious nature of recent discussions about contemporary citizenship. In an effort to capture that which is deemed to be novel about the present situation, a proliferation of adjectives are evident in that literature aimed as describing peculiar features of citizenship today. Thus, we fi nd treatments of world citizenship (Heater 2002), global citizenship (Falk 1994), universal citizenship (Young 1989), cosmopolitan citizenship (Linklater 1998), multiple citizenship (Held 1995), postnational citizenship (Soysal 1994), transnational citizenship (Johnston 2001), dual citizenship (Miller 1991), nested citizenship (Faist 2000a and 2000b), multilayered citizenship (Yuval-Davis 2000), cultural citizenship (Stevenson 1997), multicultural citizenship (Delgado-Moreira 2000), cyber- citizenship (Tambini 1997), environmental citizenship (Jelin 2000), feminist citizenship (Lister 1997), gendered citizenship (Seidman 1999), fl exible citi- zenship (Ong 1999), traditional citizenship (Bloemraad 2004), intimate citi- zenship (Plummer 2003), and protective citizenship (Gilbertson and Singer 2003). And the list could go on.

To further illustrate the multiplicity of terms used to depict citizenship today, one can simply turn to Isin and Wood’s Citizenship and Identity (1999), where the authors describe a contemporary multifaceted citizenship that they characterize as being at once modern, diasporic, aboriginal, sexual, cosmopolitan, ecological, cultural, and radical. All of this clearly signals a conviction on the part of these two scholars that citizenship today is vital, malleable, in many ways novel, and inherently complex. Without necessarily agreeing with all of the particulars of this framing of the contemporary situation, many others concur with this general sensibility regarding an increasingly complex and variegated character of citizenship.

Others, however, offer a considerably less sanguine assessment. From their perspective, citizenship is being threatened by one of a variety of perceived forces that are seen as undermining its salience. The list of cul- prits is varied, including changes in the nation-state itself, which some have depicted as withering, while for others it is brought about by the shift from welfare capitalism to neoliberalism. Some point to changes in the citizenry itself, claiming that as a consequence of the individualistic tendencies of modern societies, increasing numbers of people no longer possess a

INTRODUCTION 3

willingness to become involved in public life. Still others would locate the source of the problem in larger, macro-level factors generally depicted in terms of the effects of globalization (Putnam 2000; Touraine 2001; Turner 2001; Dower 2003). In contrast to the vibrancy inherent in the preceding perspective, scholars operating with a conviction that citizenship is in trouble typically describe it as anemic, thin, or as merely instrumental.

EXPANSION OR EROSION?

As we sifted through the large – and rapidly growing – body of recent scholarly work on citizenship, largely from the interrelated fi elds of sociol- ogy, political science, philosophy, and cultural studies, we initially distin- guished what we identifi ed as two major discourses on the topic: as noted above, the fi rst is concerned with the erosion of citizenship, the second with its expansion. We have also been struck by the fact that spokespersons for each of these positions seem deaf to the other discourse. Thus, at the outset we saw it as our intention in this brief inquiry into the problems and prospects of contemporary citizenship to bring the two discourses into fruitful dialogue, a task we realized was far more easily stated than achieved. To accomplish this objective, we thought that we would fi rst subject each of the two discourses to critical analysis. Next, we would attempt to bring the two into contact with each other. This would lead to our fi nal task, which would have been to distil from these fi rst two tasks our own assessment of the future of citizenship.

However, our self-defi ned task proved to be more intricate and com- plicated than we had anticipated. As we looked at the erosion camp, we became increasingly aware that there are in fact two different, though sometimes interconnected, concerns that have been voiced about what is seen as a decline in the effi cacy and salience of citizenship: one concerns the rights that accrue to individuals as citizens and the other attends to issues surrounding the obligations of citizenship. In terms of rights, a lively debate is currently underway that addresses the assault on social citizen- ship brought about by the rise of neoliberal political regimes since the 1970s. Appropriately, this debate is usually framed in terms of T. H. Marshall’s (1964) paradigm of the evolution of citizenship that is linked to the rise and expansion of the modern welfare state. Less explicit in Marshall’s account, but there nonetheless, is a view of the citizen in the modern welfare state as essentially passive – a recipient of rights due to the evolution of an expanded view of what citizenship entails, but not an active participant in democratic decision making (Turner 1993; 2001).

This touches on the obligation side of the coin. Generally without refl ecting on Marshall, a number of contemporary theorists have raised

4 PETER KIVISTO AND THOMAS FAIST

concerns about what they perceive to be the steady decline in involvement in public life by ordinary people. This particular topic has been of major concern to those interested in the fate of the public sphere or civil society. Thus, a rather disparate group of thinkers – including but certainly not limited to Benjamin Barber, Robert Bellah, Amitai Etzioni, Anthony Giddens, Jürgen Habermas, Robert Putnam, Theda Skocpol, Alain Touraine, and Bryan Turner – have raised in different ways, from different political perspectives, and with different valences, concerns about the decline in civic participation.

If the erosion of citizenship discourse generally offers a rather pessimis- tic prognosis for the future (even when various nostrums are proposed to combat the problem), the other discourse views citizenship, not as anemic, but as expanding, vibrant, and susceptible to reinvention in ways appropri- ate to the dictates of globalization. But here too, we discovered that there are actually two, though again sometimes interconnected, discourses. On the one hand, the expansion of citizenship is seen in terms of the progres- sive inclusion of heretofore marginalized and excluded groups. This par- ticular aspect of expansion pays primary attention to the changing signifi cance of gender and race in shaping an understanding of who is to be incorporated into full membership in the body politic.

One account, seen most explicitly in Talcott Parsons’s (1971) evolution- ary functionalism, suggests that among the master trends shaping modern societies is a growing capacity and societal interest in inclusivity. From such a perspective, citizenship serves as a particularly signifi cant mode of identity and solidarity in modern pluralist societies. A competing account, especially evident among social movement scholars, stresses the struggles of marginalized groups in gaining entrée to the public sphere as equals possessing all of the rights of citizens. Be it a focus on the women’s move- ment, the black civil rights movement in the United States, or similar struggles elsewhere on the part of excluded racial or religious minorities, the main thrust of this approach tends to be refl ective of what the American labor leader and civil rights activist A. Philip Randolph once said: “Rights must be taken.”

Both of these accounts of inclusion share one thing in common: they presuppose that the locus of citizenship is the nation-state. This assumption has been increasingly challenged by scholars who have raised questions about what they claim to be the erosion in the effi cacy of the nation-state while simultaneously pondering whether various trans-state entities such as the United Nations or, at a more regional level, the European Union might be capable of developing notions of citizenship that, in effect, burst the boundaries of the nation-state (Jacobson 1996; Soysal 1994). In part, the argument draws a parallel between the premodern and the modern loci of citizenship. In the former, it was the city-state, while in the latter it

INTRODUCTION 5

became the nation-state. The assumption underpinning this argument is that as we enter what some see as late or advanced modernity (Giddens 1990) and others as the postmodern (Harvey 1989), a similar shift occurs in the locus of citizenship regimes. Given the embryonic character of these emergent trends, it is not surprising that there is little agreement about whether the future suggests the development of a global state (Heater 1999, 2002) or what John Hoffman (2004) refers to as “citizenship beyond the state” – by which he means not only beyond the nation-state, but beyond any sort of trans-state.

The discussions about transcending the boundaries of the nation-state can be seen in the wide-ranging discussions today, not only among scholars but also among politicians and policy makers, about dual or multiple citi- zenship. Given the reality of expanding numbers of dual citizens residing around the world, it is not surprising that this topic has been of particular interest of late. Much of this discussion is about individuals going beyond the boundaries of any particular nation-state by becoming members of two or more states. As such, at one level the legitimacy or effi cacy of the exist- ing global order of states is assumed and not questioned.

A topic that has received somewhat less attention, but is nonetheless equally central to this general line of inquiry, is nested citizenship. It has received less attention because it is a concrete phenomenon only in Europe at the moment, and does not appear relevant to North America, Asia, or elsewhere. However, it should be recalled that the European Community as it was conceived at its founding in the post-World War II period was primarily an economic entity designed to give Western Europe greater clout in world markets, particularly in response to American economic hege- mony. It was over the course of several decades that its potential political implications began to emerge, and with it the idea that one might be a citizen of a particular European nation while simultaneously being a citizen of Europe. One question nested citizenship theory raises is whether, for example, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is in its early years and is at the moment viewed solely as an economic treaty, might over time evolve into something resembling the European Union (EU). Likewise, might something similar occur elsewhere, be it in the form of pan-Africanism, strategic alliances among the economic powerhouses of East Asia, or in Latin America? These are questions that the idea of nested citizenship raises.

At another level, the transcendence of the nation-state is seen to open up the prospects of world citizenship (Heater 2002). While much of this particular conversation occurs at the philosophical level, the impact of universal human rights regimes and the idea that organizations such as the United Nations have a role to play in insuring the protection of those rights – including the interventions of various sorts into nations

6 PETER KIVISTO AND THOMAS FAIST

accused of rights violations – also gives it real-world evidence to examine and interpret.

FOUR THEMES

The objective we have staked out for this book is in our estimation both modest and important. It is modest insofar as we do not seek to lay out alternative explanations, develop new types of citizenship to add to the already expansive list, or provide a lengthy and sustained argument about what we think the future of citizenship in the next quarter of a century or so is likely to be. Rather, our purpose is, fi rst, to offer an analytical assess- ment that is useful in locating and making sense of the various thematic discourses on citizenship, and, second, to provide guidance in pulling together those discrete themes into a larger, more comprehensive frame- work of analysis that is capable of taking all of them into account. We think this is important insofar as it permits a more constructive dialogue across these various discourses.

To that end, the following four chapters will take up the concerns dis- cussed above, structured into the following broad themes: (1) inclusion, (2) erosion, (3) withdrawal, and (4) expansion. In each instance, we make no effort to provide a comprehensive account of the body of scholarship dealing with each theme. Rather, the focus is on the main contours of the state of the argument, and to get at those contours, we have intentionally selected what we think are among the most important works to date – works that have become touchstones for others working in the area. In some cases, we will stay close to the texts themselves by providing exegeses of these works, seeking not only to identify and critically evaluate that which the authors say, but also to point to authorial silences. Some of the texts in question are theoretical while others are chiefl y the products of empirical research. There is a decided focus on the Anglo-American world, and in some instances, as with the fi rst half of the chapter on inclusion and the chapter on erosion, the focus is primarily on the United States. In other places, such as the discussion of dual citizenship, we will make use of a somewhat broader range of sources and will survey the current state of the literature. While this might suggest to some readers an arbitrariness in our selections, we think we have managed to tap into the most salient works available to help us to capture each theme’s key features.

Inclusion

Inclusion, the fi rst major theme we address, is an expansive topic that concerns itself both with, on the one hand, the incorporation of people

INTRODUCTION 7

into the ranks of citizens and, on the other, the terms of incorporation. What E. J. Hobsbawm (1962) called the “age of revolution” – framed by the French Revolution and the failed revolutionary upheavals of 1848 – resulted in the triumph of bourgeoisie democracy. Who precisely was to be included in the system as citizens varied by country, but in general there were efforts – sometimes more successful, sometimes less successful – to effect closure in order to prevent certain categories of persons from achiev- ing full citizenship. In some places, this meant that the working class and the poor were to be excluded. In other places, racial criteria were used to differentiate citizens from those who were excluded from full societal membership. In all instances, women were denied the rights of full citizen- ship by being denied access to the public sphere. Thus, part of the issue of inclusion involves the manner by, and extent to which, heretofore-excluded categories of people have managed to gain entrée into the polity by being accorded full citizenship rights, while at the same time the state has pre- served its monopoly on dictating the terms of inclusion and exclusion.

However, more recently, citizenship debates have concentrated on issues related to the terms of incorporation. Of particular signifi cance is the conversation about multiculturalism as a mode of inclusion. Although its meaning is varied and contested, there is general consensus that multicul- turalism involves valorizing ethnic and cultural diversity, induced by the presence and activities of ethnonational minorities and aboriginal groups within nation-states and by the impact of immigration. Related to this, con- siderable attention has been devoted to the matter of “group-differentiated rights” (Young 1989, 2000; see also Kymlicka 1995, 2001), which would include all categories of citizens that do not belong to the majority main- stream, which in the nations of the West has historically meant white males. Among the questions that advocates of group-differentiated rights must wrestle with is whether, to what degree, and for which categories of citizens should such rights be seen as a constitutive part of citizenship. In the somewhat narrower realm of cultural rights, central concerns involve claims pertaining to religion, language, and education. Even more conten- tious is the matter of granting rights that promote self-government and partial forms of political autonomy for recognized minorities.

Both exogenous and endogenous factors have played a role in stimulat- ing tendencies towards the expansion of cultural rights. In the case of ethnonational minorities, for instance, European integration has in some cases fostered subnational tendencies towards regionalism (as can be seen, for instance, with the Scots and the Welsh in Britain, the Basques and Catalonians in Spain, and the Lega Nord in Italy). Endogenous factors likewise have had similar consequences. Over the past several decades, for example, religious exemption rights have been increasingly granted to members of various immigrant groups, be it exempting Sikhs from wearing

8 PETER KIVISTO AND THOMAS FAIST

motorcycle helmets in Canada or offering halal food in British state school cafeterias. Still, there is much controversy over the granting of such rights. This is evident in the controversy over whether the wearing of headscarves by Muslim schoolgirls in France and women teachers in Germany should be permitted. Both cases remain disputed at the moment. Overall, religious exemption rights are covered by the constitutions of the various liberal democracies, albeit somewhat differently from nation to nation. There is evidence of a path-dependent development towards a convergence of such rights. However, the situation is far less clear when it comes to rights associated with limited self-government, greater autonomy, or even the prospect of independence for ethnonational minorities.

Erosion

The second topic concerns the social rights aspect of citizenship – more specifi cally, the relationship between citizens and the welfare dimension of modern states. In all of the world’s liberal democracies, providing for the well-being of citizens has entailed the creation of a wide range of enforce- able rights that all citizens possess, including social security and pension provisions, unemployment schemes, health insurance, access to education, and so forth. Not only does the range of rights vary from nation to nation, but so does the scope of those rights. Some states – with the United States being the most obvious instance – created relatively thin welfare regimes, while others – with the Scandinavian countries serving as paradigmatic examples – established and have maintained comparatively thick ones. Nevertheless, in all of these nations, citizens have become more, not less, reliant on state protection (Béland 2005).

What is interesting for our purposes are the shifting assumptions about the current condition and the future prospects of the welfare state. As an examination of the relevant social scientifi c literature reveals, by the middle of the twentieth century the received wisdom was that the welfare state was here to stay, having managed to deal with the most negative effects of inequality while also succeeding in reducing previous levels of class con- fl ict. A typical argument was that during the early phase of industrializa- tion, the primary economic role played by the state involved the facilitation of capital accumulation, which yielded ever-increasing levels of economic productivity. In contrast, once an industrial society reached a mature state of development, this role for the state progressively gives way to a new role wherein the primary task becomes, as A. F. K. Organski, in an emblematic expression of modernization theory, The Stages of Political Development (1965), put it, “to protect the very people who were the greatest sufferers in [the earlier stage of industrial society].” In short, the welfare state was

INTRODUCTION 9

a path-dependent consequence of the internal logic of capitalist develop- ment. First, with the assistance of the state, economic structures were put in place to stimulate accumulation and enhance productive capacity. Once that had occurred, it became possible to begin to address the primary unintended consequence of industrialization, which is the generation of unacceptable levels of inequality (the matter of environmental degradation in the early period was not a major topic of concern for modernization theorists).

Within a decade of Organski’s thesis, critics from both the left and right began to question the legitimacy and the economic viability of the welfare state. As the critics point out, the pressures on the welfare state are both exogenous and endogenous. Certainly, the pressure on state–citizen rela- tions concerning social rights has been exacerbated by the effects of globalization on welfare states seeking to compete in international markets in a situation characterized by, as Saskia Sassen (1996: 6) put it, the “global footlooseness of corporate capital.” Globalization has been identifi ed as a factor contributing to the reduction of benefi ts and the general trend to constrict rather than expand or preserve existing social rights. In terms of endogenous factors, numerous critics of liberal democratic welfare states have contended that the pervasive provision of guaranteed benefi ts has resulted in an unwelcome and unintended side effect: namely, it has tended to undermine individual autonomy and the capacity of citizens to care for themselves and their families – becoming, in short, increasingly dependent on the various provisions which were designed to enable them to become independent.

In the midst of these intellectual and ideological challenges, the triumph of neoliberalism signaled the advent of a signifi cant attack on existing welfare state policies and programs. While radical exponents of neoliberal- ism, such as the infl uential American neoconservative Grover Norquist, suggest in colorful language that their goal is to “strangle,” “starve,” or “drown” the welfare state, other neoliberals are content to cut away at it, reducing as much as is politically feasible its infl uence over the lives of citi- zens. In either case, the goal of neoliberalism is the erosion of the welfare state, a goal that has met various levels of success during the past few decades in all of the industrial nations.

Somewhat provocatively, Alain Touraine (2001: 9) has argued that “we have moved from a form of socialism to a form of capitalism, and that the market has replaced the state as the principal regulatory force” [italics in original] in neoliberal regimes. Clearly, neoliberalism calls into question the central claim of postindustrial theory, be it Touraine’s leftist version or Bell’s centrist account, about the central role accorded to the state in directing society. Neoliberal ideology, as Touraine points out, calls for replacing the state by corporate capitalism. Insofar as it succeeds in doing