Return to site

Differing Notions of Citizenship

This rather simple analogy is effective in outlining the benefits of being born a member of a prosperous state. It also emphasizes the inclusive/exclusive aspects of citizenship as membership. As Pierson notes, "... it is overwhelmingly at [the nation-state] level that the privileging of citizenship and the practice of social closure against outsiders has been observed" (Pierson 130). 'Citizenship as status' is parallel with 'citizenship as membership' since it too reinforces the notion of nationalism.

However, status diverges from membership since it makes a claim to a less normative quality - the 'imagined community. ' The imagined community is what Pierson denotes as what it means to be of a certain nationality (Pierson 132). Where membership associates people (by territory) to a national identity, status seeks to make the relationship a little deeper, associating people to their culture and traditions and to what those things mean on a h&m competitors analysis.

Stevenson's conception of 'cultural citizenship' spans beyond the rather narrow concepts of either membership or status. He emphasizes the large-scale effects that media have played in reshaping what it means to be a citizen (of a nation-state and of the world). The rapid movement of people and information has challenged conventional modes of citizenship (i. e. membership and status). Massive migration within the last half century has resulted in city-centers around the globe that have become truly multicultural.

Citizenship is no longer a matter of legal recognition, but much more so a qualitative argument for inclusiveness, and abolition of social sentiments that favour nationals while marginalizing minority groups. In today's world with people of varying ethnicities dotted across the globe, the nationalist argument is contested by a new and powerful force - multiculturalism. Furthermore, this challenge is strengthened by the 'shrinking' aspects of modern media - today the world is a smaller place where domestic issues from other countries, societies, and cultures become easily accessible.

Although the concepts of membership and status citizenship seem to be outdated, Stevenson consistently makes reference to a single feature that is commonplace in all three forms of citizenship - nationalism. Stevenson views nationalism as an intrinsic part of any citizenship, and suggests that it should remain a significant aspect of cultural citizenship without precluding other features from being realized. He holds that, "... national identities themselves need to be constantly re-negotiated to admit a diverse range of identity constructs...

," while concluding that, "... domains of nation and state remain central if no longer determining" (Stevenson 73, 91). A feature that Parekh conceptualizes in the cultural framework includes, "... institutionally embedded multicultural practices rather than assimilation or mere tolerance" (Stevenson 72). It is evident that there is a fine line between granting too much to multicultural enhancement and risking national traditions, and reinforcing nationalism to the point where multicultural views are not given enough attention.

As Stevenson puts it: "... we should be careful to avoid a false universalism that simply gestures towards the equality of the globe's cultures and avoid a form of cosmopolitan optimism that assumes that national cultures do not remain important centers of power and identity" (Stevenson 73). Overall, the concept of cultural citizenship seeks to embody nationalism (as in the membership and status conceptions) while advocating pluralism in a global society that unites so many unique cultural qualities.

All Posts
×

Almost done…

We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!

OKSubscriptions powered by Strikingly