Suchergebnisse

Since the 1990s, citizenship has been transformed into an anthropological genre. Anthropologists have employed terms such as "transnational," "insurgent," and "patriotic" to describe the subjective, cultural, and political dimensions of citizenship. Anthropologists have also differentiated between formal and substantive, legal and cultural, and full and partial citizenship to theorize the disjunction between the promise of state-granted rights and everyday experiences of belonging to a nation-state. And, with increasing mobilities, anthropologists have reconceptualized the politics of exclusion that underlies state policies aimed at undocumented migrants. Now more than ever, anthropology is needed in the study of citizenship and noncitizenship both to illuminate the particulars of how social actors navigate national belonging and to rescue citizenship from state policies aimed at exclusion, death, and the diminution of rights.

This Article takes up the question of "who counts?" with a three-part argument. The first part of the argument makes the case that citizenship in liberal democracies is subject to stresses caused by internal doctrinal conflict that result in the creation of semi-citizenship statuses that offer some individuals partial bundles of rights and semi-citizen statuses. Semi-citizenship is inevitable. The second part of the argument looks closely at how this affects the distribution of the political rights of citizenship: voting and representation. I make the argument that we ought not conflate voting and representation. Each is a distinct political right. People who cannot vote or do not vote are not necessarily entirely unrepresented. This is particularly evident if one takes seriously the trustee model of representation. The third part of the Article compares three different cases of semi-citizenship in which groups who are counted for the purposes of the census and legislative apportionment are not accorded the vote. I examine the cases of children, non-citizens, and felons, briefly illustrating how and why trusteeship serves the first two groups and fails the third. These conclusions bolster the case for treating trusteeship as a necessary component of a liberal democratic state and for treating it skeptically in circumstances in which the trusteeship is not clearly linked to the political capabilities of the population in question.

Abstract
This introductory paper to our first issue provides reflection on the concept of critical global citizenship at both theoretical and practical levels. We maintain that 'citizenship', irrespective of its level of articulation (i.e. national, international, global, etc.) remains an issue that reflects a status, a feeling and practices that are intrinsically interlinked. As a legal status, formal citizenship allows individuals to form a sense of belonging within a political community and, therefore, empowers them to act and perform their citizenship within the spatial domains of the nation-state. Critical global citizenship, asks these same individuals not so much to neglect these notions of belonging and practice to a particular locale, but to extend such affinities beyond the territorial boundaries of their formal national membership and to think critically and ethically about their local, national and global relationship with those who are different from themselves. Making a case for a critical global citizenship, however, also requires acknowledging material inequalities that affect the most vulnerable (i.e. migrants, asylum seekers, those experiencing poverty, etc.) and which mean that efforts to cultivate global citizenship orientations to address social injustice are not enacted on an even playing field. As such, a critical global citizenship approach espouses a performative citizenship that is at once democratic and ethical, as well as being aimed at achieving social peace and sustainable justice, but which is also affected by material conditions of inequality that require political solutions and commitment from individuals, states, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations.

The emergence of an expanded notion of citizenship -- cultural citizenship -- is examined. The development of citizenship rights is cumulative & uneven. While extension of social/welfare rights has recently been stymied, new cultural citizenship rights, including the rights to symbolic presence, dignifying representation, propagation of identity, & maintenance of lifestyles, have emerged. Global trends responsible for the emergence of interest in cultural citizenship in the contemporary era are highlighted: (1) weakening of the state; (2) the welfare system crisis; (3) the waning of classes; (4) proliferation of communication media; & (5) formation of new social & cultural movements. The application of these trends to the emergence of cultural rights & their claimants in Australia is discussed. Adapted from the source document.