Search results

The paper begins with an examination of three ideal types citizenship which are not necessarily mutual exclusive. The first type is national citizenship, typically associated with ethno-nationalism. The second form is social citizenship or 'welfare citizenship' refers to the creation of social rights and is closely connected to civil-society institutions rather than to the state or market. The third form of citizenship identifies the citizen with participation in the work force emphasizing self-reliance and autonomy. In this discussion, I argue that with economic globalization and the development of neo-liberal strategies the various forms of citizenship have converged towards a new model of passive citizenship in which the state is or has withdrawn from commitment to full employment and the provision of social security, especially universal provision of welfare services, and civil-society institutions have been eroded. The result is the emergence of the apolitical,isolated citizen as consumer. The fourth model of citizenship presupposes a consumer society, a weak state and the decline of civic institutions, where the passive citizen becomes a consumer of privatized goods and services. The rise of a fourth model of citizenship – the consumer-citizen – can be interpreted as a logical consequence of financialization.1
1 Some aspects of this chapter first appeared in Bryan S. Turner (2010), 'Ralf Dahrendorf on Citizenship and Life Chances', Citizenship Studies, 14 (2): 237–43.

Contemporary models of citizenship are critiqued in an attempt to conceptualize a more comprehensive notion of European citizenship. Four models of citizenship are identified: a rights-based model linked to liberalism; a duties-based model connected with conservatism; a participation-based model associated with democratic radicalism; & an identity-based model related to communitarianism. Arguing that issues of citizenship are subverted by discourses of nationalism, a postnational notion that emphasizes a citizen's rights, duties, participation, & identity is presented. In contemporary Europe, the traditional notion of citizenship based on rights & participation has been replaced by a supranational concept that privileges cultural identity of diversity. Consequently, a postnational notion of identity that reveres human rights, the environmnent, democracy, & multiculturalism is needed to contest current trends. 1 Figure, 64 References. Adapted from the source document.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Contents -- Chapter 1: What Is Citizenship? -- Chapter 2: Being an Active Citizen -- Chapter 3: Knowledge Is Power -- Chapter 4: Have Your Voice Heard -- Chapter 5: Grassroots Advocacy -- Chapter 6: Volunteering -- Visual Summary: Active Citizenship in Action -- Glossary -- For More Information -- Index -- Back Cover

Most critical analyses assess citizenship-deprivation policies against international human rights and domestic rule of law standards, such as prevention of statelessness, non-arbitrariness with regard to justifications and judicial remedies, or non-discrimination between different categories of citizens. This report considers instead from a political theory perspective how deprivation policies reflect specific conceptions of political community. We distinguish four normative conceptions of the grounds of membership in a political community that apply to decisions on acquisition and loss of citizenship status: i) a 'State discretion' view, according to which governments should be as free as possible in pursuing State interests when determining citizenship status; ii) an 'individual choice' view, according to which individuals should be as free as possible in choosing their citizenship status; iii) an 'ascriptive community' view, according to which both State and individual choices should be minimised through automatic determination of membership based on objective criteria such as the circumstances of birth; and iv) a 'genuine link' view, according to which the ties of individuals to particular States determine their claims to inclusion and against deprivation while providing at the same time objections against including individuals without genuine links. We argue that most citizenship laws combine these four normative views in different ways, but that from a democratic perspective the 'genuine link' view is normatively preferable to the others. The report subsequently examines five general grounds for citizenship withdrawal – threats to public security, non-compliance with citizenship duties, flawed acquisition, derivative loss and loss of genuine links – and considers how the four normative views apply to withdrawal provision motivated by these concerns. The final section of the report examines whether EU citizenship provides additional reasons for protection against Member States' powers of citizenship deprivation. We suggest that, in addition to fundamental rights protection through EU law and protection of free movement rights, three further arguments could be invoked: toleration of dual citizenship in a political union, prevention of unequal conditions for loss among EU citizens, and the salience of genuine links to the EU itself rather than merely to one of its Member States.