Migration & citizenship: newsletter of the American Political Science Association's Organized Section on Migration and Citizenship
ISSN: 2578-2207
ISSN: 2578-2207
Although the concept of citizenship is a widely used theoretical framework within political philosophy, its use in the field of mental health remains underexplored. Within this context, citizenship emphasises the social inclusion and participation of people who are marginalized and offers a more social and relational view of services and support for people with mental health problems than has been common in mental health systems of care. At the same time, however, the citizenship approach has operated in the context of systems of care in the United States that favour highly individualized conceptions of, and approaches to, care, and these systems of care operate in the social and political context of highly individualized concepts of the citizen. In this article building on the work of other citizenship scholars, we argue that a collective form of citizenship, grounded in the 5Rs framework, holds the individual and collective in creative tension. Furthermore, the paper applies this model to the domain of mental health, where people are treated in individualistic ways and experience marginalisation, making the collective dimension imperative and promoting participation, empowerment and the contribution for social change to people with mental health problems. Our theoretical framework of collective citizenship, while geared toward the needs of persons with mental health problems, also contributes to recent citizenship theory on the inclusion of marginalized, stigmatised, and excluded groups. We illustrate the application of this approach through an ethnographic participant observation case study of a collective citizenship group with which we are associated.
BASE
In: Environmental politics, Band 14, Heft 2, S. 195-210
ISSN: 1743-8934
In: Citizenship studies, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 5-17
ISSN: 1469-3593
In: Stateless Citizenship, S. 147-181
In: The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, S. 323-332
In: Social policy and administration, Band 54, Heft 3, S. 361-374
ISSN: 1467-9515
AbstractAlthough the concept of citizenship is a widely used theoretical framework within political philosophy, its use in the field of mental health remains underexplored. Within this context, citizenship emphasises the social inclusion and participation of people who are marginalized and offers a more social and relational view of services and support for people with mental health problems than has been common in mental health systems of care. At the same time, however, the citizenship approach has operated in the context of systems of care in the United States that favour highly individualized conceptions of, and approaches to, care, and these systems of care operate in the social and political context of highly individualized concepts of the citizen. In this article building on the work of other citizenship scholars, we argue that a collective form of citizenship, grounded in the 5Rs framework, holds the individual and collective in creative tension. Furthermore, the paper applies this model to the domain of mental health, where people are treated in individualistic ways and experience marginalisation, making the collective dimension imperative and promoting participation, empowerment and the contribution for social change to people with mental health problems. Our theoretical framework of collective citizenship, while geared toward the needs of persons with mental health problems, also contributes to recent citizenship theory on the inclusion of marginalized, stigmatised, and excluded groups. We illustrate the application of this approach through an ethnographic‐participant observation case study of a collective citizenship group with which we are associated.
In: Civics for the Real World Ser
In: Library of contemporary essays in political theory and public policy
pt. I. The history and theories of citizenship : what is citizenship? -- pt. II. Rights : which rights? -- pt. III. Membership : who belongs? -- pt. IV. Political participation : what duties? -- pt. V. Beyond national citizenship : where are we citizens?
In: Civics Q&a Ser
Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- What Is Citizenship? -- A Nation of Immigrants -- What Is an Alien? -- What Is a Natural-Born Citizen? -- What Is Naturalized Citizenship? -- New Citizens -- What Are Citizens' Rights? -- What Are Citizens' Responsibilities? -- A Melting Pot -- Citizenship Q&A -- Glossary -- Index -- Websites -- Back Cover
In: Let's Find Out! Government
In: Let's Find Out! Government Ser.
Many people don't spend much time pondering the concept of citizenship. This informative title explores the basic concepts of citizenship and explains to readers why it's such an important facet of the government. The resource explains what defines citizenship, including one's rights and responsibilities. Readers learn about the many ways people become citizens as well as the process of naturalization. It goes on to describe the ways in which one can endeavor to be a responsible citizen through actions such as voting and serving on a jury
In: Citizenship studies, Band 1, Heft 3, S. 285-303
ISSN: 1362-1025
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.
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.
BASE
In: Key Ideas in Geography
The idea of citizenship is widely used in daily life. 'Citizenship tests' are used to determine who can inhabit a country; 'citizen charters' have been used to prescribe levels of service provision; 'citizens' juries' are used in planning or policy enquiries; 'citizenship' lessons are taught in schools; youth organisations attempt often aim to instil 'good' citizenship; 'active citizens' are encouraged to contribute voluntary effort to their local communities and campaigners may use 'citizens' rights' to achieve their goals. What is meant by citizenship is never static and the subject of de.
In: Citizenship studies, Band 2, Heft 2, S. 353-358
ISSN: 1362-1025
A review essay on books by (1) David Cescarani & Mary Fulbrook (Eds), Citizenship, Nationality and Migration in Europe (London: Routledge, 1996); (2) Paul Close, Citizenship, Europe and Change (London: Macmillan, 1995); (3) Barbara Einhorn, Mary Kaldor, & Zenek Kavan (Eds), Citizenship and Democratic Control in Contemporary Europe (Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, 1997); & (4) Percy Lehning & Albert Weale (Eds), Citizenship, Democracy and Justice in the New Europe (London: Routledge, 1997). These books address the issue of European citizenship, which derives its legitimacy from the functioning of a regulatory body, rather than from either participation or the rights & duties of individuals & the state. The authors emphasize that European integration is not legitimated by a citizenship of its own making; however, they fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of the problem. Although rights & participation are central to most of the arguments, especially in regard to immigrant rights & the enhancement of participation, they ignore the contradiction that increasing rights may not extend participation, & placing the concept of participation in a political framework makes participation structurally impossible. However, there is consensus that citizenship is in crisis due to the noncoherence of political & cultural communities in the form of national societies. While these books contribute to the debate about European integration, they avoid the disconnection between transnational citizenship & citizen participation. It is contended that European integration will have to create new structures to allow for some participation or remain simply an expression of certain formalistic rights. J. Lindroth