Environmental Citizenship as Reasonable Citizenship
In: Environmental politics, Band 14, Heft 2, S. 195-210
ISSN: 1743-8934
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: 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: 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.
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
In: Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Band 60, Heft 4
SSRN
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of representative politics, Band 55, Heft 3, S. 488-504
ISSN: 0031-2290
In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law (2017)
SSRN
Working paper
In: The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution, C. Saunders, A. Stone, eds, Oxford University Press, UK, 2018, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: Public money & management: integrating theory and practice in public management, Band 14, S. 9-28
ISSN: 0954-0962
In: Environmental politics, Band 14, Heft 2, S. 195-210
ISSN: 0964-4016
In: Local government studies, Band 29, Heft 1, S. 131-132
ISSN: 0300-3930
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of representative politics, Band 55, Heft 3, S. 488-504
ISSN: 0031-2290
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of comparative politics, Band 55, Heft 3, S. 488-504
ISSN: 1460-2482
In: THE INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ETHICS, pp. 764-773, H. LaFollette, ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 2013
SSRN