Search results

Citizenship can be represented as both a status and a practice, reflecting the liberal/social rights and civic republican traditions but also moving beyond them in a critical synthesis. A key challenge for contemporary feminist and radical citizenship theory is how to move beyond the bogus universalism that underpinned both of these traditions, as well as that implied by the category `woman', so as to accommodate citizenship's universalist promise to the demands of diversity and difference. The article suggests how citizenship as both a status and a practice can be rethought so as to respond to this challenge. Drawing on a range of social and political theorists, it offers the concept of a `differentiated universalism' as a means of encapsulating the creative tension between the universal and the particular that lies at the heart of this approach to citizenship.

This article probes the promises and anomalies of a new universalism proposed by Dipesh Chakrabarty as an apparent retort to the challenge of the Anthropocene. Revising established understandings of temporality and human agency imagined within modernity, the new universalism depicts a radically different horizon shaped by interconnections produced by the subsumption of human history into natural history. A key element of Chakrabarty's new universalism is his dramatic repudiation of the reputed postcolonial claim of difference which hurriedly dissolves the afterlife and persistence of coloniality on a global scale in favour of a yet-to-be-forged planetary consciousness. Chakrabarty's new universalism raises profound questions for rethinking International Relations (IR). However, without due cognisance of sedimented difference, Chakrabarty ends up reciting the secular-liberal story of one-world universalism. It is argued here that a differentiated universalism organised around the notion of human finitude can simultaneously attend to postcolonial concerns and the challenge of the Anthropocene.

A review essay on books by (1) Tony Evans (Ed), Human Rights Fifty Years On: A Reappraisal (Manchester: Manchester U Press, 1998); (2) Robin Holt, Wittgenstein, Politics and Human Rights (London: LSE/Routledge, 1997); & (3) Peter Van Ness (Ed), Debating Human Rights: Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London: Routledge, 1999) explores the questions produced regarding the linkage or lack thereof between theory & practice in international relations, especially in the case of studies of universal human rights in world politics, by presenting an alternative interpretation of universalism as (im)possible. How these questions & their supposed solutions are all predicated upon & caused by accepting a strict separation of theory & practice is shown. Further, reading universality as a (im)possible dynamic offers a framework within which the understanding of universalism as differentiated can be refined. Therefore, this will allow the distinction between philosophical universalism & global universalism. In addition, it is argued that the separation of theory & practice cannot be sustained, & the human price of excluding the political from universal human rights leaves us with an impoverished notion of humanity. 10 References. E. Sanchez

La visión predominante de la ciudadanía en la tradición liberal, en la que se han enfatizado los derechos universales y el igual trato ante la ley, si bien valorada, resulta altamente cuestionable. En la teoría política feminista, más allá de la heterogeneidad existente entre las distintas posturas, es posible identificar algunos aspectos compartidos que permiten articular una crítica a la concepción liberal de la ciudadanía. A partir de un análisis crítico normativo de dicho concepto, el artículo argumenta a favor de la reivindicación de un universalismo diferenciado, como lo ha formulado Ruth Lister, y la necesidad de una rearticulación entre la esfera privada y la esfera pública; finalmente, se pone de relieve la importancia del universalismo diferenciado para avanzar, entre otros objetivos, hacia una más equitativa distribución de las responsabilidades al interior de la familia, de lo contrario la igualdad de la ciudadanía, en su dimensión política, continuará siendo algo meramente formal para las mujeres, cuestión que no ha sido lo suficientemente enfatizada en los debates actuales. ; The prevailing vision of citizenship in the liberal tradition, with its emphasis on universal rights and equal treatment under the law, is, while valued, also highly questionable from a feminist perspective. In the feminist political theory, beyond the existing heterogeneity among different positions, it is possible to identify some common aspects that provide a basis for the critique of the liberal conception of citizenship. Based on a normative critical analysis of this concept, the article argues for the vindication of a differentiated universalism, as defended by Ruth Lister, and the need for a new linkage between the public sphere and the private sphere. Finally, the article highlights the importance of a differentiated universalism in order to progress towards, among other objectives, a more equitable distribution of responsibilities within the family, since, otherwise, equality of citizenship in its political dimension will remain something merely formal for women, an issue that has not been sufficiently emphasized in current debates.

The protection of the global environment has become one of the central objectives of the international community in recent decades. Issues such as climate change, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the loss of the biological diversity has resulted in a growing international awareness of the problems facing the planet. Moreover, there is also recognition that States will need to act more collaboratively at the international level if effective solutions are to be found to these problems. However, concurrently there is also recognition that many States have pressing socio-economic concerns of their own, and that they have neither the resources nor the capabilities with which to devote to such global issues—so called "developing" States. This article examines the response of international environmental law to these two, potentially opposing, trends, viz., the need for universalism, on the one hand, and sensitivity to the needs of developing States, on the other. In particular, the article will examine the emerging legal principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", as well as discussing the various means of operationalising it. Nevertheless, as will be discussed below, there is still much debate as to the conceptual basis of this principle—leading one to question its real aim. Is it to contribute to a fairer world system in which developed States recognise their historical responsibility for past environmental damage, or is it simply an expedient means of ensuring the participation of developing States in what are primarily Northern concerns?

A synthesis of rights and participatory approaches to citizenship, linked through the notion of human agency, is proposed as the basis for a feminist theory of citizenship. Such a theory has to address citizenship's exclusionary power in relation to both nation-state 'outsiders' and 'insiders'. With regard to the former, the article argues that a feminist theory and politics of citizenship must embrace an internationalist agenda. With regard to the latter, it offers the concept of a 'differentiated universalism' as an attempt to reconcile the universalism which lies at the heart of citizenship with the demands of a politics of difference. Embracing also the reconstruction of the public-private dichotomy, citizenship, reconceptualized in this way, can, it is argued, provide us with an important theoretical and political tool.

The figure of the citizen as it emerged with modernity also produced the 'constitutive outsider' denoting differential or layered inclusions. The legal-constitutional language of citizenship in India and the manner in which it has unfolded in practice shows that citizenship oscillates ambivalently between encompassment and closure, creating a differential layering of citizenship. While encompassment unfolds as a potential moment of liberatory change, closure, as a simultaneous differential experience of citizenship, creates a breach in the differentiated-universalism envisaged by the logic of encompassment. It is this oscillation and ambivalence which creates the 'disturbed zones of citizenship' that propel the category of the citizen out of a legal trapping into a concept whose realisation has its own logic and momentum. In order to demonstrate this, this article maps the amendments that have taken place in citizenship laws in India, sieving out in particular the category of the 'migrant', to identify moments of encompassment and closure. It shows how the migrant has been integral to the amendments, and traces its different figurations within them, to demonstrate shifts in the ideological basis and institutional practices of citizenship in India.

En la teoría etnológica y política contemporánea, la conceptualización de las acciones de adscriptos étnicos en términos de acciones orientadas por intereses constituye el núcleo conceptual de la definición de lo político. Comunalizaciones, movimientos culturales, democracia plural radical, reivindicaciones de derechos colectivos diferenciados, son todas ellas nociones que refieren a acciones colectivas y a la producción de identidades sobre la base de orientaciones culturales o ethos comunes en el ámbito de la esfera pública. La interpretación de tales expresiones como formas institucionalizadas y públicas de acción colectiva se funda en un concepto de vida política como ?vida común?, como ?acción colectiva pública?, La siguiente presentación se propone interrogar los márgenes categoriales sobre los que se construye y fundamenta la teoría etnopolítica contemporánea, analizando las nociones de ?común? que ponen en circulación como así también la tensión entre universalismo y particularismo que hacen emerger. ; In the contemporary political and ethnological theory, the conceptualization of the ethnic ascribed people actions in terms of "interest actions" is the conceptual core of the definition of politics. Communalizations, cultural movements, radical pluralist democracy, differentiated collective rights claims, are all notions that refer to collective action and the production of identities based on cultural orientations or common ethos in the field of public sphere. The interpretation of such expressions, as institutionalized and public forms of collective action, is based on a concept of political life as "common life", as "public collective action". The following article proposes to inquire the categorical margins on which the contemporary ethno-political theory is built and founded, analyzing not only the notions of "common" put into circulation but also the tension between universalism and particularism that do emerge themselves. ; Fil: Katzer Molina, Maria Leticia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza; Argentina

Following several political‐psychological approaches, the present research analyzed whether orientations toward human rights are a function of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), basic human values in the sense of Schwartz (1992), and political ideology. Three dimensions of human rights attitudes (endorsement, restriction, and enforcement) were differentiated from human rights knowledge and behavior. In a time‐lagged Internet survey (N = 479), using structural equation modeling, RWA, universalism and power values, and political ideology (measured at Time 1) differentially predicted dimensions of human rights attitudes (measured at Time 2 five months later). RWA and universalism values also predicted self‐reported human rights behavior, with the effects mediated through human rights endorsement. Human rights knowledge also predicted behavior. The psychological roots of positive and negative orientations toward human rights, consequences for human rights education, and the particular role of military enforcement of human rights are discussed.

Addresses the interaction between the concepts of ethnicity & nation, on one hand, & citizenship & cultural difference, on the other. Focus is on tension in multicultural citizenship debates regarding commitments to universalism & inclusivity, while considering the potential in a differentiated citizenship model. Whether the concept of citizenship can respond to the challenge of pluralism in the demand for ethnic difference recognition is explored, situating the issue in the context of debates between liberal & republican & territorial & cosmopolitan citizenships. It is asserted that various kinds of "politics of recognition" provide for specific forms of resolution to this conflict. Critical examination of Will Kymlicka's (1995), Charles Taylor's (1994), Iris Young's (1990), & Chantal Mouffe's (1992) theoretical perspectives reveals the disparate means by which ethnic identities might possibly be accommodated in static political & institutional frameworks connected to territorial boundaries. Further evidenced is the central position of cultural identity in such debate. It is concluded that successful negotiation of the attendant dilemmas requires the reconceptualization of citizenship universalism as inclusivity rather than generality & that the character & site of political structures be acknowledged as more plural than the territorial notion of the nation-state conception of citizenship allows. 36 References. J. Zendejas

Addresses the interaction between the concepts of ethnicity & nation, on one hand, & citizenship & cultural difference, on the other. Focus is on tension in multicultural citizenship debates regarding commitments to universalism & inclusivity, while considering the potential in a differentiated citizenship model. Whether the concept of citizenship can respond to the challenge of pluralism in the demand for ethnic difference recognition is explored, situating the issue in the context of debates between liberal & republican & territorial & cosmopolitan citizenships. It is asserted that various kinds of "politics of recognition" provide for specific forms of resolution to this conflict. Critical examination of Will Kymlicka's (1995), Charles Taylor's (1994), Iris Young's (1990), & Chantal Mouffe's (1992) theoretical perspectives reveals the disparate means by which ethnic identities might possibly be accommodated in static political & institutional frameworks connected to territorial boundaries. Further evidenced is the central position of cultural identity in such debate. It is concluded that successful negotiation of the attendant dilemmas requires the reconceptualization of citizenship universalism as inclusivity rather than generality & that the character & site of political structures be acknowledged as more plural than the territorial notion of the nation-state conception of citizenship allows. 36 References. J. Zendejas