Lecture Revision Questions (Citizenship)

A collection of revision questions formulated after lectures!

How do ancient Greek and Roman models of how the state creates citizens differ from one another? How do current Western societies develop from these roots? (1)

The Greek model focuses on education and providing a moral framework to nurture citizens, by contrast the Roman model prioritises a legal framework to protect and provide boundaries to citizens. Western societies bridge these two models.

How do views of Tocqueville and Gramsci on civil society differ from those of Marx and Hegel? (1)

Tocqueville and Gramsci take a positive view of civil society as a mediator between the state and individual allowing citizens to be further educated and take on responsibilities within their society, by contrast Marx and Hegel take a negative view that civil society enforces class inequalities and caters to elites.

According to Thomas Marshall, what three components make up citizenship? How do these come to be? (1)

Civil rights, political rights and social rights that come to be in a progression over time from the 18th to 20th century; these align with capitalist needs and developments.

How does neoliberalism change the relationship between the state and individuals as well as the understanding of civil society? (2)

Neoliberalism prioritises individual self-reliance over state provisioning, through practices of privatisation and welfare cutbacks citizenship is reimagined as individuals are expected to fulfil their own needs. The state moves from being a protector to a facilitator, taking over the role of civil society; therefore, civil society is redefined as the way that society functions outside the realms of the state, market and household.

How does an interactive model of citizenship work, what are the consequences of this for people with different skills and the relationship between the state and individuals? (2)

An interactive model of citizenship distributes rights and benefits based on marketable skills seeing knowledge, skills and contributions assigned a value. However, this means that certain groups are excluded due to lacking valued skills. This also disrupts the vertical relationship between the state and the individual to form a new horizontal relationship.

How do Isin and Neilson’s views of acts of citizenship differ from Staheli et al’s concept of ordinary citizenship? (2)

The acts of citizenship theory argues for a complete shift away from state rules to focus on citizens actions where what we do in society is of the greatest importance. The ordinary citizenship theory differs from this in that it sees citizenship as a combination of acts and legal citizenship, the legal is still important and incorporated in this model

What is the theory of disjunctive citizenship? (2)

The notion that citizenship is unevenly accessible to different groups, genders, races and classes; therefore, the interplay between the legal and acts plays out in different ways in different environments.

Why is urban space so important to defining citizenship and what kinds of questions does this raise? (2)

Historically the urban environment was viewed as the origin for citizenship and now it is still very important due to the diversity and density of everyday urban life. It is a catalyst for change and interactions as well as providing physical spaces for citizenship to be enacted. This raises questions over who can use public spaces and what acts are deemed legitimate, this interacts with ideas of the state disrupting the right to the city.

How is the imperial legacy of the British Empire key to the evolution of citizenship? (3)

The British Empire encompassed all imperial countries and the Anglo-sphere of influence including English speaking countries with a legacy of whiteness. It is this Empire that defined citizenship, not the views of liberal citizenship as defined by scholars such as Marshall.

How did imperial citizenship function? (3)

Imperial citizenship connected people in British colonies based on a basic loyalty to the crown. Geographic education was key to instilling the importance and diversity of the Empire in Britain.

How was British subjecthood formally inclusive, but in practice this was not achieved? (3)

British subjecthood was formally inclusive as imperial citizenship was given to all subjects of an imperial government allowing them freedom to live, work and move anywhere in the British Empire. Theoretically this was colour blind, but in practice it involved white supremacy as white citizens were encouraged to travel more and older settler colonies were seen as different to the more recently joined, non-white populated colonies.

Where did challenges to the ‘common code’ arise, what was the result of this? (3)

Challenges to the common code arose in countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia asking for the ability to control immigration to their countries in order to keep out non-white immigration and protect their histories and legacies. This led to the rise of local citizenship allowing some countries to practice this as seen in the arrival of the Komagata Maru in Vancouver in 1914.

Why is the challenge to the ‘common code’ important to Britain? (3)

This is important as it forces Britain to be more explicit about who was part of Britain and who was not. Local citizenship was not implemented in Britain as the Empire was seen as more important that controlling immigration.