Citizenship Notes

Reading list includes:
- Walby, Sylvia. 1994. “Is Citizenship Gendered?”. Sociology, May 1994, Vol. 28, No. 2 (May 1994), pp. 379-395.
- Franzway, Suzanne. 2016. “The sexual politics of citizenship and violence”. Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 58, September–October 2016, Pages 18- 24.

Citizenship is an ongoing political, social, and cultural construction.
It can be redefined and renegotiated in different contexts.
It responds to changes in societies, norms, rights, and practices.
Gendered and digital citizenship demonstrate that citizenship is socially constructed.
Citizenship is a complex, evolving project that intersects with gender and social norms.

Citizenship is often assumed to be universal, transcending particularity and difference (Young, 1989).
Yuval-Davis and Werbner describe citizenship as inflected by identity, social positioning, cultural assumptions, institutional practices, and a sense of belonging.
Gender, race, and ethnicity each require specific historical and epistemological arguments to untangle the intersectionality of their constructs and effects, making citizenship a fluid concept.

Citizenship cannot be understood without a dynamic theory of gender relations.
Citizenship is about the transition from private to public patriarchy, from family to politics.
Women have a different relationship to citizenship.
The achievement of citizenship by women has a significant impact on the form and degree of gender inequality.

Marshall identifies three dimensions of citizenship: civil, political, and social.
These dimensions expanded progressively over time, culminating in the 20th century.
Different social groups obtained degrees of citizenship at different times.
Marshall's model reinforces the public/private split.
The private sphere is considered outside of citizenship rights, sustaining the marginalization of women.

Citizenship incorporates gender as a structural force.
Citizenship is shaped by formal inequalities (legal rights and access) and substantive inequalities (economic and social access).
Public – private divide: the recognition of women's contributions to society and citizenship.

Continued struggle over an accommodating concept of citizenship opens new horizons of intersectional, multilayered citizenship.
Reality: still hard to reconcile with existing notions of (bounded) citizenship

ORGAD, LIAV, AND RAINER BAUBÖCK, EDS. CLOUD COMMUNITIES: THE DAWN OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP. WORKING PAPER, EUI RSCAS, NO. 2018/28

Technological advancements make it possible for everybody to create and maintain a globally recognised digital identity, altering the experience and meaning of citizenship.

Deterritorialised social networks appeared (2018).
Blockchain technology presents a transformative opportunity for establishing digital identities and legal personas independent of state control.
This technology can facilitate the creation of self-sovereign identities, allowing individuals to manage their personal data.
Individuals can create and control their identities without reliance on central authorities.

Will cloud communities also create new opportunities for global citizenship and alternatives to state-based political communities?
Will they create a universal notion of citizenship?
Can universal, cosmopolitan views be realized?

Global interconnectedness: the internet changed the public space (public vs private divide).
Global identity complements the national identity.
Global responsibility.
International legal status does not accommodate global citizenship since it is dependent on states - bounded.

Will enhance global social inequalities through excluding from access those who are already worse off in the birthright lottery of territorial citizenship.
Optimists see instead the great potential of blockchain technology to overcome exclusion and marginalisation based on statelessness or sheer lack of civil registries.
They regard it as a tool for enhancing individual freedom, since people are self- sovereign in controlling their personal data.
They emphasise the possibilities for emancipatory movements to mobilise for global justice across territorial borders or to create their own internally democratic political utopias.

Multilayered: National, supranational and digital identities.
No physical residency - no state.
The future may see a realization of global citizenship without a centralized world state, as envisioned by Immanuel Kant.

The first question was empirical: what is cybernetic citizenship — its characteristics, functions, and consequences?
What are the transformations brought about by cybernetic citizenship to existing citizenship frameworks (liberal, communitarian, and republican) and dimensions (status, rights, identity, and participation), as well as to the current understanding of “sovereignty,” “governance,” and “state”?
The second question was normative: is cybernetic citizenship morally justified?
A focus is given to moral excellence, autonomous choice, democratic participation, and conformity.

Discuss how gender theory can complement and expand our understanding of citizenship.
Discuss how digitalization could impact the future of citizenship!

Self-Determination and Minorities: Kymlicka (2008), Mazower (1997), Horowitz (2003), Wilde (2011), Hannum (2011)
Theories of Nationalism: Spencer & Wollman (2002), Calhoun (1993), Brubaker (1998)
Nationalism, Liberalism, Multiculturalism: Song (2017), Kymlicka (2010)
Boundaries and Political Membership: Bauböck (2017), Chernilo (2011)
Gender and Nationalism: Yuval -Davis (2003), Nagel (1998), Thomson (2019)
Origins of Citizenship: Walzer (2014), Shaw (2019)
Concepts of Citizenship: Csergo & Goldgeier (2004), Sassen (2002)
Political Community: Bauböck (2007)
Migration, Mobility, and Noncitizenship: Shachar (2022), Bauböck (2011), Tonkiss & Bloom (2015)
Gendered Citizenship and Digital Citizenship: Walby (1994), Franzway (2016), Orgad & Bauböck (2018)