Blog post by Dr Nora Siklodi, Lecturer in Politics, University of Portsmouth
This entry provides a short overview of the key ideas presented at a recent workshop organised by the Citizenship, Race and Belonging (CRaB) research group in collaboration with the European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on Citizenship at the University of Portsmouth.[1] The objective of the workshop, entitled ‘Citizenship and Identity’, was to bring together papers addressing the intersection between these two issues. Citizenship was defined along traditional lines, as the dynamic bond between a sovereign political community and the individual, which is then anticipated to shape community-building processes (Isin and Turner, 2002). By comparison, identity was seen as a key element of citizenship, determining senses of belonging to an otherwise ‘imagined community’ (Anderson, 1983) and its accompanying history, culture, symbols and territory; and determining categorisations of the “other” that is not part of the community (Castano et al., 2002). While the workshop was successful in attracting relevant papers (discussed below), the conclusions we drew tackled another aspect of the intersection between citizenship and identity – one that materialises within academic circles.
Trond Solhaug, Niels Nørgaard and Nora Siklodi were interested in the general role the intersection between citizenship and identity has in contemporary societies more broadly. Others studied more specific attempts at setting up novel or maintaining existing citizenship models. Perhaps the most notable example of a new model can be found in the European Union (EU) and so different aspects of the ‘budding’ European citizenship were inspected by Sybille Luhmann, Aleksandra Sojka and Behnam Balalimood. Focusing on more established models, the remaining papers cited a wider range of examples from Canada to Taiwan. Bernard Fournier and Francesca Raimondo deliberated on how distinctions are made between citizens who come from different socio-economic and religious backgrounds, while Karolina Czerska-Shaw focussed on the in/formal processes, which may assist/hinder the attempts of migrants/residents to secure citizenship. Simon Thompson then explored the inter-societal differentiation processes, which affect the ability of (new) citizens to realise their citizenship. As the workshop progressed, a recurring theme materialised. Emphasis was placed on instances where the intersection between citizenship and identity has had behavioural (e.g. it affected dispositions to vote for certain politicians or parties) and emotional (e.g. resurgence of nationalism) implications.
Ágnes Vass examined how the Hungarian diaspora in Canada comes together and cherishes its Magyar roots. In so doing, she argued, a form of extraterritorial Hungarian citizenship develops: one that lacks a legal status or political recognition comparable to the more formal Hungarian/ Canadian citizenships. Nonetheless, this group exhibits more profound senses of belonging to Hungary – which some had never even visited – than to Canada. It is then fascinating to learn more about the Hungarian government’s strategy to establish semi-formal support systems, which deal with Hungarian minorities who reside outside Hungary and so, perhaps deliberately, defies traditional understanding of what citizenship is meant to signify. The dominant public, elite and media discourses, which define contemporary Hungarian citizenship were then sketched by Robert Sata.
It is important to note however that we do not have to search for small expat groups or increasingly nationalistic/populist-type governments to find that traditional approaches to citizenship and identity – our starting point for this workshop as outlined above – has its own limitations. Indeed, as soon as we move away from the usual ‘Western’ sphere, citizenship appears to have a considerably different meaning and purpose. Chin Tseng drew our attention to how different classes of citizens, based on gender, relationship and migration status, religion and ethnicity are categorised by Taiwanese law, and are then accepted as the norm by members of the Taiwanese society. While similar categories may also be used in Western models, what is really different in the Taiwanese case is how such categories are legally embedded and determine what a ‘good citizen’ looks like – following openly gendered and elite-led policy lines. This case does not only highlight an official and unambiguous form of categorisation of the public on the whole, but also the struggle new citizens and their family members must face if wishing to participate in a given society. Most importantly, this type of categorisation means that new citizens can never fully integrating into their host society. While the Taiwanese example may at first appear removed from Western laws and norms, similar instances affecting the arrivals of migrants occur in the West too. Actually, the refugee crisis has paved the way for similar practices to be applied more extensively than it has been (perhaps) done so hitherto, and with considerable public support.
Therefore, the proceedings in this workshop clearly challenged the possibility that the intersection between citizenship and identity is or has ever been static. Instead, what we observed was the continuing prevalence of exclusionary, ethnic and culturist norms, which frustrate and nourish individual and group struggles for recognition across the globe (Kymlicka, 2011). The keynote presentation by Olivia Rutazibwa portrayed this issue expertly, using personal anecdotes and the brown female body to illustrate how intersectional differences have been present in Western models of citizenship long before the refugee crisis. Olivia challenged traditional, mainstream citizenship models and their accompanying (often nationalistic) identity politics. Taking the discussion well beyond the original purpose of the workshop, she interrogated attendees’ own role and experiences – and whether their personal and professional experiences really differed from the practices they researched and were, presumably, removed from.
The ensuing reflection underlined that, while most distinctions between our papers were along disciplinary (political science, international relations, anatomy, sociology, history, legal and development studies and so on) and scholarly dispositions (socio-economic background, country of origin, country of work, and so on), our common obsessions to seek impartiality – a supposed attribute of good (read ‘scientific’) scholarship – may have barred us from following the recommendations we reached in our research. Olivia’s use of brown female bodies as an emblem of the deep-rooted segregation incorporated into each and every one of our societies via institutionalised dis/information, and as forming an essential part of our often fragile sense of solidarity, served as an important wake up call. Her memo – “there is a role for us all in the intersectional struggle for justice” – was a formidable proposition to a group of international researchers who came together in Portsmouth at the very moment that members of the British public were deciding what their country stands for (via the 2017 UK General Election which took place during the conference itself) and, especially, whether or not it should further (?) sever its ties with EUrope The potential implications of the outcome of the election for workshop participants were huge both professionally as (not wanted) experts and personally as citizens, migrants and EU residents. Yet we all decided to attend an(other) academic “business as usual” looking event. This event ended up turning the spotlight on us, questioning precisely what were we doing (here).
In short, there is clearly a requirement to acknowledge and to respect the ways our personal and professional dispositions affect our academic work, and to provide frank and open collaborative spaces within which we can learn more about how these issues affect us. This is, after all, the very objective our research and papers adhered to in their consideration of the intersection between citizenship and identity.
With its objective to further research and public networks, and to promote social justice and investigate structural inequalities, CRaB seems ideally placed to carry this work forward.
References
Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso Books.
Castano, E., Paladino, M.P., Coull, A. and Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2002) ‘Protecting the ingroup stereotype: Ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3): 365 – 85.
Isin, E. F., & Turner, B. S. (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of Citizenship Studies, London: Sage.
Kymlicka, W. (2011) ‘Invited symposium: New directions and issues for the study of ethnicity, nationalism and multiculturalism’, Ethnicities, 11(1), 5 – 11.
[1] Special thanks are also due to the Norwegian University of Science and Technology for their financial support.