Citizenship and identity in diverse societies

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between the legal status of citizenship and psychological research about blended identity in diverse societies such as Australia. A blended identity could include Australian national identity as well as other identities relevant to a person’s selfdefinition. Analysing the link between citizenship law and the psychological enjoyment of blended identity is important after the reforms to Australian citizenship law in 2007. 1 As discussed below, the former Liberal-National Government introduced a new citizenship knowledge test for citizenship-by-conferral applicants. In doing so, that government expressed strong beliefs about the power of a shared, unitary, national identity. It also supported calls for citizenship applicants to sign a statement of Australian values (different to the citizenship pledge) and to complete an English language test. In light of the reforms and political debate, we attack the suggestion that blended identification (for example, as a Greek Australian) is somehow inconsistent with true Australian national identification and citizenship, and moreover we argue that a single national identification sits uneasily with the legal acceptance of dual or multiple citizenship in current Australian legislation. We first discuss the concept of blended identity from a social-psychological perspective. Then we examine the details of the 2007 Australian citizenship law reforms, bearing in mind that the Rudd Labor Government recently released the report of the independent committee reviewing the Australian Citizenship Test and the government response to the report. 2 Legal notions of citizenship and the psychological experience of blended identities can often be in tension. This is understandable since legal and psychological concepts of national identity are but two ways of conceptualising relevant selfdefinitions shaping social existence and belonging in diverse societies. We do not believe that the legal identity or citizenship always completely defines the self in practice. However, we argue, as do other researchers,3 that citizenship law and psychological identity are in a relationship of mutual influence creating expectations about and reactions to legal treatment. Notions of citizenship and associated assumptions about psychological identification that are legally endorsed in diverse societies have the power to legitimise as well as de-legitimise the desired enjoyment of self. Indeed, salient identities shape the perspective from which many people will either support or challenge citizenship law and decision-making processes. The extent to which the 2007 Australian reforms may have (de-)legitimised desired self-defini-