Liberal Democratic Citizenship Research Articles

Do immigrants at bay keep the xenophobes away? Post-entry rights and public opposition to immigrant admission

Abstract Many citizens in liberal democracies are concerned about immigration and its impact on their countries. Governments often seek to address these concerns by restricting the post-entry rights of immigrants such as the right to permanent settlement or access to welfare benefits. Thereby, it is expected that immigrants with an inferior legal status are (perceived as) less threatening to natives and, as a result, make the latter more willing to accept new immigrants. Does this policy rationale indeed attenuate public opposition to immigrant admission and thus allow for the reconciliation of the economic need for immigrants with the political concerns of domestic constituents? This study advances the theoretical argument of a rights-conditionality in citizens’ immigration preferences and provides empirical evidence on the phenomenon. A factorial survey experiment among citizens in the United States and Switzerland tests the effect of residence and welfare rights on the public opposition to immigrant admission. The results show that restricting immigrants’ welfare rights does significantly decrease public opposition towards immigration across the two countries. In contrast, restricting immigrants’ residence rights does not, and in the context of Switzerland, even increases opposition to immigrant admission. Citizens critical of immigration are thus not per se more welcoming to immigrants if they receive an inferior legal status but seem to care about immigrants’ contributions and commitment to the receiving society. The findings highlight the importance of immigrants‘ post-entry rights in the view of citizens and show how the design of immigration policies may help to understand public immigration preferences.

Practicing urban citizenship: housing justice activism from Jakarta’s margins

Notwithstanding the claims to equality associated with (neo)liberal democratic citizenship, capitalist cities are characterized by stark inequalities in access to land and living space. In response, grassroots movements and marginalized residents are struggling for a more socially and ecologically just urbanism. We conceptualize these movements as democratizing cities by practicing urban citizenship, following the tradition of scholarship that loosens citizenship from its confines as a bundle of rights and responsibilities conferred by nation-states on individuals. Such practices seek to realize existing rights rarely extended to marginalized urban residents and advocate for novel rights, e.g. to shelter, place, the city, and a voice in governance decisions affecting residents’ lives. We analyze the strategies and tactics pursued by Jakarta’s housing justice movement from Indonesia's democratization (reformasi) in 1998 to the present, seeking to assert and expand urban citizenship rights. Creatively moving between existing invited political spaces of citizenship and newly invented spaces, depending on political opportunity structures, movement leadership styles and local circumstances, the movement has experimented with strategies and tactics ranging from confrontation to negotiation, signing political contracts with governors, to now seeking to participate in the formal political process. We critically reflect especially on using a political contract to facilitate rights to place and security of tenure in ‘illegal’ kampungs. We conclude by reflecting on the insights our case study brings to how urban poor social movements’ citizenship practices contribute to democratizing cities and advancing socio-spatial justice.

The silent majority: social and aural silence in the games of Chile Men’s national football team

ABSTRACT This article discusses the socio-aural dynamics surrounding the games of Chile Men's national team. I argue that these events echo and make audible larger forms of inequality and marginalization in Chilean society. These events have prioritized middle-class citizens who rarely attend football games. This has brought a mode of fandom that is characterized by silence and observation. Informed by practices of watching football on television and notions of liberal democratic citizenship, these fans attend the stadium to watch good, successful football in tranquillity while exhibiting tolerant, respectable behaviour. In silencing the stadium’s soundscape, however, these socio-sonic dynamics have also silenced the claims of working-class citizens to participate in the public life of the nation. The essay thus foregrounds the metaphorical and aural affordances of silence, relating them to social inequality and segregation.

Destiny and Desire

The prospect of radical human enhancement challenges us with how we can even think about the choice to enhance or not enhance. Whether as individuals or as citizens of liberal democracies, we already recognize the prospect of a future that is defined by technology, without being able to predict or imagine what it will be like or how we should try to influence it. We can also be sure that radical enhancement of ourselves as individuals, or of a large proportion of our fellow citizens, will alter the very standards and values by which we, as individuals or polities, later evaluate decisions to enhance – this is one version of the more general problem of transformative choice. In response to these challenges, it is plausible that we have no alternative to choosing and acting on our current desires and values (perhaps as “corrected” by rational reflection on what we more deeply care about), rather than our expected future values or some set of values that is objectively authoritative for us. On the other hand, our current value-outlooks include a degree of openness to our desires and values themselves changing, and for this reason we can often finesse the problem of transformative choice when it arises in everyday situations. On the gripping hand, this does not entirely solve the problem when it comes to something as dramatic and unprecedented as radical enhancement. There is some reason for an incremental, rather than apocalyptic, approach, even if we are sympathetic to a human future shaped by radical enhancement initiatives.

The Crowd in Flux: Atmosphere and the Governance of Public Affects at FC Union Berlin

Abstract Exploring the role of atmosphere in the context of soccer fandom, I examine hard-core fans called “ultras” at Football Club Union Berlin. In response to the ultras’ coordination of crowd performativity in the stadium, an assemblage of competing governing apparatuses has intervened with an interest in alleviating risk and potentially inflammatory dispositions of the fans. In contrast to the text-based rational-critical discourse idealized as characteristic of the public sphere (Warner 2002), I argue that atmosphere is an affective-discursive realm through which ultras negotiate subjectivity, which is perceived as deviant because it deconstructs individualism, interiority, and reason as assumed traits of liberal democratic citizenship.

Contesting Liberal Citizenship

Political and social research on populism has discussed its development in the framework of modern constitutional democracies. Populism thrives as ‘parasitic’ to those democracies by addressing their unfulfilled promises. Citizens’ loss of trust in the system opens the way for varied forms of ‘populist ruptures’, facilitating the construction of the category of ‘the people’, through which leaders and their followings claim to stand for all citizens and embody the common will. This article analyzes how, both discursively and performatively, populism addresses major parameters and antinomies of Liberal democratic citizenship, e.g., by recalibrating representation and mass participation. Analysis indicates that by impacting the contours of collective identity as much as citizen expectations, entitlements and commitments, populism challenges the Liberal conceptions of citizenship that uphold modern constitutional democracies.

Blurred Responsibilities of Disaster Governance: The American Red Cross in the US and Haiti

The influence of private actors, such as non-profit organizations (NPOs) and firms, has been increasing in disaster governance. Previous literature has interrogated the responsibilities of states towards citizens in disasters, but the roles of private actors have been insufficiently challenged. The article politicizes the entangled relations between NPOs, states, and disaster-affected people. It proposes the Rawlsian division of moral labor as a useful, normative framework for interrogating the justice of disaster governance arrangements in which ‘liberal’ states are involved. Liberal states have two types of responsibilities in disasters: humanitarian and political. The humanitarian responsibilities imply provision of basic resources needed for the capacity to make autonomous choices (domestically and abroad), while the political responsibilities imply provision of the institutions needed for the liberal democratic citizenship (domestically). Through this analytical lens and building on the wealth of existing scholarship, we illustrate the disaster governance role of the American Red Cross in the United States (a 2005 hurricane) and in Haiti (the 2010 earthquake). Where, in Rawlsian terms, United States is interpreted as a ‘liberal’ society, Haiti is framed as a ‘burdened’ society. The article proposes five points to consider in analyzing disaster governance arrangements under neoliberal regimes, structured around the division of humanitarian and political responsibilities. The article illustrates how NPOS are instrumental in blurring the boundaries between humanitarian and political responsibilities. This might result ultimately in actual vulnerabilities remaining unaddressed. While the Rawlsian approach challenges the privatization and lack of coordination in disaster governance, it is limited in analyzing the political construction of ‘burdened’ societies.

Three Reasons for Hospitality: Care for Others, Care for the World, and Care of the Self

We seek to answer a deceptively simple question: why do private citizens in liberal democracies offer hospitality to undocumented migrants? Through qualitative interviews with French citizens, we propose three reasons. The first is widely recognized in the scholarly literature: hospitality is offered out of a care and concern for vulnerable and precarious migrants. However, we uncover two additional reasons that are not acknowledged in studies on hospitality. One is the desire by citizens to uphold the basic principles and ideals of their own society (what we call “care for the world”). Another is the desire on the part of citizens themselves to become a different and better kind of person by practicing hospitality (what we call “care of the self”). We provide a multifaceted account of what motivates citizens to offer hospitality even in situations where it is outlawed by their own governments.

Democratic legitimacy, political speech and viewpoint neutrality

The purpose of this article is to consider the question of whether democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality with regard to political speech – including extremist political speech, such as hate speech. The starting point of my discussion is Jeremy Waldron’s negative answer to this question. He argues that it is permissible for liberal democracies to ban certain extremist viewpoints – such as vituperative hate speech – because such viewpoint-based restrictions protect the dignity of persons and a social and moral environment of mutual respect. According to Waldron, well-drafted narrow hate speech bans are not democratically illegitimate, and they do not undermine systemic democratic legitimacy – that is, the legitimacy of a democratic political system. In contrast to Waldron, I will argue that democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality to respect persons as thinking agents. I will defend a civil libertarian doctrine of viewpoint neutrality, and this doctrine requires that citizens in liberal democracies ought to have a legal free speech right to do moral wrong – that is, a legal right to express and defend any political viewpoint or idea, even if it is morally wrong to express, or expose others to, such views. It will be argued that any viewpoint-based restriction on public discourse (including narrow hate speech bans) is democratically illegitimate, and that such restrictions undermine systemic democratic legitimacy.

Export of Institutions and Problem of Secession

The transition of many states at the end of the twentieth century to democratic forms of government was called to increase the efficiency and transparency of the activities of representative bodies of power. Along with the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity in relation between Centre, regions and municipalities, this was to strengthen the state system. However, for many post-Soviet and developing countries, the import of Western democratic institutions was accompanied (and is accompanied) by the destruction of territorial integrity and the growth of corruption. This undermines the confidence of citizens in liberal democracy and causes nostalgia for a «strong hand». The work is devoted to the analysis of the problems associated with the export of democracy to the countries with middle and low income per capita. Economic theory due to the implicit assumption of homogeneity of the socio-economic space as usual. In connection this, the problem of secession is ignored, becomes relevant for the country-importer of Western democratic institutions. The export of institutions is an effective and rentable substitute for military-political operations for exporting countries. A paradoxical addition to these exports is the corruption of local elites, which contributes to allied relations with West or the transition of the political and economic establishment to the «external management» regime. An essential feature of modernity is the prohibition of territorial seizures, which contributes to an increase in the number of states. However, a significant part of them has only negative sovereignty, being unable to provide its citizens with the necessary amount of public goods.

Balloon warriors for North Korean human rights activism: a critique of North Korean defector-activists’ post-humanitarianism

ABSTRACTWhile the identity politics of North Korean defector-activists at home and abroad is revealed by unraveling the discursive complexity of their activism, little attention has been paid to the way in which that activism compromises the discursive dynamic of the defector community desiring to contest the power of a ruling paradigm within political culture. A critical analysis of North Korean defector balloon warriors who have crusaded against the North Korea regime through airborne leaflet drops at the South–North Korea border illustrates how their uncritical and unquestioned acceptance of liberal human rights can only leave the defector community vulnerable to charges of being politically-futile disparate citizens. The invocations of transnational liberal hegemonic norms obscure and undermine North Korean defectors’ agency of collective engagement in acts of liberal democratic citizenship. Understanding the propagandistic dimension of their dissenting voices can help expand the scope of analysis of liberal democratic posthumanitarian citizenship.

The concept of belonging: Critical, normative and multicultural

Contemporary diversity politics is mobilized around debates on the effects of diversity on political community and cohesion. However, social and political theory are deeply divided on the relation between that diversity, liberal–democratic citizenship, multiculturalism and social cohesion. This article argues that a focus on the concept of belonging, which is often employed but rarely examined in detail, illustrates the critical–normative divide between social and political theory. Further, it argues that each has a partial account of belonging that fails to account for the multidimensional and complex nature of diverse belonging today. Instead, it sketches a theory of ‘multicultural-belonging’, which unites the critical and normative approaches and offers key insights going forward in the analysis of diversity, citizenship and multiculturalism.

Insisting on complicity

Contemporary conceptions and practices regarding complicity have led to the surprising emergence of citizens who seek rather than flee complicity. The purpose of this is to gain standing to challenge controversial state practices. As in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, such attempts to demonstrate complicity are not motivated by a desire to take ownership over state actions, but to justify institutional reforms or individual opt-outs that would not be legitimized absent such a finding of complicity. This article highlights the danger posed by the proliferation of claims of this sort and works to unpack and critique the logic of such efforts to demonstrate complicity. Such claims rely upon implied political meanings of complicity, which affirm a strong connection between complicity, standing, and sovereignty. These political meanings of complicity are embedded in familiar conceptions of liberal democratic citizenship, but upon examination prove to be in tension with core liberal principles. By bringing to the surface the connection between complicity, standing, and sovereignty, this logic may be reformulated in such a way as to contribute to healthier modes of democratic participation.

Does inequality erode generalized trust? Evidence from Romanian youths

Generalized trust is a critical component of liberal democratic citizenship. We evaluate the extent to which exposure to socioeconomic inequality erodes trust among Romanian youths. Using national survey data of Romanian eighth-grade and high school students, we evaluate this effect as a product of socioeconomic diversity within the classroom, controlling for the social status of the students as well as socioeconomic inequality within the community where the school is located. Our analysis shows that generalized trust is higher among older adolescents. However, despite this maturing effect, youth exposed to greater levels of socioeconomic diversity have significantly lower levels of trust. The effect is particularly acute for students in the ninth grade controlling for community diversity and polarization. The result reinforces the idea that generalized trust develops early in one’s life and is quite stable, although a major life transformation, such as entering high school, may alter trust depending on the social context.

Promoting Autonomy in Public Education: A Narrow Civic Approach

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to examine the aim and scope of autonomy-promoting education in liberal democracies. I consider two approaches: noncivic and civic. Noncivic approaches imply that public education should promote autonomy for the sake of students’ well-being so that they can flourish. Advocates of noncivic approaches claim that public education should instill a capacity for critical reflection upon issues concerning the good life. In contrast, civic approaches imply that public education should promote autonomy to create future citizens of liberal democracies. Proponents of the civic approaches believe that public education should promote critical reflection on political ideas and issues. I will propose and defend a version of the civic approach. The main arguments for my position pertain to considerations of neutrality and trust. I argue that state neutrality generates trust from parents and students, and that such trust is conducive to the promotion of autonomy in public education.

The (educational) meaning of religion as a quality of liberal democratic citizenship

Religion has become a prominent issue in times of pluralism and in relation to citizenship in school and in society. As religious education (RE) is assigned to be one of the main school subject where issues of what religion is are to be raised, RE teachers’ conceptualizations of religion are of vital concern to investigate. In this article, RE teachers’ descriptions of ‘religion’ are scrutinized and analysed in terms of implications for citizenship with special regard to the role of RE. Three vital conceptions of religion emerge in teachers’ descriptions. First, religion is mainly individual or private, secondly, it denotes ethical guidance, and thirdly, it relates to sociocultural systems for thinking. Taken together, these conceptualizations share two characteristics about religion: religion as being individual-centred and private, and religion as being mind oriented. Out of this analysis, we discuss the role of religion and RE in contemporary liberal democratic life in society. The discussion is concluded by addressing two key things; the importance of the RE teacher as a curriculum maker, and the importance of religion and RE as active interventions in today’s contemporary discussion about pluralism in liberal democratic societies.

Deviant Citizenship: DREAMer Activism in the United States and Transnational Belonging

My analysis places the assertions of political presence by non-citizen immigrant youth in the U.S. (often referred to as DREAMers) within a rapidly globalizing world; this placement re-frames the DREAMers’ movement from a fight for U.S. citizenship to a broader critique of the limits and impossibility of liberal democratic citizenship, which claims to be all-inclusive. Increased transnational migration has brought into stark relief the inequality that current frameworks of nation-state citizenship, as a caste-system of rights, have codified. I am interested in the activism of immigrant youth as a place to explore where immigrants themselves are reasserting the right to politics. This reassertion privileges the social embeddedness of family ties and community above the notion of individual choice or individual rationality. In doing so, this articulation of politics is a critique of the liberal order by forcing the consideration of the contexts and structures that create migration, exploitation, and transnational communities of belonging.

Using courts to build states: The competing spaces of citizenship in transitional justice programmes

This paper examines how establishing a new legal institution shapes understandings and practices of citizenship. It does so through a study of the creation of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBiH) between 2002 and 2014 and, in particular, its emerging jurisdiction over war crimes trials since 2006. International sponsors of this institution herald the establishment of the Court as an important step toward achieving justice for the crimes committed during the 1992–1995 conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). But alongside its legal function, intervening agencies have emphasised an allied objective to use the Court to consolidate state structures and foster a civic sense of Bosnian citizenship. Using qualitative data, this paper argues that the creation of the CBiH illuminates a series of divergent understandings of citizenship. In particular, while the court seeks to convey a concept of liberal democratic citizenship, this is only achieved through the enrolment of civil society actors operating across BiH territory. Rather than heralding a series of ‘grassroots’ alternatives to official scripts, these social agents see the value of a universal understanding of justice structured around equality and rights, but often failed to see this expressed in the activities of the Court. The paper concludes by reflecting on the relationship between law and citizenship, where the imagined sense of universal jurisdiction is undermined by social concerns relating to the barriers that prevent access to justice.

Testing the liberal subject: (in)security, responsibility and ‘self-improvement’ in the UK citizenship test

The recent debate over the changes to the ‘Life in the UK’ citizenship test offers another opportunity to reflect on the testing of would-be citizens in liberal democracies. The citizenship test has often been understood as part of the ‘strengthening’ of national borders: set within a discourse of fears over high levels of migration and the risk to cultural homogeneity. Furthermore, it has been viewed as an illustration of the death of multiculturalism and presented as an illiberal strategy of cultural assimilation. I propose that whilst the notion of ‘testing’ is built out of fears regarding ‘threatening’ difference and ‘community cohesion’, what the UK testing process presents is an explicitly liberal strategy of governing. Drawing on the history of the test, I suggest that it is not purely a mechanism of restriction but that it also relies on strategies of responsibility, empowerment and ‘self-improvement’. The citizenship test, alongside other recent border strategies, may be better understood as representing a fascinating nexus between advanced liberal ideas of governing and concerns regarding (in)security. I argue that studying the test in this way offers up vital questions about how community and political membership continues to be shaped in late modernity.

Spaces of Immigrant Advocacy and Liberal Democratic Citizenship

Challenging representations of immigrants as victims of the biopolitical power of the state, and of citizenship as reinforcing such repression, this article interrogates how immigrant advocacy has been contesting the proliferation of exclusionary immigration policies in the United States and in the course of this pushing against the boundaries of formal liberal democratic citizenship. Using Washington, DC, as a case study, and deploying the concept of insurgent citizenship to theorize these actions, we examine the polyvalence of immigrant advocacy, paying particular attention to the spaces and scales of struggle and flexibly networked mobilizations. Insurgent citizenship creates new political spaces that exceed the national territorial framing of liberal democratic citizenship, that focus on civic action rather than simply relying on the electoral process, and that lay claim to new values and criteria for citizenship.