The shifting terrain of citizenship: a wayfarer’s guide

Prepared by Deborah Warr and Richard Williams

ISBN 978 0 9942709 2 4

First printed April, 2015

An electronic version of this document can be obtained from www.socialequity.unimelb.edu.au

Enquiries about reprinting information contained in this publication should be made through:

Melbourne Social Equity Institute University of Melbourne, 3010 Victoria, Australia

social-equity@unimelb.edu.au www.socialequity.unimelb.edu.au

The shifting terrain of citizenship:a wayfarer’s guide

Scoping report for the Melbourne Social Equity Institute ‘Citizenship and Diversity’ theme area

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 6

1.1Workingdefinitionsofcitizenship 7

1.2 Theongoingrelevanceofcitizenship 10

1.3Keycurrentsinconceptualisingcitizenship 11

1.4Summary 14

2 Political citizenship 16

2.1Globalisationanddiversity:implications forpoliticalcitizenship 16

2.2Socialfragmentationandthethreatstocitizenship 18

2.3Australiancitizenship 19

2.4Politicalcitizenshipandhumanrights 21

2.4.1Challengingthecentrefromthemargins: minorityrights 23

2.5Cosmopolitancitizenship 24

2.6Summary 26

3 Social citizenship 27

3.1Sexualcitizenship 28

3.2Culturalcitizenship 29

3.3Citizenshipandgender 30

3.3.1 Citizenshipandthecaringstate 313.4Citizenshipanddisability 34

3.5Citizenshipoffirstnations 35

3.5.1 CitizenshipandAustralianIndigenouspeoples 363.6Environmentalcitizenship 37

3.7Participatorycitizenship 38

3.8Summary 40

4 The significance of citizenship for research and advocacy 42

5 References 44

6

1 Introduction

This report addresses researchers and others who arebroadly interested in gaining a working understandingof concepts of citizenship to understand issues of socialinequality.Citizenshipisaconceptwithalonghistoryandgrowingbreadth.Thismeansthatitisapromisingconceptto inform interdisciplinary research addressing issues ofsocial inequality, but there are challenges in navigatingits complex currents. Therefore, our aims in this scopingreport are to identify key conceptual platforms that areparticularlyrelevantforinforminginterdisciplinaryresearchandadvocacythroughtheMelbourneSocialEquityInstitute(MSEI). We travel over varied terrain to summarise anextensivescholarlyliterature.

This journey is importantbecauseconceptsofcitizenshipinform one of the MSEI’s four broad, cross-disciplinaryresearchthemeareas.Themeareasare:

• CitizenshipandDiversity• Humanrights• Accesstopublicgoods• Socialpolicyacrossthelifecourse

TheMSEIisoneofsixresearchinstitutesattheUniversityofMelbournethatwerechargedtotacklesociety’scomplexproblems in innovativeways.Formallyestablished inmid-2012, the MSEI brings together researchers from acrossthe University of Melbourne to identify unjust or unfairconditions and practices that lead to social inequity andtoworktowardsfindingwaystoamelioratedisadvantage.Currently,theMSEIsupportsarangeofresearchactivities,includingannualroundsofresearchseedfunding,plenaryspeakers,symposia,researchnetworksand,inearly2014,itconvenedtheinaugural‘ImaginingSocialEquityConference’in Melbourne. These research and engagement activitiesaddress social equity issues across the full spectrum ofsocial life includinghealth, law, education, housing,workand transport.Further informationabout theMSEIcanbefoundathttp://www.socialequity.unimelb.edu.au/.

7

This scoping report will inform ongoing work within the‘CitizenshipandDiversity’ themearea. Itsummariseskeycurrentsinarapidlyexpandingbodyofscholarlyliteraturethatdrawsonconceptsofcitizenshiptoexplainandanalyseconditions and circumstances that contribute to socialinequalities. It anticipates emerging issues and futuredirectionsforresearchsupportedbytheMSEI,andseeksto contribute to ongoing discussions within and beyondtheMSEI.

Tomakethetaskofsummarisingaconsiderableanddiversebodyofworkmanageable,with theexceptionof seminaltexts and texts providing critical historical perspectiveson the development and applications of concepts ofcitizenship,wehavefocusedlargelyonmaterialpublishedinthelastsixyears(since2008).

1.1 Working definitions of citizenship Citizenship is commonly defined as being vested withthe rights, privileges and duties of a citizen withinthree broad dimensions: legal, political and identity.These are given varying weight across different modelsand conceptualisations. A legal dimension emphasesresponsibility of citizens to act within the law and theresponsibilityofthestatetoensurecitizensareprotectedby the law; a political definition of citizenship emphasesparticipation in democratic processes; and citizenshipconstruedasan identity is linkedtoasenseofbelongingtoapoliticalcommunityinalocality,region,cityornation(Kymlicka&Norman2000).

Two prominent constructions of citizenship in Westernliberaldemocraciesare‘republican’and‘liberal’.Republicanmodelsemphasisepoliticaldimensionsandparticipationindeliberationanddecision-makingprocesses.Theyembraceactive interpretations of citizenship that are groundedin forms of public participation and concerned withstructuralissuesinsocieties.Liberalmodelsofcitizenshipemphasisepassiverightsofexistenceprotectedbyalegalsystem. Membership of a community is largely enactedthroughinvolvementinpublicandprivateassociationsand

8

attachments.Theliberalmodelisinclusiveandexpandable–legalstatusofcitizenshipcanbelegallydeterminedandconferreduponindividualswhomayormaynotrecognisecommoninterests.Thesubjectiveexperienceofcitizenshipcanbeweak,andcompetinginterestscanjeopardisesocialintegration. Republican models, on the other hand, aredifficulttosustaininlargeandcomplexsocieties.

Influential feminist critiques have problematised each ofthese conceptualisations of citizenship, pointing to theways in which the domestic spheres aremarginalised inbothmodels(Lister2008,2007;Prokhovnik1998;Gilligan1995). In republican models, the domestic sphere isviewed as irrelevant to citizenship, and although liberalmodelsprivilegeprivate spheresof associations, thishastendednottoextendtoassociationsindomesticspheres.The implications of gender inequities and, in particular,responsibilityforcaring,haveunderminedthewayswhichwomenareabletoparticipateinwider(publicandprivate)socialandpoliticalarenas.

Inthefaceoffeministchallengestoprevailingconceptsofcitizenship,andincombinationwithsocialchangesthatarereworking the personal, social and political conditions inwhichlongstandingconceptsofcitizenshiparegrounded,the potential for common understanding of citizenshipis diminishing. Despite the ways in which concepts ofcitizenshiparecontested,itisneverthelessbeingadaptedto describe and analyse diverse contemporary social,economicandpoliticalissues.Thissuggeststheenduringsignificanceofcitizenshipforunderstandingcollectivelife,and exacerbates ongoing challenges in developing cleardefinitionsandconceptualclarity.

Among the diverse meanings and applications that areclaimed for citizenship there is widespread agreementthat it entails some form of membership in a politicalcommunity (Joppke 2010). As Joppke notes however,questions of defining what is meant by ‘political’ alsoremain unresolved. Joppke offers two possibilities forconceivingcitizenshipasapoliticalproject.Thefirstdrawsonanormativeunderstandingofpoliticsasabeliefintheability to produce social order and to actively managesocial improvement. Coupled with the need to extendmembershiptoallcitizens,inanageofpluralityandmass

9

democracythishasledtotheideaofmultipleorhyphenatedcitizenships.Theboundariesofthedefinitionofcitizenshiphavebeenextendingtoensureentitlementandopportunitytoparticipatemeaningfullyinthepoliticalcommunity.

Joppke’ssecondanswer isa factualexplanation; that thepoliticalsphereofsocietyhasbecomeidenticaltothestate,andthatthestateistheonlyassociationwithpoweroverthe physical life of human beings and the responsibilitytoprovideitscitizenswithsecurityandprotection.Withinthisdefinitionof thepolitical,citizenship is limited to therelationshipbetweentheindividualandthestate.

Interpretations of citizenship are beingunsettled throughprocessesofglobalisationandglobal flowsofpeoplearechallenging extantmodels of citizenship.Within nations,accesstocitizenshipisbecomingstratifiedandcontingent.Beyondnationalborders,growing issuesofstatelessnessformanypeoplemeans that theyareexcludedaltogetherfromcitizenship.Whilethenumberofstatelesspeoplehasdecreased from175millionat theendofWorldWar II to42milliontoday,thelengthoftimethatpeopleexperiencelossofcitizenshipisincreasing.Inmanypartsoftheworld,enclaves of stateless people are becoming long-termsettlementswith some children, and even adults, havingspenttheirentirelivesinrefugeecamps(Agier2011;Gatrell2013; UNHCR 2012). Although international governanceorganisations are developing considerable influence,citizenship is still conferred within national boundariesand remains anchored to national institutions. Nationalcitizenshipisbydefinitionexclusionary,andunderminesthenormativeandegalitarianidealsofdemocraticparticipation(Kostakopoulou 2009). Discussions of the emergence ofpost-national or ‘anational’ citizenship, however, in theabsenceofinternationalinstitutionscapableofguaranteeingtheprotectionsof citizenship remain largely abstract andideological,althoughaswillbeshownthistooischanging.

The concept of citizenship continues to elude clearand precise definitions. It is an evolving concept that isbeing reworked in ongoing ways to examine emergingissues and transforming demographic, political, socialandculturalcontexts.Thisconceptualdynamismensuresthat citizenship has ongoing relevance for understandingpoliticalandsociallife.

10

1.2 The ongoing relevance of citizenship As a concept, citizenship has remarkable durability andversatility that has ensured its continued relevance forunderstanding actual and ideal relationships betweenindividuals,groupsandstates. Itsconceptualelasticity inbeingadapted toemergingsocialandpolitical realities isnotedinworkthatcharacterisescitizenshipasa‘momentumconcept’(Hoffman2004;Lister2007:49):

Momentum concepts […] ‘unfold’ so that we mustcontinuouslyreworktheminawaythatrealizesmoreandmore of their egalitarian and anti-hierarchical potential’[2004,p.138].Assuch,theyprovidetoolsformarginalizedgroupsstrugglingforsocialjustice.

This potential to articulate aspirational social justiceobjectivesinformscurrentstronginterestacrossthefieldsoflawandthesocialandpoliticalsciences.Inparticular,inthewakeofwaxingandwaningpoliticalinterestinconceptsofsocialexclusion,thispotentialtohighlight,analyseandadvocate formarginalised groups is prompting extensiveinterestinconceptsofcitizenship.

11

Indeed,overthepreviousfewdecadestherehasbeenan‘explosion’ of interest in concepts of citizenship. WhileVan Gunsteren wrote in 1978 that political theorists hadturned away from studying citizenship, by 1990 DerekHeaterclaimedthinkersacrossthepoliticalspectrumhadtaken up the concept (Kymlicka & Norman 2000:5). Thesurvey of scholarly literature conducted for this reportsuggests that interest in concepts of citizenship persistsand is even continuing to grow across many disciplinesandareasofpublicdiscussion.Itisalsoimportanttonotethat scholarship addressing or drawing on concepts ofcitizenship is located bothwithin the field of ‘citizenshipstudies’ and scattered across awide rangeof disciplinesandcontentareas.

Concepts of citizenship are being applied to understandemerging issues of political, economic and socialparticipation,andrelationshipsbetweenindividuals,groupsandstates.Ithasbecomethevehicleforavarietyofsocialand political agendas, and is used to both reinforce andchallenge the status quo. Citizenship is used to explorethe implications of shifting rationalities of governmentandnewinternationalgovernanceassociations,modalitiesof capital accumulation, and socialmovements and theirstrugglesforrecognitionanddistribution.Theseissuesarepushing academics, activists and practitioners to rethinkthepoliticalagentorsubject(Isin&Turner2002a).

Thecapacitiesofcitizenshipasamomentumconceptthatcan reworked and applied to emergent issues of socialinequalityensureitsongoingrelevancefortheory-building,social research, policy research and development andpublicdebate.Across this rangeofworkwe identify twobroad thematic currents in theways inwhich citizenshipisused toexploresocialandpolitical issues.Onecurrentconcernsthebusinessofgovernmentandgovernanceandthe maintenance of social order and cohesion, and theother focuses on issues of social participation, exclusionandequality.

1.3 Key currents in conceptualising citizenship Concepts of citizenship are increasingly used to frameprocessescontributingtocontemporarysocialinequalities.Weidentifytwothematiccurrentsthatbroadlydivideinto

12

mattersofprimaryinteresttothebusinessofgovernment–themaintenanceofsocialorderandcohesion–andthosethataremorefocusedonissuesofparticipation,exclusionand equality. One thematic current addresses familiarissuesofpoliticalcitizenshipthathavelongbeengatheredunder the umbrella of citizenship studies. This current ofscholarship is concerned with matters of governance. Itaddresses the increasingly restrictive conditions placedon the granting of citizenship, primarily in developedeconomiesbutincreasinglyinpoorercountriesexperiencinglargenumbersofpeoplefleeinginsecurityandinstability.Itincludesissuesofglobalcitizenship,immigration,nationalidentity,ethnicdiversityandgeneralisedtrust,andexaminesthe way nation states are adapting to rapidly changingdemographic and political situations. This is aminimalistmodel, limiting interpretationsof citizenship to the rightsandobligationsofmembershipby individualsof anationstate, and the protections afforded by that membership.Withinthiscurrent,muchoftheacademicworkisstronglyorientated to issues associated with the ways in whichgovernments are grappling with flows of people acrossthe globe (voluntary and involuntary) that are generatingmulticultural settlersocieties.Migrationandglobalisationare pushing national governments and communities toreconsiderandreformulatenotionsofpoliticalcitizenship,often to bring informal arrangements under state control(Joppke2010).

Another current of work addresses issues of socialcitizenshipandseekstoexplorehowconceptsofcitizenshipareconstructed(andreconstructed)withinclusionaryandexclusionary effects. This second current of scholarshippicks up on the potential of citizenship as a ‘momentumconcept’toexpandcategoriesofsocialcitizenship.Muchof this work seeks to stretch concepts of citizenship toestablishthesocialandpoliticallegitimacyofmarginalisedsocialidentitiesandsitesofactivismandstruggle.Withinthis literature therearemanysub-fieldsof theorisingandresearch,includingsexualcitizenship,culturalcitizenship,citizenship of first nations and indigenous peoples,political citizenship, citizenship and gender, citizenshipanddisability,post-nationalanddenationalisedcitizenship,ecological or green citizenship and cosmopolitancitizenship (Isin& Turner 2002). In exposing exclusionaryprocesses and expanding categories for citizenship,

13

these varied fields of scholarship can be associatedwithtraditionalformsofpoliticalactivism-activecitizenship–butarenowfindingexpressioninnewformsofcommunitymobilisationandengagement. Inpart, thesetwocurrentscanalsobedistinguishedbysharpnessoffocus.Whereasmatters outside national boundaries concern events andpopulations inothernationsand require international co-operation, insidenationalboundaries individuals, familiesandminority interestsbecomevisible topolicy formationand practice. The metaphor of currents, however, isused deliberately here to suggest the mingling of ideasand lack of definitive boundaries in the ways in whichconceptsofcitizenshipareused to theoriseand researchcontemporary political and social situations.At the sametime, it recognises the general orientation of particularpositions. Italsocaptures thecomplexityof the fieldandthatitsscope‘nowcertainlygoeswellbeyondthemasteryofanyscholar’(Isin&Turner2002b:2).

In the inaugural issue of the journal,Citizenship Studies,Pakulski offers a useful discussion of citizenship as setsof rights and obligations that have evolved over timeand within facilitating political and social infrastructure.DrawingontheworkofT.H.Marshall,Pakulskiarguesthatnotions of citizenship are progressive and cumulative, inwhichconceptsofcitizenshipascivilrightsarefoundationsfor claims for political, then for social rights, and finallyleadingontocontemporaryclaimsforculturalrights.Civilcitizenship was the basis for political citizenship. Socialcitizenship was forged through demands from politicalactors,andrecognitionfromthestatethatsocioeconomicinequalities have distorting effects on political rights.Notably,theexpansionofthewelfarestate(andparticularlytheredistributiveandcompensatorymechanismsthatthestate is able to deploy) was critical in establishing andconsolidating social citizenship. According to Pakulski,socialcitizenship isthebasisforcontemporaryclaimsforculturalcitizenshipthathaveemergedthroughrecognitionthat social citizenship canbeundermined if it associatedwithdevaluedsocialidentities.Culturalcitizenshipcentresonissuesofsymbolicrepresentation,andcanbedistilledintothreerelatedissues:

[T]he right to symbolic presence and visibility (vsmarginalisation); the right to dignifying representation

14

(vs stigmatisation); and the right to propagation ofidentity andmaintenance of lifestyles (vs assimilation)(Pakulski1997:80).

Achieving cultural citizenship involves social groupsasserting theparticularityof interestsandcircumstances,and thegradual institutionalisationof theseclaimswithinthe state. Pakulski (1997:82) suggested that culturalcitizenshipisrealisedthrough‘socio-cultural’movements.

This conceptualisation of citizenship as an evolvingprojectthatisbeingreworkedinongoingwaystoredressinequalities in hierarchical societies, is compatible withunderstandingitasamomentumconcept.Asamomentumconcept,citizenshipisbeingusedtoanalysetheunfoldingsocial phenomena, ranging from the implications ofdifferences in political status through to the subtle, butnonetheless potent, effects of representational practicesregardingmarginalisedsocialgroups.

This versatility, however, presents some risks of it beingbe perceived as a ‘catch all’ concept that is vaguely andimpreciselyconceptualisedand thenapplied in looseandinconsistentwaystoexamineanarrayofphenomena.Theseriskscanundermineitsconceptualauthorityforanalysingcontemporaryinequalities.

1.4 Summary Concepts of citizenship remain strongly relevant forunderstanding and responding to social inequalities. Weidentifytwobroadcurrents ina longtraditionofacademicinterestincitizenshipthatwerefertoaspoliticalandsocialcitizenship. Thesecategoriesprovide the structure for thisscopingreport.Ifinpracticecitizenshipinvolveskeysphasesintherecognitionofrights,extendingfromcivilthroughtopolitical,socialandculturalrights,thencurrentlyinAustraliaprojectsofcitizenshiparebothevolvingandstalling.Claimsforsocialandculturalcitizenshiparetakingplacealongsidestrugglesforpoliticalandcosmopolitancitizenship.

Thesecurrentsofworkcanbemappedontothecomponentsof ‘citizenship and diversity’ theme area. Citizenship

15

capturesconcernsforthecontextsandconditionsinwhichcitizenshipisestablishedandtheemergenceoflayeredorpartial access to citizenship in national responses to theflowsof refugees andasylumseekers that are leading tohierarchies of entitlements. It addresses lived experienceof multiculturalism and debates about whether the goalof inclusiveness isbestservedbyuniversalordifferentialrights. ‘Diversity’ captures the ways in which conceptsof citizenship are being used to understand and respondto social and cultural experiences ofmarginalisation andexclusion.

This scoping report therefore offers useful and timelydiscussions of the potential of concepts of citizenshipto frame and inform our understanding of contemporaryinequalities. The next section discusses key issues inrelation to ‘political citizenship’, with particular focus oncontextsofglobalisation,migrationandmulticulturalism.

16

2 Politicalcitizenship

Conceptsofpoliticalcitizenshipareforgedwithinsystemsof social organisation that are usually associated withnations states. Effective nation states are characterisedby levels of political participation, civic engagement andsocial trust. These qualities of ‘collective mindedness’underpin citizenship but, in recent decades, are beingstrainedbypressuresonnationsstates(Kesler&Bloemraad2010:passim).Thesepressuresareassociatedwithaspectsof globalisation and social fragmentation within nations.Inter-nationaland intra-national issuespresentsignificantchallengestofamiliarconceptsofpoliticalcitizenship.

2.1 Globalisation and diversity: implications for political citizenship The varied effects of globalisation, which includeliberal ideals of the unhindered flows of money, people,images, values and ideas across national boundariesare placing considerable strains on nation-states withdiffering implications in industrialisingandpost-industrialeconomies (Hurrell &Woods 1995).Whilemanywesternnations, includingAustralia,vigorouslypromotethevalueof open free-market economies, they are also seeking toplace new kinds of restrictions on flows ofmigrants andrefugees.Debatesover issuesofmigrationareoutcomesof the policy contest between the solidarity of nationalidentitiesandtherightsandentitlementsoftheincreasingnumbersofnon-citizensinmanyadvancedeconomies.

Withinmanynationstates, issuesofsocial fragmentationaregrowingconcerns.Social fragmentation isassociatedwith rising socioeconomic inequalities (strongly linked totheeffectsofglobalisation)andculturalandethnicdiversity.These issues are interlinked because they coincide withthewidespreaddismantlingofwelfaresystemsunder theinfluence of neo-liberalism. In settler societies,migrationhas traditionally driven economic growth and social and

17

cultural creativity. On one hand, neo-liberalism promotesopeneconomiesandhighlevelsofimmigrationasfactorsthat contribute to economic growth (Freeman 1986). Ontheother,migrationpresentschallengestowelfaresystemsthatweredeveloped indifferentdemographic, social andeconomic contexts.Welfare states formed inEurope andAustraliafollowingWWIIweredevelopedwithinrelativelystable populations with shared history and culturalpractices. This fostered widespread political support forredistributivepolicies.Ifmigrationandculturaldiversityisassociatedwithprocessesofsocialfragmentationthismaydiminishpopularsupportforuniversal,andeventargeted,statewelfaresystems.

Theseissueshaveignitedfiercedebates.Someresearchersand policy-makers have pointed to a positive correlationbetween generalised social trust and ethnic homogeneity(e.g.Delhey&Newton2005).Joppke(2010:75)writesthatitis‘incontrovertiblethatimmigration-basedethnicdiversityhasdetrimentaleffectsonthelevelsoftrustbetweenpeople,which is generally considered a prerequisite for acceptingthe redistribution mustered by the welfare state’. RecentAustralian research partially confirms of this position, buttheanalysissuggeststhat‘associationsbetweengeneralisedtrust and other variables such as population density,residentialmobility,andhousingsituationarenotconsistentacrossthecity’(Hermes&Poulsen2013:276).Otherwritersdisagree.Kesler&Bloemraadusedtheconceptofcollective-mindedness (social trust, civic engagement and politicalparticipation)toinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenethnicdiversity and trust in 19 advanced democracies. Pointingto the importance of political leadership, they found that‘countrieswithaninstitutionalorpolicycontextpromotingeconomic equality and recognition and accommodationof immigrant minorities experience less dramatic or nodeclines in collective-mindedness’ (2010:220). In a similarvein othershave contested thebelief that social trust andtheviabilityofthewelfarestatecanonlybemaintainedbyincreasingly restrictive immigration, and that people withhigh levels of social capital show more positive attitudestowards immigration (Herreros & Criado 2009; Pevnick2009). Practical evidence for this optimism is found ina recent Quarterly Essay by the journalist Kathy Marks’(2013),whichdescribedhighlevelsofcohesivenessamongethnicallydiversecommunitiesinWesternSydney.

18

Complicatingtheseissues,responsestoglobalisationandunplannedmigrationhaveledtotheincreasingstratificationofcitizenshiprights.Globalisedflowsofcapitalhavebeenaccompaniedbythedevelopmentofprivilegedcitizenshiprights as governments seek to attract skilled or wealthyimmigrants. At the same time, those who cross bordersuninvited as refugees or asylum-seekers often findthemselveswithoutaccesstoresidence,workorwelfare,leftonlywithasmallandfragilenucleusofalienrightsthatfallsfarshortofthebenefitsandprotectionofcitizenship(Joppke2010:85).Joppkepointsoutthatinordertoavoidthedestabilisationofnationalunitycausedbylargenumbersofnon-citizens,manygovernments,particularlyinEurope,havemoved to loosen the restrictions on the granting ofcitizenship. He interprets this as governments becomingresignedtosituationsoverwhichtheyhavelimitedpower.

In countries such as Australia the foundations for universalpolitical citizenship are well established, but they aretransforming in uncertain ways through the impacts ofglobalisation,migration,risinginequalitiesandotherprocesses.

2.2 Social fragmentation and the threats to citizenship Socialfragmentationandrisingsocioeconomicinequalitiesaregrowingconcernsinmanynationstates.Theseissuesareoftenframedasproblemsofsocialexclusionforthoseexperiencing poverty and marginalisation. During the1980sandintothe1990swidespreadconcernswithsocialand economic exclusion emerged in Europe and the UKas a result of the impact of the globalisation of nationaleconomies.InWesterncountriesthewidespreadprosperityofthepost-WWIIyearshasbecomeincreasinglyunequallydistributed by the shift of manufacturing to low incomecountriesanddecliningsocio-economicconditionsfortheworking classes in post-industrial economies (Judt 2008;Wilkinson&Pickett2009).Highblue-collarunemploymentandgrowingsocio-spatialpolarisationhaveproducedlocalareas of concentrated household disadvantage, povertyand social unrest in many cities. The concept of socialexclusionemergedandwasidentifiedasathreattosocialcohesion. The origins of the concept can be traced to a

19

number of European political philosophies, in particularFrenchRepublicanism,CatholicSocialTeachingandsocialdemocracy(Daly&Silver2008).

The concern found its way into policy frameworksthroughoutthe1980sand1990s,andbecamewidespreadin policy documents in the Anglophone world. It wasgiven substance by the establishment of the EuropeanObservatory on Policies to Combat Social Exclusion, forexample,andtheUKgovernment’sSocialExclusionUnit.In 2002 the South Australian Government launched theSocialInclusionInitiative,theVictorianGovernmentbegansimilar work in 2004 through its policyA Fairer Victoria,andin2009theAustralianGovernmentlauncheditsSocialInclusionStrategyandestablishedtheSocialInclusionUnitwithintheDepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet.TheSocialInclusionUnitconceivedofitspurposeasreducingdisadvantage; increasing social, civil and economicparticipation; providing citizens with a greater voice;and making government more responsive to its citizens(AustralianGovernmentn.d.).TheUnitwasclosedby thenewly-electedCoalitiongovernmentinSeptember2013.

WhilethelanguageofsocialinclusionisfadingfromuseinAustralia,particularlyas it isunlikely tohaveany tractionwiththefederalgovernmentforthetimebeing,theissuesthatitreferencesarepersistentandarefindingexpressioninemerginginterpretationsofcitizenship.

2.3 Australian citizenship InAustralia,conceptsofcitizenshiphavedevelopedwithinspecific historical and social contexts. These include thereluctanceamongasignificantproportionofthepopulationtosevertiestotheBritishmonarchy,ahistoryofIndigenousdisplacement, and political exclusion and shamefulimmigrationpolicies, including theWhiteAustraliaPolicythatwas implementedatFederation in1901andwasnotcompletelydismantleduntil1973.Australia,however,wasoneofthefirstnationstoenfranchisewomen.

Notably,theAustralianconstitutionreferstoAustraliansassubjects,notcitizens.Thefederationofcolonialgovernments

20

in 1901 establishedAustralia as a dominion of the BritishEmpirewiththelegalstatusofacolony.FollowingFederationAustralians continued to beBritish subjects, retaining thisstatus after the creation of Australian citizenship in 1949.The enabling legislation included Indigenous Australians,although theywere not counted in the population censusuntil1967.Itwasnotuntil1984thatAustraliansceasedtoberegarded inAustralian lawasBritishsubjects,althoughAustraliaremainsaconstitutionalmonarchy.

As a result of this incremental development Australiancitizenship was conceived largely in statist and passiveterms. In the early years of the federation, immigrationissuesprevailedoverthedevelopmentofanypositivenotionofcitizenship,andnoadequateorcorenotionofcitizenshipdeveloped. It was a fraternal concept that relied on thecommoncharacteristics andculture thatwouldallow theconsensusonwhichdemocracywasseentobefounded.ImmigrantsfromAsiancountries,particularlyChina,werethought to lack the skills, attitudes and values necessaryforademocraticengagement.AboriginalAustralianswereexcluded for the same reason.Citizenship is still seen asaweakconcept inAustralia,notmotivatedbyanystrongrepublicansentiments(Brett2001;Hudson&Kane2000).

With the advent of WWII common cause was foundin the defence of the nation. During the war, Leader ofthe Opposition Robert Menzies made a series of radiobroadcasts in which he created an ostensibly classlessimage of citizenship that was in fact centred on middleclasssuburbanfamilyvalues.Inthebroadcaststhepublicandtheprivaterealmsofdomesticityandcitizenshipwerebrought together by a sense that familial commitmentswerepublicaffirmationsofthevaluesonwhichthenationwerebased.Followingthe1949generalelection,Menziescarriedthisinterpretationintogovernment.Citizenshipwasseennot as the reciprocal relationsbetweencitizensandthestate,butasthemutuallinksbetweencitizens,whichincluded affirmations of self-regulation in the collectiveinterest(Murphy2009).

Thisdrifttoanotionofcitizenshipasanexperienceofnationalbelonging has continued since. It was briefly challengedby Prime Minister Paul Keating’s call to Australians toembracechangeandexplorenewpossibilitiesofnational

21

identify in reachingout toAsia,andthenre-energisedbytheCoalitionGovernment(ledbyJohnHowardfrom1996to2007).CitizenshipwasapowerfulconceptforHoward,whochangedthenameoftheOfficeofMulticulturalAffairsto the Office of Citizenship. He reasserted, however, anunderstandingofcitizenshipthataligneditwithasenseofnationalbelongingthatwasenvigoratedthroughreferencesto a nostalgic, insular and exclusive past (Allon 2008).These sentiments licensed some unsavoury episodes ofaggressivenationalismamongAnglo-Australianswhowerefeelinganxiousand insecure towardschangesassociatedwithglobalisation,andalienatedmanymigrant-backgroundAustralianswhostruggled toseehow thesenarrativesofcitizenshipandbelongingreflectedtheirstories.

This particular rendition of Australian citizenship haslimitedscope to focuson inequalitiesarising through thestratification of citizenship rights. Humanitarian refugeesand asylum seekers coming to Australia are likely to beexcluded from or tenuously connected to spheres ofpolitical, social, economic and cultural participation.Popularopinionisalsodrivingharshpoliticalresponsestotheplightofrefugeesandasylumseekers inmanysettlernations. These situations are refocusing attention on thepotentialofhumanrightsactivism,includingsupra-nationalmechanisms,tomountclaimsforsocialjustice.

2.4 Political citizenship and human rights The rise in stateless peopleswho are thus excluded frompolitical citizenship has prompted scholars to revisittheoretical and practical issues of human rights. Somescholars view human rights as efforts to universalisecitizenshipagainst thebackdropof thedecliningpowerofnationstates in the faceofglobalisation,andargue that itrepresentsformsof‘post-citizenship’(Pakulski1997).Clearlycitizenshipandhumanrightssharesimilarconcerns.Somehuman rights scholars argue for the right to have rights,whichwasproposedbyArendt(1958)inthewakeofWorldWarIIasaremedyforthevastnumbersofpeoplewhohadfled the countries of which they were citizens and werewithout national governments to enforce their citizenshiprights.She recognisedboth the limitsof citizenship rights

22

thatwereyokedtonationstates,andhumanrightsthatweredisconnectedfromenforceablepoliticalorlegalstructures.Herargument retains its relevance incurrentdebates thatcallforinclusiveasylumpoliciesandstrategiestoconsolidatetheuniversalismofhuman rights (for example seeHeuser2008;Ingram2008;Kesby2012).

Citing the 1789 FrenchDeclaration of the Rights ofManasaturningpointintheextensionofrightstoallcitizens,Arendtpointedoutthatalthoughtherights‘wereproclaimedto be ‘inalienable,’ irreducible to and undeducible fromother rights or laws, no authority was invoked for theirestablishment’ (1958:291). It was assumed that thedeclarationoftherightswouldbesufficienttoensuretheirexpressioninlegislationandtoguidegovernment,yetthesovereigngovernmentofthepeoplewastheonlyinstitutioncapableofgiving force to this.Arendtunderstoodclearlythat the universality of the declaration was immediatelylimitedtotherightsofcitizens,leavingnon-citizenstorelyon the goodwill of their host state (over which they hadnosovereignty)fortheirprotection.ForArendt,theeffectoftheDeclarationwastocreatean‘abstracthumanbeingwhoseemedtoexistnowhere’ (1958:291), removedfromthecontextofanysocialorderornationalterritory.

Buildingonthese insights,Petterssonarguedthathumanrights theorysupportsa ‘divisionbetween thosewhoarecapableofdoingpoliticsand thosewhoarenot, throughexcludingthelatterfromanypoliticalsphereandpreventingthemfromarticulatingtheirownexclusionandinequality’(2011:255). Drawing on Rancière’s interpretation of theconceptofequality,whichmaintains that theperspectiveofthepoliticallyexcludediscentral,Petterssonconcludesthat it is the stateless people and migrants close to themargins of a community who challenge its politicalconsensus and are thus political actors. In other words,sites of marginalisation are sites for political resistanceandactivism,includingstrugglestohavecitizenshiprightsrecognised.ThereissomeevidenceforthisclaiminAdamSeipp’s(2013)historyofWildflecken,aformerarmybasein Bavaria which in 1945 became a displaced personscamp administered by the UN. Seipp charts the growthofthecampresidents’agencyandindependence,writingthat the radicalisation of politicswithin the camp helpedshapebothitsfutureandthewiderstructuresforrefugees

23

in the post 1945 world. In recent Australian experience,instancesofrefugeessewingtheirlipstogetherinprotestagainsttheconditionsandlengthoftheirincarcerationledvariously to public concern, hostility and antipathy, andalsotosubstantialcompensationpaymentsbythefederalgovernment(Murphy2008).

Despite the complementarity between concepts ofcitizenshipandhumanrights,contemporaryrefugeesandasylumseekerconfrontapainfulparadox.Thoseescapingbrutal and murderous regimes in nation states that lackthe strong civil and political systems that are necessaryto guarantee robust political citizenship may end up incountriesthathavethesepolitico-socialstructuresbutwhichtheyaredeniedaccesstobecausetheyarenotrecognisedascitizens.At thesame time theyare in theoryaccordedhumanrights,butitcanbedifficulttoupholdtheserightswithin the circumstancesof nation states. This is evidentintheAustralianFederalGovernment’sresponsetopeoplewhohavetravelledbyboattoseekasyluminAustralia.Inthe face of apparentwidespread anxieties among voters,civilsocietyorganisationsandinternationalbodies,adultsandchildrenarebeingkeptinindefinitedetention.

2.4.1Challengingthecentrefromthemargins:minorityrights

Overlapping these issues is theemergenceof theconceptof minority rights as a corrective to the marginalisationproducedwhenuniversalrightsareinterpretedbymajoritycultures. The interest in minority rights was propelledinto political theory by a number of minority secessionistclaimswithinestablishedWesterndemocraciesduring the1980s.Althoughtherootsofthisdevelopment liepartly instruggles for social citizenship – extending full citizenshipto marginalised groups – the concept (although not itsintention) can be seen in national governments’ policiesthat provide differential rights to minority groups in theirterritories.Peoplelivingatthemarginsofcitizenship–guestworkers, transient groups, migrants with restricted visaconditionsandevenstatelesspeople–areall livingwithintheboundariesof anation state, and their presenceoftenbecomesasubjectofdomesticpoliticsandpublicdebate.

24

Theconceptofminorityrightsispartofthedebateaboutmulticulturalism that is prevalent in settler societies.Proponents of minority rights are generally wary of theexclusionarypotential of citizenshipand its adaptation tomainstream interests. They support theclaimsof culturalminorities for state recognitionof valuedaspectsof theirculturesthatputthematadisadvantageinthemainstreamsociety of the majority culture. They do not accept thatculturalidentityissufficientlyprotectedsolelybyprotectingthefreedomsofindividuals,claiminginstead:

[W]hile difference-blind institutions purport to be neutralamongst different ethnocultural groups, they are in factimplicitlytiltedtowardstheneeds, interests,and identitiesofthemajoritygroup;andthiscreatesarangeofburdens,barriers,stigmatizationsandexclusions(Kymlicka&Norman2000:4)

Opponents argue that minority rights lead to thefragmentation of citizenship and the undermining of theprotectionsprovidedbyuniversality.Theybelievethatpeoplewhoaremarginalisedbutwhodonotbelongtoarecognisedorvaluedminoritygroupriskbeingfurtherexcluded.

2.5 Cosmopolitan citizenship Theoriginalmeaningofcosmopolitanismisthatallpeople,regardlessof their differences, canand shouldbecitizensin a single community. It is derived from the Greek wordkosmopolitas, meaning ‘citizen of the world’, althoughits more recent usage has become confused with multi-culturalism and pluralism. The roots of active politicalcosmopolitanism can be traced to the Stoics of the 3rdcentury (Kleingeld & Brown 2014), but for a long timeremainedprimarilyanideologicalpositionduetothelackofan internationalgoverningbodywith thepower tobestowandprotecttherightsofcitizenship(asnotedin2.4above).

The rise of globalisation and the establishment of supra-national governance mechanisms such as the UN, theEuropeanparliamentandtheInternationalCourtofJusticehas provided frameworks of international authority towhich many sovereign governments have committed.

25

Thishascoincidedwitha‘cosmopolitanturn’inthesocialandpoliticalsciences(Strand2010).DrawingonArendt’sargumentabove,cosmopolitancitizenshipcanprogressnofasterthanthegrowthofinternationalinstitutionsthatarenecessarytoupholdit(Arendt1958).Itreliesoninternationalagreementsandintergovernmentalco-operation.

The chrysaloid nature of cosmopolitan citizenship isillustratedbythestandingofinternationalcourts.Domesticcourts are constituted within the authority and coercivepower of sovereign states, on which they can call forenforcementof theirdecisions. Internationalcourts,ontheother hand, have cases referred by the member states ofthe organisations that have created them, and on whosegoodwilltheyrely(vonBogdandy&Venzke2012).Memberstatesmakecommitments toabidebythedecisionsof thecourts theyhave createdbut can ignore thosedecisions iftheychoose,riskingnomorethantheopprobriumofnationaland international communities. Hence these commitmentsare more often aspirational than statutory, but they arenonetheless important. For example, von Bogandy andVenzkenotethat the involvementof internationalbodies intheelectionofjudgestointernationalcourtsprovidessomedegreeofcosmopolitanjustification.Thesetrendshelpbuildafoundationforthedevelopmentofcosmopolitancitizenship.

A useful distinction here is between the discourse oftransnationalcitizenandthatofcosmopolitancitizenship.Thefirstreferstoaformofcitizenshipthatisrootedinthenationstate,whilethesecondreferstoastatusthatisnotnecessarilylegitimatedbythenationstate.Thedistinctionalso explains the continuing emergence of internationalsupportforhumanrightsandcitizenshipatthesametimeasnationalcitizenshipisbeingeroded(Mendieta2013).

Whileitsoriginalsensesoughtuniversalism,somewritershavedrawnonarestrictiveinterpretationofcosmopolitancitizenshipasparticipationintransnationalcommunitiesormovements that are exclusive (and sometimeshostile) tothosewhosharedifferentbeliefs.ArecentexampleistheprojecttoestablishaninternationalIslamictheocracyasacounter to the dominance of theWest (Mustapha 2013).Howeveritisdifficulttoarguethatsolidarityofthiskindiscosmopolitan, forwhile it ignores thebordersof existingsovereign states it simultaneouslyworks toestablishand

26

defendnewbordersaroundtheterritoriesitcontrols.Thisreflectsemergingusagesoftheterm,whichinsomecaseshavefloatedfreeoftheidealinternationalcitizenshipandarebroadlysynonymouswithpluralismandmulticulturalism.

2.6 Summary Traditionally, issues of political citizenship have tendedto fall under the umbrella of citizenship studies, and aregrounded in politico-legal frameworks. Issues of politicalcitizenship are concernedwith cascading inequalities thatareassociatedwithmigration(growingnumbersofstatelesspeople seeking refuge and asylum, including in Australia)andwithmarginalisationandfragmentation(socioeconomicand ethnocultural) which are threatening the fabric ofcitizenship.Thishascontributedtoanextraordinarilydiverseand sprawling field of scholarship and research. To fullyunderstandthedimensionsoftheseissuesitisnecessarytoengagewithconceptsofsocialcitizenship.

27

3 Socialcitizenship

It has already been noted that some scholars view theachievementofsocialcitizenshipasrightsandobligationsthathaveevolvedoutofpoliticalcitizenship.Theyarguethatdemocratic rightsassociatedwithpoliticalcitizenshiparecompromisedbyinequalitiesamongsocialgroups(Pakulski1997).Significantly,socialcitizenshiprequiresthepoliticalandsocialinfrastructurethatwasconstructedthroughtheestablishment and expansion of welfare states in manycountriesover the twentiethcentury. Thewelfare state iscritical here because it involves a range of mechanismsthatareusedtolimitandredressinequalities.Accordingly,socialcitizenshiphasbeendescribedasthe‘rights,duties,participatory practices and resources related to welfare’(Pfister2012:246).Taylor-Goobydefinesitas:

…[T]he rights andduties associatedwith theprovisionofbenefits and services designed tomeet social needs andenhancecapabilities, andalso toguarantee the resourcesnecessarytofinancethem(2008:4).

Taylor-Goobyidentifiedthreeessentialconditionsforsocialcitizenship to flourish: reciprocity, which is necessaryto support horizontal redistribution; social inclusion,which encourages vertical redistribution; and the trust ininstitutions that is vital to the political legitimacy of theconceptanditspracticeinawelfarestate.Hearguesthatthenewpoliciesandassumptions thatare reformulating,if not dismantling, the welfare state in many Westernnationsarelikelytoerodetheseconditions,andthattheirendorsement ‘by a substantial and politically effectivepart of the population is essential to ensure that thewelfare state continues in a recognizable form’ (2008:3).In particular, ‘the shift towards an individualisation ofresponsibilityforwelfareoutcomesconstrainsreciprocity,contradicts inclusion, and undermines important aspectsoftrust’(ibid).

Struggles for social citizenship involve the dominantpopulation recognising commonalities and differences,

28

and are usually closely aligned with struggles for socialjustice. In contrast to struggles for political citizenship,socialcitizenshipisconcernedwiththerighttobedifferent.Struggles to achieve social justice involve understandingand responding to the different circumstances in whichpeople live (Pakulski 1997). Claims for social citizenshiprecognisethatpolitical rightsare insufficient forensuringfullandactivecitizenshipifthereareinequalitiesbetweensocialgroups.

In thissectionwediscusskeysitesofstruggles inwhichcitizenshipismobilisedasacentrallegitimisingconcept.Wediscusssocialcitizenshipintandemwithclaimsforculturalcitizenship. Cultural citizenship further extends insightsinforming struggles for social citizenship to emphasisethe significance of inequalities between social groupsin regards to having symbolic presence and dignifyingrepresentations,andtheaffirmationofdistinctiveidentitiesandlifestyles(Pakulski1997).

Struggles for social citizenship are organised aroundsociocultural identities and grounded in concepts ofpolitical citizenship that provide legitimacy for claims.Theyalsorequirepoliticalmobilisationthroughgrassrootscampaigns and political strategising. In discussing keysitesofstrugglestoestablishsocialandculturalcitizenshipwe consider claims that are associatedwith cultural andsexual identities, environmental claims, and first nationanddisabilitycitizenshipclaims.Wealsodiscusskeysitesofstruggle–caringandcircumstancesofsocioeconomicmarginalisation - that present complex challenges forpeople mobilising to establish social citizenship claims:Finally, we highlight work that considers processes ofparticipatory citizenship that are critical for fostering theinclusivepotentialofsocialcitizenship.

3.1 Sexual citizenship Claims for sexual citizenship are largely associated withgay rights movements that challenged the dominanceof herteronormativity and legitimised a diversity ofsexual identities, including gay, lesbian, queer, trans andintersex. In contrast to struggles for social citizenship

29

amongpowerlessgroups,gayrightsactivismhasinvolvedsocioeconomic elites. Pakulski (1997) suggests that thisoffers a useful case study of processes of making andnegotiating claims because it can be separated fromthe complexity of engaging in these processes fromcircumstancesofsocioeconomicmarginalisation.

At the same time, there are continuing struggles fornon-heterosexual forms of sexual citizenship to be fullyrealisedassocialandculturalcitizenship(associatedwithefforts torespondtoHIV/AIDS,addressrisksofviolence,and challenge derogatory symbolic representations).Contemporary demands for marriage equality conflateongoingstrugglesforpolitical,socialandculturalcitizenship(having the same rights as heterosexual couples to haveformal recognition of unions), the privileges that attendthis(suchasacknowledgementofnextofkinandpropertyarrangements) andparticipating in social and celebratoryritualssuchasweddingsandanniversaries.

3.2 Cultural citizenship Struggles for cultural citizenship aregenerally associatedwith struggles ‘for the performance of racial/ethnic identities, home and belonging’ within diasporacommunities, and the creation of cultural practices thatallowdifferentvalidationofbelonginginplacesofsettlement(Hua 2011:45). Stevenson believes that citizenship needstoplacequestionsofimagination,identity,recognitionandbelongingalongsidetheliberalconcernswithentitlementsandobligations(Stevenson2003).Publicacknowledgementand respect for cultural traditions, days of remembranceand religious significance and upholding other culturalpractices reflect theways inwhich cultural citizenship isestablishedinsettlersocieties.

Culturalcitizenshipcanbeapplied toconsiderhowothersocial groups that are vulnerable to being marginalisedor excluded can have symbolic presence and dignifyingrepresentations. This includes avoiding demeaningand stereotyped portrayals of people with migrantbackgrounds. In the wake of policies and practices thatareerodingthewelfarestate,thepoor,andarguablyeven

30

working class communities, can be denied the right todignifyingrepresentations(Skegg2004).Thisisevidentinthegrowinguseofdisparaging references inAustralia to‘bogans’,andintheUnitedKingdomto‘chavs’,whichareincreasingly used to refer to individual and communitieson the socioeconomic margins of society, or even thoseperceivedtobeoutsidethemiddleclasses(Nicholls2011;Jones2011;Warr2005).Inthewakeofdecliningworkingclassjobsinpost-industrialnations,scholarssuchasSkeggs(2004)arealsocriticalofthepotentialforconceptssuchascitizenshiptooperateasmechanismsforincorporatingtheworkingclassintodominantpoliticalbeliefsandpractices,supportinganapparentwidersocialgoodthatmaynotbein their interests.Forexample,nationaleconomicgrowthattheexpenseofemployment(Skeggs2004).

3.3 Citizenship and gender A body of feminist work has focused on both theemancipatory and exclusionary implications of conceptsof citizenship. Analyses focusing on the exclusion ofwomen as citizens considers how their opportunitiesfor public participation are compromised by a range offactors, includingexpectationsofgenderedroles formenand women and women’s disproportionate involvementin unpaid caringwork in domestic spheres.Writers havecommented extensively on the ways in which care workis the obligatory, unpaid work undertaken by women, orbypoorlypaidwomenwhoareexcludedbyclassorcastedifference. These contexts for care work are significantfor considering its implications for citizenship, becausecaringissociallyandeconomicallyconstructedasarealmthat is psychologically and politically separated from thedominant realm of individual autonomy and freedomstructured around contractual obligation (Gilligan 1995;Kershaw2010).

In response to these issues, feminist scholars havedevelopedtheconceptofinclusivecitizenship.Theconceptseeks to dissolve public and private distinctions so thatunpaidcareworkbecomesacollectiveandnon-genderedissue, and argues for rights for the time needed for care(Knijn&Kremer1997).Itisconcernedwithboththegiving

31

andreceivingofcare,andwiththevaluesandpracticesthatare associatedwith each of these positions. Thework ofRuthLister(2008;2007)hasmadeimportantcontributionstoconceptualisinginclusivecitizenship,andreformulatingittoincludeissuesofcaregivingasacentralobligationandentitlementofcitizens.Shereferstothehorizontalviewofcitizenship,mostassociatedwithNordiccountries,‘whichaccords as much significance to the relations betweenpeopleastotheverticalrelationshipbetweenthestateandthe individual’ (2007:51). Other scholars have also beenconcernedtoreformulatethemeaningofcitizentoincludecarework.Workingalongthishorizontalaxisofcitizenship,LynchetaljuxtaposetheCartesianrationaleconomicactormodelofthecitizenwithaviewofthecitizenascarerandcare receiver. These scholars are critical of constructionsof themodel citizenasaperson ‘prepared foreconomic,political and cultural life in the public sphere but not fora relational life as an interdependent, caring and other-centredhumanbeing’(Lynch,Lyons&Cantillon2007).

Whilefeministscholarsarguefortheprivaterealmofcareto be recognised alongside the public realm, there aredifferingviewsastohowthiscouldbeachieved.Somearewary of calling for citizenship to be expanded to includeprivateandcaringdomainsbecause this risks reinforcingdistinctions between public and private realms. Otherviews, such as Kershaw (2010), contend that inclusivecitizenshipisfosteredwhenindividualsunderstandandactonthepoliticalimplicationsoftheirprivateactions.

Strands of feminist scholarship that focus on inclusivecitizenship point to the significance of embodiment.Disembodied models of universal citizenship inevitablydiminishasociety’scapacitytobetofullyconsiderwomenascitizens.Thisworkarguesforthepoliticisationofprivaterealmsthatincludenotionsofembodiedcitizenshipinwhich‘bodiesgive substance tocitizenshipand that citizenshipmattersforbodies’(BeasleyandBacchi2000:337).

3.3.1 Citizenshipandthecaringstate

Notsurprisingly,feminists’concernswiththemarginalisationand invisibility of caring work in the private sphere and

32

theimplicationsofthisforwomen’scapacitiestoinfluenceissuesofcitizenship,haveledtoeffortstorepositioncaringas a public and collective responsibility.Marshall ([1950]2009)describesthegreatlyexpandedinstitutionalisationofsocialrightsintheUnitedKingdomafterWWIIasthethirdstage in the development of citizenship, building on theestablishmentofcivilrightsandthesubsequentgrowthofpoliticalrights.Afterthewarthedevelopmentofthesocialdemocratic states in theWestwas based onwidespreadacceptancethatcitizenshadcollectiveobligationsforthewelfare of other citizens, regardless of the strength oftheirassociation,andthatthestatewastheagentthroughwhichthiscouldberealised.Therewasastrongsenseofpartnership,with the state being seen as responsible forproviding enabling support to carers (Harris 2002). Thiswassupportedbytheprofessionalisationofcarefromthebeginningofthe20thcentury,whichallowedthestatetoemployprofessionalcarerswhoseresponsibilityextendedbeyondfamilygroupsandsocialnetworkstoallcitizens.

33

Asnotedabove,Taylor-Goobyarguesthatsincethe1990spoliticaldiscoursehasprogressivelyshifted responsibilityfrom the state back onto families and communities. Thisdiscoursefocusesontheresponsibilityofcitizensto lookaftereachother,tobeself-sufficientandindependentandasfaraspossibleavoidturningtothestate forhelp.Oneoftheeffectsofthisdiscourseistoseparatethecarerfromthepersonbeingcaredfor,enablingthepositioningoftheformerasvirtuousandthelatterasaburden(Harris2002;Whelan 2012). The valorisation of caring that was partof thismay have opened the door to people, particularlywomen, whose work as carers historically marginalisedthem from citizenship, but it also drew people intowhatJordan(1989)calls‘compulsoryaltruism’.

More recently in advanced economies, public debatein this area has been strongly influenced, if not partlydistorted, by rising concern about the economic costs ofcaring for youngchildren, frail elderly people andpeoplewhoarechronically illorhaveadisability.Caring isonceagainbeingconstructedasamatterofprivatewelfare.Thesocialservicesmarkethasbeenrapidlyexpandingtomeetarangeofcaringneeds,resultingindeterioratingworkingconditionsforcarers.

Theseissuessuggestthewaysinwhichfeministworkhasgrappledwiththeexclusionaryeffectsofdominantmodelsofcitizenship.Theyhavespokenforconceptsofinclusionarycitizenship that focus attention on obligations and rightsregardingcare.Withinthisstrandofworkthereareongoingdebatesastowhethertheproblemisthatresponsibilitiesfor caring inprivate spheres limitopportunities for formsofpublicparticipation thatareconstitutiveofcitizenship,or thatupholdingdistinctionsbetweenpublicandprivatespheresensuresthatformsofparticipationinthelatterarenotrelevanttocitizenship.Thesedebatesnonethelessshareconcernstopoliticiseissuesofcaringandareincreasinglyintensionwithneoliberalpoliticalandpolicycurrentsthat,in efforts to wind back welfare states, are reformulatingcaringasprivateandinformalmatters.

34

3.4 Citizenship and disability The situations of people with disabilities point to seriousshortcomingsintheorisingoncitizenship.Ithasbeenobservedthat while disability theorists often call on the concept ofcitizenship, particularly in its inclusive interpretations, it israreforcitizenshiptheoriststoincludedisabilityintheirwork(Lister2007).One reason for thismaybeongoingdebatesabout whether ‘people with a disability’ can be used torefer topeoplewhomaynothavemuch incommonatall,other than theways in which they are judged in negativeand stigmatising ways compared to normative notions ofpersonhood.Thecategoryof‘peoplewithadisability’refersto peoplewith physical impairment, intellectual disabilitiesandmentalhealth issuesthathavevarying implicationsforthewaysinwhichindividualswithdisabilitieshavebeenabletoachievepolitical,socialandculturalcitizenship.

Inmany countries, peoplewith a disability have ongoingstruggles to achieve basic civil and political rights andexercise political citizenship. Many encounter difficultiesinassertingrightstovote inelections,participate in localpolitical activities and run for public office. As Morrisobserves, peoplewith a disability have also struggled tocontributetocitizenshipdebates:

Disabled people’s perspective has been singularly absentfromcontemporarydebatesoncitizenship,notjustinBritainbutalsoinotherWesterndemocracies.Theverylanguageofthedebateoftenexcludespeoplewhohavephysicaland/orsensoryimpairment,mentalhealthproblemsorlearningdisabilities(Morris2005:5).

Within normative constructions of citizenship, notions ofbeinga‘goodcitizen’whichcanincludebeingindependent,responsibleandeconomicallyself-sufficient,oftenexcludepeople with a disability (Beckett 2006). Many of theobstacles thatpeoplewithadisabilityencounter in livinguptothesevaluesintheireverydaylifeareassociatedwithsocial and structural barriers. These include the attitudesofnon-disabledpeopleandapaucityofphysicalandsocialinfrastructure to support participation in varied activities(such as access to transport and buildings, extra time orresources to process information or express views, andassistancewithsometasks).

35

Incontrasttosomeothersocialgroups(andthequestionofwhetherpeoplewithadisabilityconstituteasocialgroupisarguedwithinthefieldofDisabilityStudies,seeGuldvikand Lesjø 2014), citizenship struggles for people with adisability require strategies that institutionalise civil andpolitical rights. The findings fromstudies exploring theseissuesamongpeoplewithadisabilityhavefoundthatpeoplearelessconcernedtoassertrightstorecognisedistinctivesocialandculturaldifferences,thantosecurebasicpoliticaland social rights thatwould serve to promote social andeconomic inclusionwithin society (Beckett 2006).Morrisidentifies three concepts central to disability rights: self-determination, participation and contribution, noting thatthese claims dovetail with the communitarian emphasisonresponsibilityandreciprocity(2005:6).Theseconstitutethe basis of the disability rights movement’s argumentsfor equalisingopportunities for the social participationofdisabledpeoplecomparedwithnon-disabledpeople.

3.5 Citizenship of first nations Indigenous or first-nation citizenship draws upondiscourses of colonialism, plurality, minority rights,differential citizenship and recognition. It is closelylinked with environmental citizenship (see section 3.6).The identify of most indigenous people is inseparablefrom their connection to land and ecological systems.Theirefforts to re-assert thishistorical connectionand toreclaimsomemeasureofcontrolovertheirresourceshasledresearcherstoinvestigatetheconnectionbetweenthepolitics of land, livelihood and identity, and the need toexpand the reach of citizenship. (Blackburn 2009; Latta2007;Latta&Wittman2010;Wittman2009).Aswell, thelink with ecological systems creates interests that maycrossnationalorpoliticalboundaries, indicatingtheneedforan interpretationofcitizenshipthat isnotanchoredtonationalgovernment(Latta&Wittman2010).

First nations’ concepts of citizenship have some affinitywith citizenship claims informedby feministwork in thatit is grounded in relationality. This can conflict with thedominant neoliberal notion of rights-bearing citizenshipbasedontheprimacyofindividualautonomyandproperty

36

ownership. Such discourses stress themoral and ethicalobligationsofindividualstobeself-sufficientandtoadhereto lawinaccordancewith impugnedmoralcodes.Failuretodoso,inparticularfailuretoachievetheeconomicstatusof property ownership, signals failure to enter into fullcitizenship.However,theexpectationofsuchparticipationis often undermined by the economic disadvantage andmarginalisation experienced by indigenous peoples insettlersocieties(Fiske,Belanger&Gregory2010).

Providinganalternativetotheindividualistic,rights-basedinterpretation of citizenship, the concept of relationalcitizenship isbasedonthecommonhumanity ‘evidencedin overlapping aspirations, mutually supportive socialactions, and the need to belong’ (ibid:76). These valuesare consistent with those of many indigenous societies,grounded in reciprocity, community well-being and anethosofcare.

3.5.1 CitizenshipandAustralianIndigenouspeoples

Asfirstnationsinothersettlersocietieshaveoftenobserved,institutionalisedpracticesofcitizenshipreflectthedominantculture’s ‘social, political economic, cultural and spiritualdominationofAboriginalpeoples’(Salmon2011:169).ItisarguedthatthecitizenshiprightsofindigenousAustraliansfallconsiderablyshortofthoseenjoyedbynon-indigenouscitizens (Behrendt 2001; Dodson 1996; Mercer 2003).Dodson(1996)contendsthatindigenousAustralianssufferadiscontinuityorstructuralexclusionandalienationuniqueamongAustralians,andthatthiserodesanystabilityintheircitizenship.AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeoplesareconsistentlyratedlowestonanymeasureoftheenjoymentofsocial,cultural,political,civilandeconomicrights.Thisanalysis is consistent with the capability approach (CA)to citizenship developed principally by Amartya Sen andextendedincollaborationwithMarthaNussbaum.Senhasinsisted that the existence of rights alone is insufficient,andthatpeople’scapabilities,whattheyareactuallyabletodoandtobe,needtobetakenintoaccount.Thusequalityofcitizenship inevitably restson inequalityofentitlement(Sen1999;Nussbaum2003).

37

An issue that is currently prominent in Australian publicdiscussion is the recognition of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islanderpeoples in theAustralianconstitution.Thisis framed against the backdrop of minority rights anddifferentialentitlementsthatthatarealreadyembeddedinfederalandstatelegislation.TheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionarguesthattheconstitution:

…permits the Commonwealth Parliament to validly enactlaws that are racially discriminatory and contemplatesdisqualifyingpeoplefromvotingonthebasisof their race(AHRC2013).

Boththeformerandcurrentgovernmentshavecommittedtoholdingareferendumproposingconstitutionalrecognitionofindigenouspeoples.

3.6 Environmental citizenship Thereissubstantialcommongroundbetweenenvironmentalor green citizenship and feminist analysis of citizenship,although asDobsonnotes ‘there is no determinate thingcalled environmental citizenship, but in the broadestpossiblecompasssuchcitizenshipwill/can/maysurelyhavesomethingtodowiththerelationshipbetweenindividualsandthecommongood’(Dobson2007:280).

Manytheoristswritewithreferencetothepublicpoliticalrealm, drawing on post-national and globalised conceptsof citizenship because of the irrelevance of nationalboundaries to the environment and the trend towardsthe responsibilisation of individuals and communitiesin Western democracies (Hobson 2013; Kennedy 2011;Mason2012).Machin(2012:848)believesthatacommonflaw in these theories is ‘a presupposition of rationalconsensus and an underplaying of the importance anddifficulty of the moment of decision’, which can lead tothe narrowing of debate and the exclusion of alternativeor marginalised voices. Drawing on Mouffe (2005), sheargues for the inevitability of conflict to be incorporatedratherthansublimated,and‘transformedfromamatteroflifeanddeathintodemocraticdifference’(2012:858)

38

Writers such as Gabrielson and Parady (2010) approachgreencitizenshipfromafeministfocusoncorporality.Theyarguethatmoretraditionalmodelsofgreencitizenshipallowfor ‘therelegationofquestionsofrace,gender,classandothersuchmarkerstothesidelines’.Intheireffortstocastgreenlifestylepracticesascivicobligations‘greentheoristsoften overlook the gendered character of the privatesphere, itsmarginalisationbasedon itsassociationswithbodily fragility,and the increased timecommitments thatgreen virtueswould likely require ofwomen’ (2010:376).Gabrielsonisconcernedthattheinclusivityofcitizenshipissubjugatedtotheattainmentofgreenends,leadingtoan‘anaemicconceptionofcitizenship’andthedampeningofcitizenship’sdemocraticpotential(2008:430).

We have located this brief overview of work within thegroundsofsocialcitizenship,whichconsider theways inwhich pluralist concepts of citizenship are being used indiverse societies to analyse and respond to situations ofinequalityanddisadvantage.Thediscussionidentifieskeysites of contemporary struggles to establish and extendsocialandculturalcitizenship.Aspreviouslynoted, thesestruggles are not always easily separated from issues ofpolitical citizenship. Before concluding this section wediscusstheconceptof’participatorycitizenship’.Indoingso, we refer to a body of work that is concerned withprocessesthroughwhichcitizenshipcanbeactivatedandpracticed.Theseprocessesareparticularlyrelevantforsocialgroupswho need to create new kinds of communicativestructuresthatsupportinclusionarycitizenship.

3.7 Participatory citizenship Declining confidence in the legitimacy of governmentsand other institutions in advanced economies has led torenewed interest in participatory governance methodsthatsupportactivecitizenship.Activecitizenshippracticesrequire engaged citizens, and there is a body of workthat explores what this means in theory and practice.Organisations such as the EU, theWorld Bank and localgrass-roots movements have revived traditional methodsand are pioneering new approaches to participatorygovernance arrangements to broaden opportunities for

39

inclusive citizenship (Swyngedouw 2005). There arevarious conceptual frameworks for these methods, themost widely used in Australia being the Spectrum ofPublicParticipation. This is a five-levelhierarchyof typesofparticipation–inform;consult;involve;collaborate;andempower (IAP2 2007). The hierarchy involves increasinglevelsofdeliberation,whichdistinguisheselectoral(voter)democracyfromparticipatoryordeliberativedemocracy.Forthosewhoadvocatethelatter,deliberationistheessenceof democracy and citizenship. Deliberative democracy isbasedonanormativetheorythatclaimstobeamorejustway of dealingwith pluralism than aggregative or realistmodelsofdemocracy. Itpromotesapositionanchored inparticular concepts of accountability and discussion, incontrasttoliberalindividualistoreconomicunderstandingsof democracy (Chambers 2003). Deliberative democracyemphasises the responsibility of citizens to each other.‘Whenwedeliberateascitizens,’arguedMichaelSandel,‘whenweengageindemocraticargument,thewholepointof the activity is critically to reflect on our preferences,toquestion them, tochallenge them, toenlarge them, toimprovethem’(Sandel2009).

Deliberativetechniquesincludecitizens’juries,consensusfora, deliberative polls and surveys, world cafés, townhall meetings, Open Space Technology, local area fora,and appreciative enquiry (Hartz-Karp nd). Most of thesemethodsemploysometypeofrandomrecruitment,whichis intended to create deliberative ‘mini-publics’ or whatDahl called a ‘mini-demos’. Reflecting the universality ofcitizenship, theparticipantsarenotrepresentatives intheelectoral sense, but can be seen to be representative totheextentthat‘therangeofrelevantsocialcharacteristicsand initial points of view should be substantially presentin themini-public’ (Dryzek,Goodin&Tucker2009:3).Theessential aim of these processes is to give voice to thevox populiandavoidcapturebypoliticalelites (Grönlund,Bächtiger&Setälä2014).

Three areas of concern about these forms of ‘grass-roots’ participation are found in the literature. One isthat an emphasis on consensus and agreement assumesthat citizens will subsume their own interests for thecommon good, and this can lead to the marginalisationor suppression of differences and minority interests. It

40

ignorestheinevitabilityofconflictandtheimpossibilityofachieving rational and fully inclusive consensus (Mouffe2013;Healy2011;Machin2012;Young1996).

Asecondareaofconcernisthewaysinwhichcommunity-basedparticipatorymethodshavebeenco-optedbypublicandprivatesectororganisationsastechnologiesofpolicyimplementation. This is part of a profound restructuringof the nature of political democracy, promoting someforms of citizen participation while discouraging others.For example, parliaments in three Australian states haverecentlyproposedorenactedlawstomakemanyactivitiesofstreetprotestsillegal(Milman2014;Ogilivie2013;SBS2013). It has contributed to what is seen as a growingdemocratic deficit and resistance to citizens becominginvolvedinpolicy-making(Chaskin,Khare&Joseph2012;Kettl2013;Swyngedouw2005).

The third area of concern is found more in publiccommentary than scholarly research literature. It is thatparticipatory democracy is expensive, time-consumingand cumbersome, and that the burden of thesemethodssubstantially hinders the business of government andundermines freedom (Fuller 2013; Orszag 2011; TheEconomist2009).Thesecritiquesforceustoconsiderthepotentialvalueandcostsofparticipatorydemocracy.

Set against these issues are ambitious and aspirationalnotionsof the importanceof ‘participatoryparity’.This istheideathatalladultmembersofsocietyshouldbeabletointeractwithothersaspeers(citedinLister2007).Itraisesquestionsofhowthisbeachieved,acrossdifferentsetsofpersonalandsocialcircumstances.

3.8 Summary Thissectionhasdiscussedkeysitesofstruggleforsocialand cultural citizenship. Struggles for social citizenshipemergedinthewakeofunderstandingthatsocioeconomicinequalitieshavedistortingeffectsonpoliticalcitizenship.The mechanisms of achieving social citizenship arecloselyboundtotheredistributorymechanismsofwelfarestates. Social citizenship has been facilitated by welfare

41

states which, in turn, are undergirded by perceptions orexperiencesofsocialcohesion.Pluralistconceptsofsocialcitizenship are asserting the right to be different whichis reworking the conditions of social cohesion in diversesocieties. Thispresentsnewquestionsofhow to respectdifferenceandrecognisecommonalitiesthatarebasisforemergingformsofsocialcohesionindiversesocieties.

42

4 Thesignificanceofcitizenshipforresearch andadvocacy

Citizenshipisnotamagicingredientthatassuresequality.Narrowidealsofcitizenshiptendtolegitimiseinequalitiesratherthanreducethem.Further,inequalitiescontributetodifferingcapacitiestodefinewhatcountsasbeingacitizenandparticularly,a ‘good’citizen.Conceptsofcitizenship,however, offer good heuristic potential to analysecontemporary processes generating social inequalities,canbeusedtoguidepoliticalstrugglesandpursuesocialjusticeagendas.Pluralisticaccountsofsocialandculturalcitizenship have been important in promoting inclusivecitizenshipindiversesocietiessuchasAustralia.

The concepts of citizenships explored in this scopingreport can be readily combined with other conceptualframeworks, includingthose informingotherMSEI themeareas,forincreasedanalyticpower.WithintheCitizenshipandDiversitythemearea,andinhybridanalysesandwiderMSEIactivities,itsextraordinaryconceptualbreadthofferspotentialto:

• Spotlight struggles to enjoy civil and political rights,issuesthatarere-emerginginnationssuchasAustraliawherethereisgrowingfragmentationanddifferentiationofcitizenshiprightsamongsocialgroups.

• Analyse issues of citizenship arising from involuntaryand unplanned migration. This is urgent in Australia,which has outpaced many other western nations inthe aggressiveness of themeasures it has adopted topreventrefugeesfrombeingabletoseekasylumwithinAustralia.

• Analyseissuesarisingfrominvoluntaryandunplannedmigration at international, national, regional and locallevels.

43

• Analyse contemporary circumstances and processesthat are eroding the grounds of political, social andculturalcitizenship.Thisincludestheimplicationsofthecontractingofthewelfarestateinmany(postindustrial)nations.

• Analysethe implicationsof limitedredistributive (stateor civil society) mechanisms in ensuring expandednotionsofcitizenshipinother(industrialising)nations.

• Consider issues of cultural citizenship and theimplications of symbolic representation and stigmafor social and cultural groups that are experiencingdisadvantageandmarginalisation.

• Inform efforts to reformulate and promote socialcohesioninmulticulturalanddiversesocieties.

• Explore the implications for concepts of citizenship inthewake of the changing, if not contracting, roles ofthestate.

• Exploring the impacts of participatory processesand methods for supporting transformatory andemancipatory struggles for social change and socialinequality.

Thislistisnotintendedtobeexhaustiveandtherearemanyotherpotential andemergingapplicationsof the conceptof citizenship to analyse contemporary issues of socialinequality.Wetrustthattheideasexploredinthisscopingreportassistresearchersandotherstorecogniseandapplyits conceptual possibilities to research that addressespressingissues,istheoreticalrobustandmethodologicallyrigorousandorientatedtosocialjusticeobjectives.

44

5 References

Agier,M2011, Managing the Undesirables, Polity,CambridgeUK.

AHRC 2013, Constitutional reform: FAQs - Why reform of the Constitution is needed, AustralianHumanRightsCommission,viewed 18th August 2013 http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/constitutional-reform-faqs-why-reform-constitution-needed-reform1.

Arendt,H1958, The origins of totalitarianism, 2nd edn., MeridianBooks,TheWorldPublishingCompany,Cleveland&NewYork.

AustralianGovernmentn.d., Social Inclusion Principles for Australia.

Beasley,C&Bacchi,C2000,‘CitizenBodies:embodyingcitizens–a feminist analysis’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.2,no.3,pp.337-358.

Beckett,A2006, Citizenship and Vulnerability, PalgraveMacmillan,Basingstoke.

Behrendt, L 2001, Indigenous Self-Determination in the Age of Globalisation, MonashUniverstiy Castan Centre for HumanRightsLaw,Melbourne.

Blackburn, C 2009, ‘Differentiating indigenous citizenship:Seeking multiplicity in rights, identity, and sovereignty inCanada’,American Ethnologist, vol.36,no.1,pp.66-78.

Brett,J2001,‘RetrievingthePartisanHistoryofAustralianCitizenship’,Australian Journal of Political Science, vol.36,no.3,p.423.

Chambers, S 2003, ‘Deliberative Democratic Theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol.6,no.1,pp.307-326.

Chaskin, R, Khare, A & Joseph, M 2012, ‘Participation,Deliberation,andDecisionMaking:TheDynamicsofInclusionandExclusion inMixed-IncomeDevelopments’,Urban Affairs Review, vol.48,no.6,November1,2012,pp.863-906.

45

Daly, M & Silver, H 2008, ‘Social exclusion and social capital: Acomparisonandcritique’, Theory & Society, vol.37,no.6,pp.537-566.

Delhey,J&Newton,K2005,‘PredictingCross-NationalLevelsof Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?’, European Sociological Review,vol.21,no.4,pp.311-327.

Dobson,A 2007, ‘Environmental citizenship: towards sustainabledevelopment’,Sustainable Development, vol.15,no.5,pp.276-285.

Dodson,M1996,‘FirstFleetsandCitizenships’,inDavies,SR(ed.) Citizenship in Australia: Democracy, Law and Society, ConstitutionalCentenaryFoundation,Carlton,Victoria,pp.191-223.

Dryzek, JS, Goodin, RE & Tucker, A 2009, ‘Promethean ElitesEncounterPrecautionaryPublics:TheCaseofGMFoods’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol.34,no.3,pp.263-288.

Fiske,J-A,Belanger,YD&Gregory,D2010,‘OutsidersinTheirHomeland:DiscursiveConstructionofAboriginalWomenandCitizenship’, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol.34,no.3,pp.71-92.

Fraser,N&Honneth,A2003, Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange, Verso,London&NewYork.

Freeman, GP 1986, ‘Migration and the Political Economy oftheWelfareState’,The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,vol.485,May1986,p.51.

Fuller,T2013,‘InThailand,StandingUpforLessDemocracy’, The New York Times,December16th,

Gabrielson,T2008, ‘Greencitizenship:a reviewandcritique’, Citizenship Studies, vol.12,no.4,pp.429-446.

Gabrielson,T&Parady,K2010,‘Corporealcitizenship:rethinkinggreencitizenshipthroughthebody’, Environmental Politics, vol.19,no.3,pp.374-391.

Gatrell, P 2013, The Making of the Modern Refugee, OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.

Gilligan,C1995,‘Hearingthedifference:Theorizingconnection’,Hypatia,vol.10,no.2,Spring95,p.120.

46

Guldvic,I&Lesjø,JH2014,Disability,socialgroups,andpoliticalcitizenship,Disability & Society, vol.29,no.4,pp.516-529.

Harris,J2002,‘CaringforCitizenship’,British Journal of Social Work,vol.32,pp.267-282.

Hartz-Karp,Jnd, Deliberative Democracy: Techniques to Create Opportunities for Joint Deliberative Decision-Making, 21st CenturyDialogue.

Healy, P 2011, ‘Rethinking deliberative democracy: Fromdeliberativediscoursetotransformativedialogue’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, vol.37,no.3,March1,2011,pp.295-311.

Hermes,K&Poulsen,M2013, ‘The intraurbangeographyofgeneralisedtrustinSydney’, Environment & Planning A, vol.45,no.2,pp.276-294.

Herreros,F&Criado,H2009,‘SocialTrust,SocialCapitalandPerceptionsofImmigration’, Political Studies, vol.57,no.2,pp.337-355.

Heuser,S2008,‘IsThereaRighttoHaveRights?TheCaseoftheRightofAsylum’,Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, vol.11,no.1,pp.3-13.hlh,EBSCOhost,

Hobson,K2013,‘Onthemakingoftheenvironmentalcitizen’, Environmental Politics,vol.22,no.1,pp.56-72.

Hua,A2011,‘HomingDesire,CulturalCitizenship,andDiasporicImaginings’, Journal of International Women’s Studies, vol.12,no.4,pp.45-56.

Hudson, W & Kane, J (eds.) 2000, Rethinking Australian Citizenship, CambridgeUniversityPress,CambridgeUK.

Hurrell,A&Woods,N1995,‘GlobalizationandInequality’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, vol.24,no.3,pp.447-470.

IAP22007, IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, InternationalAssociationforPublicParticipation.

Ingram, JD 2008, ‘What Is a “Right to Have Rights”? ThreeImages of the Politics of Human Rights’, American Political Science Review, vol.102,no.4,pp.401-416.

47

Isin,EF&Turner,BS2002a,‘CitizenshipStudies:AnIntroduction’,inIsin,EFandTurner,BS(eds.), Handbook of Citizenship Studies, SAGEPublications,London,ThousandOaks,NewDelhi,pp.1-10.

Isin, EF & Turner, BS (eds.) 2002b, Handbook of Citizenship Studies, SAGEPublications,London,ThousandOaks,NewDelhi.

Jones,O2011, Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, Verson,London

Joppke, C 2010, Citizenship and Immigration, Polity Press,Cambridge,UK.

Jordan, B 1989, The Common Good: Citizenship, morality and self-interest, Oxford;NewYork:Blackwell.

Kennedy,EH2011, ‘Rethinkingecologicalcitizenship: theroleofneighbourhoodnetworksinculturalchange’, Environmental Politics, vol.20,no.6,pp.843-860.

Kershaw,P2010,‘The“Private”PoliticsinCaregiving:ReflectionsonRuth Lister’s Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives’, Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol.38,no.1/2,pp.302-311.

Kesby,A2012,The Right to have Rights as Citizenship, OxfordUniversityPress.

Kesler,C&Bloemraad,I2010,‘DoesImmigrationErodeSocialCapital? The Conditional Effects of Immigration-GeneratedDiversity on Trust, Membership, and Participation across 19Countries, 1981–2000’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol.42,no.2,pp.319-347.

Kettl, D 2013, ‘Beyond New Public Management: Willgovernments let citizens and communities determine policychoicesandservicemixes?’, inLindquist,EA,Vincent,SandWanna,J(eds.), Putting citizens first: engagement in policy and service delivery for the 21st century, ANU E Press,Canberra,pp.39-48.

Knijn,T&Kremer,M1997,‘GenderandtheCaringDimensionofWelfareStates:TowardInclusiveCitizenship’, Social Politics, vol.4,no.3,pp.328-361.

Kostakopoulou,T2009,‘CitizenshipGoesPublic:TheInstitutional

48

DesignofAnationalCitizenship’,Journal of Political Philosophy, vol.17,no.3,pp.275-306.

Kymlicka, W & Norman, W 2000, ‘Citizenship in CulturallyDiverseSocieties:Issues,Contexts,Concepts‘,inKymlicka,WandNorman,W (eds.), Citizenship in diverse societies, OxfordScholarshipOnline,Oxford.

Latta, A 2007, ‘Locating democratic politics in ecologicalcitizenship’,Environmental Politics, vol.16,no.3,pp.377-393.

Latta, A & Wittman, H 2010, ‘Environment and Citizenshipin Latin America: A New Paradigm for Theory and Practice’,European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies,no. 89,pp.107-116.

Lister, M 2008, Theories of citizenship: feminism and multiculturalism, EdinburghUniversityPress.

Lister, R 2007, ‘Inclusive Citizenship: Realizing the Potential’, Citizenship Studies, vol.11,no.1,pp.49-61.

Lynch,K2010,‘Carelessness:AHiddenDoxaofHigherEducation’,Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, vol.9,no.1,pp.54-67.

Lynch, K, Lyons, M & Cantillon, S 2007, ‘Breaking silence:educating citizens for love, care and solidarity’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, vol.17,no.1-2,2007/06/01,pp.1-19.viewed2013/03/12.

Machin,A 2012, ‘Decisions, disagreement and responsibility:towardsanagonisticgreencitizenship’, Environmental Politics, vol.21,no.6,pp.847-863.

Marks,K2013,‘HowtheWestieswon’,inSchultz,J(ed.)Griffith Review 41: Now We Are Ten, GriffithUniversity,Brisbane.

Marshall, TH [1950] 2009, ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, inManza, J andSauder,M (eds.), Inequality and Society, W. W. NortonandCo.,NewYork.

Mason,A2012,Living Together as Equals: The Demands of Citizenship, OxfordUniversityPress.

49

Mercer,D2003, ‘’Citizenminus’?: indigenousAustraliansandthecitizenshipquestion’, Citizenship Studies, vol.7,no.4,p.421.

Milman,O2014,‘Victoriapolicepowerstoremoveprotesters‘arisktofreespeech’’, The Guardian, Tuesday21January2014,GuardianNewsandMediaLimited,

Mouffe,C2005, On the Political,Routledge,London&NewYork.

Morris,J2005,Citizenshipanddisabledpeople,DisabilityRightsCommission.

Murphy,D2008,‘Recordpayoutforrefugeewhosewedlips’,The Sydney Morning Herald, January12th,2008,FairfaxMedia,

Murphy, J 2009, Imagining the Fifties: Private Sentiment and Political Culture in Menzies’ Australia, UniversityofNewSouthWalesPress,Sydney,Australia.

Nicholls,D2011,The Bogan Delusion, AffirmPress,Mulgrave.

Nussbaum,M2003,‘CapabilitiesasFundamentalEntitlements:SenandSocialJustice’, Feminist Economics, vol.9,no.2,pp.33-59.

Oglivie, F 2013, ‘Tas Opposition reveals plan for tougherillegalforestrypenalities’,PM, Monday December 9th 2013, AustralianBroadcastingCorporation,

Orszag, P 2011, ‘TooMuch of a Good Thing’, New Republic, September14th2011

Pakulski,J1997,‘Culturalcitizenship’,Citizenship Studies, vol.1,no.1,1997/02/01,pp.73-86.viewed2013/02/05.

Pettersson,J2011,‘Rethinkingpoliticalsubjectification:equalitybeyondacommunityofsameness’,Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, vol.12,no.3,pp.255-269.

Pevnick, R 2009, ‘Social Trust and the Ethics of ImmigrationPolicy’,Journal of Political Philosophy, vol.17,no.2,pp.146-167.

Pfister, T 2012, ‘Citizenship and capability? Amartya Sen’scapabilitiesapproachfromacitizenshipperspective’,Citizenship Studies, vol.16,no.2,pp.241-254.

50

Phillipson,C1994,‘Communitycareandthesocialconstructionofcitizenship’, Journal of Social Work Practice,vol.8,no.2,1994/07/01,pp.103-112.viewed2013/03/05.

Prokhovnik,R1998,‘PublicandPrivateCitizenship:FromGenderInvisibilitytoFeministInclusiveness’, Feminist Review,no.60,pp.84-104.

Salmon,A2011, ‘Aboriginalmothering,FASDpreventionandthe contestations of neoliberal citizenship’, Critical Public Health, vol.21,no.2,pp.165-178.

Sandel,M 2009,A New Citizenship - Lecture 4, The ReithLectures, first broadcast 4th June 2009, British BroadcastingCorporation,London.

SBS2013,‘QueenslandenactsG20lawchanges’, SBS News, 30thOctober2013,SpecialBroadcastingService,viewed22ndJanuary2014.

Seipp, A 2013, Strangers in the Wid Place: Refugees, Americans and a German Town, 1945-52, IndianaUniversityPress,BloomingdaleandIndianapolis.

Stevenson, N 2003, Cultural Citizenship. Cosmopolitan Questions, Issuesinculturalandmediastudies,OpenUniversityPress,Maidenhead.

Swyngedouw,E2005,‘Governanceinnovationandthecitizen:The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state’, Urban Studies, vol.42,no.11,pp.1991-2006.

Taylor-Gooby, P 2008, Reframing Social Citizenship, OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.

The Economist 2009, ‘When toomuch democracy threatensfreedom’, The Economist,December17th,

UNHCR2012,Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: Covering the period 1 January 2011–30 June 2012, UnitedNations,NewYork.

Warr,D2005‘Socialnetworksina“discredited”neighbourhood’, Journal of Sociology, vol.41,no.3,pp.285-308.

Whelan, J 2012, Big Society and Australia: How the UK Government is dismantling the state and what it means for Australia, CentreforPolicyDevelopment,Sydney.

Wittman,H2009,‘Reframingagrariancitizenship:Land,lifeandpower inBrazil’,Journal of Rural Studies, vol.25,no.1,pp.120-130.

Young, IM 1996, ‘Communication and the Other: BeyondDeliberative Democracy’, in Benhabib, S (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,pp.120-135.

Arendt,H1958, The origins of totalitarianism, 2nd edn., MeridianBooks,TheWorldPublishingCompany,Cleveland&NewYork.

Grönlund,K,Bächtiger,A&Setälä,M2014,Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, ECPRPress,WivenhoePark,UK.

Isin,EF&Turner,BS(eds.)2002,Handbook of Citizenship Studies, SAGEPublications,London,ThousandOaks,NewDelhi.

Joppke, C 2010, Citizenship and Immigration, Polity Press,Cambridge,UK.

Judt,T2008,Reappraisals,Penguin,NewYork.

Kleingeld,P&Brown,E2014,‘Cosmopolitanism’,inZalta,EN(ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/cosmopolitanism.

Kymlicka, W & Norman, W 2000, ‘Citizenship in CulturallyDiverseSocieties:Issues,Contexts,Concepts‘,inKymlicka,WandNorman,W(eds.),Citizenship in diverse societies, OxfordScholarshipOnline,Oxford.

Mendieta,E2013,‘BeyondEpistemicInjustice,TowardEpistemicOutrage: On Saskia Sassen’s Analytical Destabilizations’, The Pluralist,no.3,p.96.

Mouffe, C 2013, Agonistic Politics: Thinking the World Politically, Verso,London&NewYork.

Mustapha,J2013,‘TheMujahideeninBosnia:theforeignfighter

52

as cosmopolitan citizen and/or terrorist’, Citizenship Studies, vol.17,no.6-7,pp.742-755.

Pakulski,J1997,‘Culturalcitizenship’, Citizenship Studies, vol.1,no.1,1997/02/01,pp.73-86.viewed2013/02/05.

Strand, T 2010, ‘The Making of a New Cosmopolitanism’,Studies in Philosophy & Education, vol.29,no.2,pp.229-242.

von Bogdandy, A & Venzke, I 2012, ‘In Whose Name? AnInvestigation of International Courts’ Public Authority and ItsDemocratic Justification’,European Journal of International Law, vol.23,no.1,pp.7-41.

Wilkinson,R&Pickett,K2009,The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better,AllenLane,London.

53

Photo credits

FrontcovercourtesyDeathtotheStockPhoto.Publicdomain.

Page26,‘always was and always will be’,ClareSnow,2007.CCBY-NC-SA2.0.

Page32,‘Celebrating World Down Syndrome Day at Fed Square’,ConorO’Keefe,2015.

Allotherphotostakenbytheauthor,DeborahWarr,andusedwithpermission.