Abstract
Contemporary citizenship and cosmopolitan scholars frequently understand human rights as an extension, or a supersession, of nationally based citizenship rights. López argues that while this makes sense in a normative register, the equation of human rights and post-national citizenship rights is more difficult to sustain when human rights are understood as a historically embedded and social-relational political imaginary. The chapter engages in a sympathetic critique of key scholars in the field, namely Alison Brysk and Gershon Shafir, Yasemin Soysal, Linda Bosniak, Saskia Sassen, Seyla Benhabib, David Held, and Ulrich Beck. López concludes that what makes the claims of the aforementioned scholars difficult to sustain is the politically problematic figure of the victimized distant and/or excluded other that plays a key role in the human rights political imaginary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
One might equally be tempted to argue that the concept of citizenship has been a central concept of sociological analysis, at the very least since its classic formulation by T. H. Marshall (1950). Ho wever, as Margaret Somers has observed, “history shows us that citizenship has been only an occasional concern to social analysis, with the strange habit of being discovered, forgotten, and rediscovered yet again” (2008, 148).
- 2.
- 3.
Strictly speaking, linguists use the distinction between endocentric and exocentric to classify different types of noun compounds (Benczes 2006, 183), though there is not always agreement on the characteristics that distinguish between the two; see, for instance, Bauer (2008). In c ontemporary English language use, human and citizenship rights would be largely understood as exemplars of endocentric compounds. My suggestion that they might be read as exocentric compounds should be understood as a sociological heuristic, whose utility I hope is demonstrated in the analysis that follows, rather than an instance of linguistic analysis.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
This is a position that Alison Brysk has reasserted in her recent work (2013, 17).
- 7.
The existence of such stylization in citation is not itself a problem. It merely serves as shorthand, identifying issues around which there is a significant consensus in a field or largely known and/or undisputed facts. This said, it is incumbent on sociologists to critically open these black boxes when these are used to make broad, sweeping, and consequential empirical and conceptual claims, such as the supersession of national by postnational citizenship.
- 8.
Guestworkers were conceived, in the postwar period, as a category of foreign workers that could be attracted in the context of labour shortfalls and expediently made to return to their countries of origin when the demand for their labour ceased. In reality, despite rising unemployment guestworkers became established as communities of “foreigners”, in host countries. Lacking formal citizenship, they were nonetheless able to access the rights and advantages traditionally only granted to citizens, as a result providing glimpses of the emergence of a new postnational mode of membership (Soysal 1994, 5).
- 9.
The data for her analysis was collected from documentary research and on-site interviews with individuals from “relevant ministries, municipalities, and other administrative agencies, representatives of pertinent welfare organizations, trade unions, and the leaders of migrant associations”, as well as from participation in the cultural activities of Turkish migrant associations (Soysal 1994, 11).
- 10.
Soysal ’s analysis only explores the organization and crystallization of the incorporation policy and does not deal with implementation, practice, or actual outcomes (Soysal 1994, 10).
- 11.
A number of earlier reviewers made just this point. For instance, “Soysal supports her argument with correlational reasoning . On the one hand, she notes that normative ideas about citizenship and rights have changed in the post war. On the other hand, she observes that during the same period European states extended more expansive rights to citizens and noncitizens alike and guestworkers organized to demand rights they were denied. While this correlation appears robust, it remains inconclusive, in large part because she does not chart out the causal mechanism(s) by which these changes have taken place” (Yashar 2002, 368). Another noted that Soysal ’s conclusion that universal discourses of personhood explain the extension of rights to non-citizens “was not warranted by the evidence provided by her analysis” (Klopp 1995, 780), while a third suggested, “it is hard to avoid the impression that Soysal presses her case too far and projects the legal privileges of immigrants beyond a more modest social reality” (Alba 1995, 328). More recently Hansen has noted “though it is undeniable that legal residents in Europe enjoy a greater degree of security than previously, the sources of the security are domestic, not transnational. Socio-economic rights do not derive from the discourse of universal personhood or from international norms, but rather from the institutions of the liberal democratic state, above all the courts, which articulated, through a series of decisions, the rights of residents on the basis of national constitutions” (2003, 103).
- 12.
The optimism and utopianism of her analysis are also highlighted by a number of reviewers, for instan ce, Martiniello (1997, 640), Hintjens (1995, 887), and Lazaridis (1995, 574). Ind eed one might ask to what extent the success of Soysal ’s least substantiated part of her analysis, her human rights-powered postnational membership thesis, was not in part the product of the “millenarian optimism” of the close of the twentieth century: “Nuclear war had been avoided (although the arsenal remained), and the prospects for being internationally minded had radically altered. A new Europe without borders was accompanied by the prophesy of the ‘end of history’, that is, the resolution of the story of the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism. The promise of new era of permanent, possibly boring peace was in the air. Social scientists invented a new vocabulary to match the more optimistic mode. This time ‘postinternationalism ’ was to reflect the reality in which ‘more and more of the interactions that sustain world politics unfold without the direct involvement of nation and states’” (Sluga 2013, 140–41).
- 13.
As Peter Spiro has argued, “The 1996 act rendered even permanent resident aliens ineligible for a variety of federal benefits. Aliens were barred from Medicare and Medicaid unless their state of residence opted for eligibility; with certain minor exceptions, they were counted out of the SSI and food stamp programmes altogether. In the wake of the 1996 act, there were widely voiced fears that citizenship was making a comeback as a tool of deprivation and exclusion. Indeed, the exclusions were sobering and, at least in modern times, without precedent; coupled with intense anti-immigrant sentiments in the mid-1990s, the resident alien ineligibility was understandably perceived as another stage in the circling of the wagons” (2008, 89). Spiro goes on to argue that the worst-case scenario was avoided for many resident aliens, as they were able to access state benefits instead, not so for undocumented aliens deprived of both state- and federal-level safety nets (2008, 90).
- 14.
This statement of course glosses over the significant variation that can be identified at the empirical level (Messina 2007).
- 15.
For readers not familiar with the trajectory of Western European migration in the postwar era, the significance of the liberalization of access to citizenship in some European countries might require some contextualization. Here I briefly draw on Anthony Messina ’s extremely lucid analysis, where he identifies three overlapping waves of immigration in Western Europe, which correspond to labour migration (1945–1979), family reunification (1973–present), and irregular/forced immigration (1989–present) (Messina 2007, 19). The first wave refers to the movement of surplus labourers from less developed countries in the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, and subsequently from specific areas in the third world recruited for, or drawn to, the remarkable economic expansion in postwar Europe (2007, 20). These “immigrants” were generally well received, in part because it was believed that they were only temporary workers, thus not raising any concerns with respect to their long-term integration nor requiring citizenship of the host country as they were expected to return to their country of origin (2007, 53).
In the 1970s as a result of deteriorating economic conditions, active recruitment of foreign workers came to an end and voluntary repatriation schemes were developed (Messina 2007, 25). These schemes were far from successful, in part because foreign workers had established an important beachhead in the advanced industrial economies of Western Europe (2007, 29–30), but also because many of the foreign workers, and their families, did not want to forego access to high-calibre education and social services or their integration in “extensive social networks in host countries” (2007, 34).
What is more, in some cases, Germany , for instance, “as trends toward longer-term residence emerged, belated attempts […] to curtail its growing migrant population only ‘reinforced the process of settlement, sharply limiting back-and-forth migration and prompting a surge of immigration of family members’” (Banerjee 2014, 19). Other countries “reluctantly tolerated high levels of secondary immigration [i.e., family reunification] […] in order to facilitate the social integration of long-settled foreign workers in the host society” (Messina 2007, 38). These processes created the conditions for the acceleration of the second wave of family reunification immigration (2007, 36) and more generally led to the large populations of long-established non-citizen residents in Western Europe, which for Soysal signalled the frontline of postnational membership.
However, rather than seeing in this a harbinger of a new exogenously imposed form of postnational membership, it is equally, or perhaps more, plausible to conceptualize as states pursuing “a strategic alternative to inclusion in national citizenship (creating a type of demicitizenship)” (Goodman 2012, 671 emphasis added). Be this as it may, opening access to citizenship to non-citizen residents in an attempt to integrate them highlights the value of national citizenship, vis-à-vis settlement, in countries where naturalization had not been a key policy tool for immigrant integration (Mollenkopf and Hochschild 2010). Moreover insofar as this opening up of citizenship has entailed a “bevy of formal instruments to measure an applicant’s integration, including knowledge tests, language and civic-orientations courses, modules for role-playing society interaction, and naturalization ceremonies” (Goodman 2012, 660), these policies can tenably be read, as Sara Goodman convincingly argues, as processes that fortify rather than undermine national citizenship (2012).
The third wave, composed of “legitimate and illegitimate refugees and asylum seekers and illegal alien workers” (Messina 2007, 39), gained momentum as states attempted to curb the immigration via the channels that had made possible the two previous waves (2007, 40). Nonetheless, economic demand for the labour of undocumented migrants has remained strong (2007, 40), as indicated by the fact that the majority are employed (Chimienti and Solomos 2011, 347). Despite important variations, “undocumented immigrants have very few rights at all, although they may have access to fundamental services such as health care and schooling for their children” (Koopmans et al. 2012, 1209). The rights that they do have depend less on “personhood ” than on the intersection of the welfare and citizenship regimes of the individual national states (Sainsbury 2006). Indeed, in some cases, “personhood ” provides little protection against “rightlessness” as evidenced by the increased prominence of detention, and in some cases deportation (Gündoğdu 2015, 125), as well as attempts to enforce internal movement controls through new forms of digital surveillance (Broeders 2007), denying noncitizens the foundational European citizenship right of “free movement” (Joppke 2010b, 19). It is perhaps for this reason that these undocumented immigrants are marginal to Soysal ’s analysis (Schuster and Solomos 2002, 40).
- 16.
Given the contributory nature of the postwar welfare state , the second-class nature, and in some cases the punitive framing of non-contributory benefits, it is surprising that Soysal characterizes the postwar welfare state s as being based on “passive benefits”!
- 17.
By repertoire, I have in mind Ann Swidler ’s notion of a “‘tool kit’ of habits, skills from which people construct ‘strategies of action’” (1986, 273).
- 18.
Even in this context there is fair degree of precariousness as Schmidtke argues “newcomers often face various forms of exclusion from the labour market and end up working in jobs for which they are overqualified” (2012, 33).
- 19.
To my mind, her account of the significance of human rights in the transformation of citizenship remains what Robert Merton characterized as a “post factum sociological interpretation” (1967, 147).
- 20.
Also known as the world polity, or world society school, world culture theory grows out of the work of the Stanford institutionalist sociologist John W. Meyer . Rooted in a creative neo-institutionalist reading of organizational life, rationalized formal structures are understood as myths that are taken up ceremoniously rather than arising from their efficacy or rationality (Meyer and Rowan 1977).
The framework was subsequently expanded to understand how world “models of legitimate action” (myths in the earlier framework) could explain what he and his colleagues saw as the striking isomorphisms amongst nation-states in the postwar era—for example, educational structure, state apparatus, welfare and citizenship practices, and personhood (Meyer et al. 1997). Meyer and his colleagues were critical of the realist and neorealist models of IR, and the world systems theory of Immanuel Wallerstein , and remained unconvinced by microphenomenological analyse s focusing on national culture and interpretive systems. Consequently, they have argued for a macrophenomenological approach that sees “the national state as culturally constructed and embedded rather than as the analyzed rational actor depicted by realists”; understand that the “culture involved is substantially organized on a worldwide basis”; and “see such transnational forces at work throughout Western history, but […] argue that particular features and processes characteristic of world society since World War II have greatly enhanced the impact of world-institutional development on nation states” (Meyer et al. 1997, 147–48).
The cultural model or script is not expressive; it is cognitive and instrumental. “Agency ” is defined as the “legitimate representation of some legitimated principle” rather than the mere pursuit of naked interests (Meyer and Jepperson 2000, 101). The “actorhood of individuals, organisations, and nation states” is understood as “an elaborate system of social agency that has a long and continuous and postreligious evolution” (Meyer and Jepperson 2000, 101, emphasis in original). Essentially, the idea is that the transcendental authority that once organized the normative regulation of societies (religious systems or gods) has been relocated; authority has been relocated from “from god to church, from church to state, from church and state to individuals souls and later citizens” (Meyer and Jepperson 2000, 101).
This cultural devolution , from the religious to the social and to the individual, is underwritten by a commitment to science, rationality, and the search for law-like regularities and commonalities in representations of nature and society (Meyer and Jepperson 2000, 103; Drori et al. 2003). Facilitated by the development of the rationalized professions (Strang and Meyer 1993), education (Schofer and Meyer 2005), rationalized organizations (Boli and Thomas 1999), and the diffusion of isomorphic state identities (Meyer et al. 1997), “modern culture creates an agentic individual managing goals thought to reside in personality or life course … a sovereign state managing goals of a national society. And an organizational structure managing its legitimated interests” (Meyer and Jepperson 2000, 106). In this sense, human rights represents an instantiation of the universalizing and standardizing cultural script underwriting the agency of the modern individual, germinating in the idea of modern citizenship and blossoming in the context of globalization (Meyer 2009). It is for this reason that Soysal understands citizen and human rights as essentially the same thing.
The conceptual and empirical innovations of Meyer and the World Society School are considerable and impressive by any standard. Their contributions to our thinking about world cultural systems, and the diffusion of global ideas and practices, are significant, and their account of standardization and global isomorphism is noteworthy. This said, their conception of modernity is, to my mind, excessively Hegelian, both in its teleological tenor and its idealism. It fails to capture the historical contingency of social life and the plurality of modernisms, internationalisms, rationalisms, and individualisms that have been and still remain possible. Regarding human rights, they have little to say, except that it is the legal and normative expression of their quasi-religious notion of actorhood.
- 21.
In this context it is worth commenting on a recent conversion to the postnationalist citizenship thesis by an erstwhile vocal critic. Christian Joppke has written, “European citizenship is postnational citizenship in its most elaborate form, belatedly vindicating Yasemin Soysal ’s earlier claim in this respect” (2010b, 21–22). However, he claims that “what past critics of an underwhelming EU citizenship could not know, and what current critics overlook is the activism by the European Court of Justice that has transformed EU citizenship from a derivative status into a free-standing source of rights” (2010b, 22). However, his account of what has made European citizenship postnational—that is, an activist court—cannot be a vindication of Soysal ’s position, for whom postnational membership arose from the postwar institutionalization of human rights. What is more, the European Court of Justice did not reference European Human Rights Court case law until 1996 (Douglas-Scott 2006, 660), two years after Soysal had published her book. More generally, Kiran Banerjee argues there is no reason to think that this means that third-country nationals—that is, residents in the EU without the nationality of an EU country—will be extended the rights and benefits of EU citizenship (2014, 22).
- 22.
One might add that the contemporary situation, where important divisions are emerging within the EU, and new ascensions are hardly on the horizon (Barber 2017), has proven Bosniak right.
- 23.
Bosniak’s (2006) study of alie nage is a thoughtful exploration of why this might be the case.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
For an interesting philosophical rebuttal of the notion that global solidarity is not possible because “identity” req uires an “Other”, see Abizadeh (2005).
- 27.
Bosniak does caution however that “talking about the ‘feeling of citizenship’ in ways that extend it beyond the parameters of the nation-state or other formal political community runs the risk of producing a concept of citizenship that begins to mean very little since it can so readily mean so much” (2000, 487).
- 28.
One can think here about the mechanisms for the expansion of citizenship rights iden tified by Shafir and Brysk (2006) disc ussed above.
- 29.
What follows is obviously not a comprehensive engagement with cosmopolitanism , or even the beginnings of a sustained analysis of the manner in which human rights intersect with the field of cosmopolitan studies. Such an undertaking would require a volume of its own. There is a clear resonance between cosmopolitanism and human rights. As Garret Wallace Brown and David Held write in the introduction to their cosmopolitan reader, “[i]n its most basic form, cosmopolitanism maintains that there are moral obligations owed to all human beings based on our humanity alone, without reference to race, gender, nationality, ethnicity culture, religion, political affiliation, state citizenship, or other communal particularities” (2010, 1). This said, cosmopolitanism , whose philosophical and political pedigree extends to antiquity, represents a broader ethical, cultural, and political framework. A careful reading of contributions to two recent readers edited by key contributors to the field, Brown and H eld (2010) and Delanty (2012), sh ows that though human rights are not absent from the field, they are frequently superseded and overshadowed by more expansive notions such as cosmopolitan law, world citizenship, and cultural cosmopolitanism . Consequently, human rights are less scrutinized within the cosmopolitan framework than one would think. In a word, as in much of the literature discussed in this book, they are taken for granted. They constitute a pret-à-penser. Here I attempt to provide a sample of some of the key positions most relevant to sociologists. These include a much cited contributor who proposes a close link between human rights and cosmopolitanism, adopting a normative appro ach, Seyla Benhabib (2013a); another, David Held who builds on human rights to propose a broader cosmopolitan normative and institutional architecture (2004, 2009, 2010); a sociologist, Ulrich Beck , for whom cosmopolitanism requires a reconsideration of the nature of sociological inquiry (2006); and a sociological overview of cosmopolitanism provided by Kendall , Woodward , and Skrbis (2009). W hat I want to suggest in this section is that it is not productive to conflate cosmopolitanism and human rights, as does, for inst ance, Kurasawa (2007, 157).
- 30.
Specifically, Benhabib objects to the fact that “no distinction is made in her [Nussbaum’s] account between rights as ‘moral principles’ and rights as ‘legal entitlements’ on the one hand, and ‘the principle of rights’ and ‘the schedule of rights’ on the other … Moral rights do not dictate the specific content of legal entitlements” (Benhabib 2013a, 79).
- 31.
Discourse ethics links together the i dea of democratic legitimacy with practical rationality and deliberation: “The basic idea behind this model is that only those norms, i.e., general rules of action and institutional arrangements, can be said to be valid which would be agreed to by all those affected by their consequences; if such agreement were reached as a consequence of a process of deliberation which had the following features: a. participation in such deliberation is governed by the norms of equality and symmetry; all have the same chances to initiate speech acts, to question, to interrogate, and to open debate; b. all have the right to question the assigned topics of conversation; c. all have the right to initiate reflexive arguments about the very rules of the discourse procedure and the way in which they are applied or carried out” (Benhabib 1994, 31). Despite important overlaps, Benhabib distinguishes her own approach from Habermas ’ whom she criticizes for narrowing the scope of procedural discourse ethics to justice in the public realm, that is, politics and the economy, to the exclusion of questions of the “good life” that are located in the domain of the private sphere (Benhabib 1992, 109). Benhabib claims that “if universalism is interpreted procedurally, as it must be, then such a procedure can be applied to test the validity of moral judgments, principles and maxims even in situations which according to Habermas ’ and Kohlberg ’s definitions of them, appear to be concerned with ‘evaluative questions of the good life’ rather than with ‘moral matters of justice.’ Questions of care are moral issues and can also be dealt with from within a universalist standpoint. Such a universalism supplies the constraints within which the morality of care must operate” (1992, 187). Benhabib ’s critique of Habermas has been widely accepted as authoritative by feminist scholars (Wright 2004, 48), though some commentators argue that, in reality, the ground separating Habermas and Benhabib is not as significant as appears at first blush (Cohen 1995; Wright 2004).
- 32.
As Dezalay and Garth show, commercial disputes have become “subject to a new lex mercatoria – or New York or English law serving as such a universal set of rules – implemented through a transnational private justice system – international commercial arbitration […] throughout the world there is a proliferation of US-style corporate law firms promoting their expertise in transnational rules and practices for global commerce. New law schools and newly reformed law schools in Asia and Latin America, in addition, have as a major part of their agenda the production of corporate lawyers conversant in these transnational rules and practices” (2012a, 3–4).
- 33.
- 34.
More optimistic, but qualified, readings can be fo und in Cole (2012), Simmons (2009), a nd Jo and Simmons (2016). E v en in these cases, Eric A. Posner argues, “Understood in the best possible light, these studies suggest that a small number of treaty provisions may have improved a small number of human rights outcomes in a small number of countries by a small, possibly trivial amount. They do not show that the [human right] treaties improved the overall well-being of people in those countries because it is unknown whether governments complied with treaty obligations by taking resources away from other projects that served the public interest or shifted resources from more visible to less visible means of repression. Realistically, one can have little confidence that the treaties have improved people’s lives” (2014, 78).
- 35.
In this sense, Nash ’s comparative analysis of the mobilization of human rights in the political and legal realms in the US and the UK is interesting (2009b). She shows that “human rights” when framed in terms of national issues, as the will of the demos, are more likely to receive traction. This holds despite human rights being significantly institutionalized in the UK as a result of its membership in the EU and as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights .
- 36.
In Held (2002), the e ighth principle, sustainability, is absent.
- 37.
Beck does not use the expression the “cosmopolitan condition”. I use it because his diagnosis of cosmopolitanism resonates with that developed by Jean-Francois Lyotard ’s The Postmodern Condition (1984), albeit in an entirely different register, insofar as it identifies an epochal change requiring a new epistemological understanding of reality, as well as a new mode of politics, a “new grammar of the social and the political” (Beck 2006, 33).
- 38.
Cosmopolitan empathy is not only extended to others in the present; it is equally projected backwards in the “politics of forgiveness” (Levy and Sznaider 2010, 102). As Levy and Sznaider argue, “Cosmopolitan forms of memory , newly emerging institutions of transnational jurisdiction, negotiations about restitution, and the political relevance of universal human rights are all constitutive elements of these developments” (2010, 102).
- 39.
Its existential dimension is signalled by the fact that even those who reject cosmopolitanism as a political or normative project have to operate on the terrain of the reality of cosmopolitanization . Beck illustrates this by contrasting the national-based terrorism of ETA and the deterritorialized terrorism of al-Qaeda (2006, 112–13).
- 40.
As Beck writes, “In world risk society – this is my thesis, at least – the question concerning the causes and agencies of global threats sparks new political conflicts, which in turn promote an institutional cosmopolitanism in struggles over definitions and jurisdictions” (2006, 23).
- 41.
Even here however, his emphasis is not primarily on their normative or political content but rather on the manner in which they are generative of new forms of tension and conflict: “The key insight is that the human rights regime has a profoundly double-edged impact. It not only makes possible new forms of conflict regulation beyond borders, but it also opens the door to ‘humanitarian interventions’ in other countries. Like an erupting volcano, it covers the earth with a red-hot lava of military conflicts. Because human rights must overcome national resistance, the promise of pacification and stability through human rights – Kant ’s ‘perpetual peace’ – can easily flip over into depacification and destabilization through perpetual war” (Beck 2006, 47).
- 42.
In arguing thus, it is not my intention to downplay the foundational, though to my mind ultimately unconvincing, sociological reflection undertaken by Beck or the serious philosophical labour that underpins Held and Benhabib ’s work. I do want to draw attention to the limitations of such normative reflection insofar as it sidesteps the broader historical, social, and political conditions of efficacy of normative ideas as political imaginaries. Indeed, this entire book is an argument against reducing human rights to this kind of thinking. A telling example is Benhabib ’s appraisal of Samuel Moyn ’s The Last Utopia (2013b). Depressingly, she develops a critique of a normative argument that is absent from Moyn ’s book, but that she nonetheless projects, in the psychoanalytical sense, on to it. Moyn is an intellectual historian, and his book traces the historico-practical trajectory associated with the idea of human rights. Benhabib ’s engagement with human rights is not historical; this however does not prevent her from making meta-historical claims, such as “Yet the 1948 Universal Declaration , and the era of human rights that has followed it, reflect the moral learning experiences not only Western humanity but of humanity at large. The world wars were fought not only in the European continent but also in the colonies, in Africa and Asia. The national liberation and anti-colonization struggles of the post-World War II period, in turn, inspired principles of self-determination . The public law documents of our world are distillation of such collective struggles, as well as collective learning processes. It may be too utopian to name them steps towards a ‘world constitution’, but they are more than mere treaties among states” (2013a, 75). Moyn ’s contribution is precisely an attempt to circumscribe such grandiose historical normative claims through careful historical analysis, raising uncomfortable but necessary questions. One would not know this from Benhabib ’s assessment because she never engages with any of his historical claims. What I find disheartening is that the undisputed doyenne of discourse ethics cannot put in practice in her own work, which provides an exceptionally conducive context for communicative freedom, the ideals that she argues should lubricate democratic practices in considerably more complex and contentious iterations of cosmopolitan democracy. See Moyn (2013b) for his excellent and measured rebuttal of Benhabib ’s criticism.
- 43.
This sai d, Beck’s (2006) warning regarding the darker side of cosmopolitanization should be kept in mind.
- 44.
Moreover, rather than attaching this aspiration to a particular normative commitment or world-institutional architecture, it is perhaps more sociologically defensible to frame cosmopolitanism along the lines of Gerard Delanty ’s critical cosmopolitanism , “the cosmopolitan imagination occurs when and wherever new relations between self, other and world develop in moments of openness [geared towards] the analysis of cultural modes of mediation by which the social world is shaped and where the emphasis is on moments of world openness created out of the encounter of the local with the global” (Delanty 2006, 27).
- 45.
This is clear from the variety of practices, processes, and dynamics that Kendall , Woodward , and Skrbis identify in their analysis of contemporary cosmopolitanism (2009).
- 46.
This last one is particularly noticeable in the context of authors who analogically understand human rights as an extension of citizenship rights.
- 47.
The Arendtian notion of “the right to have rights ” has captured the imagination of many scholars; A yten Gündoğdu’s (2015) productive rereading of Hannah Arendt and her significance for contemporary understanding of human rights begins instead with the notion of “statelessness ”, to which “the right to have rights ” was a response.
- 48.
Seyla Benhabib also draws on Hannah Arendt ’s formulation of “the right to have rights ” to distinguish between the foundational rights of communicative freedom and political association and the broader bundle of rights that are the outcome of democratic iterations (2013a, 62). An important difference between the two is that Benhabib arrives at this through normative deduction, whereas Somers does so through a historical narrative analysis of the emergence of citizenship. From a sociological perspective, which is always inherently empirical, this constitutes a decisive difference.
- 49.
This is not accidental because Somers ’ “instituted process” model of citizenship is one of the inspirations behind my own political imaginary model!
- 50.
Concluding her analysis of the different elements contributing to the striking situation of New Orleans’ racialized “left behind”, she writes “Of all the ways in which Hurricane Katrina should strike us as instructive, however, the most notable is how dramatically this one great tragedy illuminates the conditions currently endangering a social inclusive democratic citizenship, conditions that inevitably led to the catastrophe of so many people being abandoned – first by the contractualisation of citizenship, then by a hollow and corrupt federal agency that had been conquered and cronyized by market-driven politics. Most dramatically, thanks to Katrina, we now know what is entailed when an entire segment of civil society has so disintegrated that its people have been robbed of their ontological rights to membership and inclusion, and with it their recognizable humanity – without which no other rights are possible” (2008, 133–114).
- 51.
This is a point to which I return in Chap. 6 following my discussion of Anthony Woodiwiss ’ analysis of the juridification of human rights at the UN in the 1970s.
- 52.
Hopgood insists that Amnesty International is best understood as a secular religion: “a kind of Free Church, an ecumenical gathering concerned with the earthly relations between human beings rather than between an individual and a god” (2006, 71). He traces both human rights and humanitarianism to the European desire to establish “Moral Authority in a Godless World”, to cultivate “a sense of the secular sacred among the new middle classes of rapidly modernizing Europe” (2013, 1).
- 53.
In other words, creating the conditions for what in Chap. 2 I called the “quintessential speech act”, an utterance that conveys meaning but also the illocutionary demand for listeners to act.
- 54.
For instance, in my own work on the human right to food, I have shown that its viability as a human rights claim depended on it successfully being articulated in terms of victimhood, clearly distinguishing between perpetrator and victim (2015).
- 55.
Hopgood tends to conflate human rights with humanitarianism, while other scholars claim that notwithstanding the fact that they share various traits, they are not synonymous (Barnett 2011, 18). However as Daniel Sargent argues, “While human rights are not commensurate with humanitarianism, their rise depended on engagement with suffering human beings, from Biafran infants to Soviet political prisoners” (2014, 142).
- 56.
Gündoğdu is here drawing on the work of Jacques Rancière . A powerful critique of grounding politics in victimhood is developed by Wendy Brown (1995, 52–76).
- 57.
This is most visible today in the precariousness of the status of migrants and refugees (Gündoğdu 2015).
- 58.
Halsey (1984, 10) cla ims that though prone to the whiggish readings of Hobhouse and Alfred Marshall , there was in T. H. Marshall ’s work a more nuanced understanding of historical contingency than is often recognized.
- 59.
Bibliography
Abizadeh, Arash. 2005. “Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged Incoherence of Global Solidarity.” American Political Science Review 99 (1):45–60.
Alba, Richard D. 1995. “Review of Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (4):326–329.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2006. The Civil Sphere. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2013. “Struggling over the Mode of Incorporation: Backlash Against Multiculturalism in Europe.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 36 (4):531–556.
Archibugi, Daniele. 2008. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Archibugi, Daniele. 2012. “Cosmopolitan Democracy: A Restatement.” Cambridge Journal of Education 42 (1):9–20.
Baldi, Gregory, and Sara Wallace Goodman. 2015. “Migrants into Members: Social Rights, Civic Requirements, and Citizenship in Western Europe.” West European Politics 38 (6):1152–1173.
Banerjee, Kiran. 2014. “Toward Post-National Membership-Tensions and Transformation in German and EU Citizenship.” Journal of International Law and International Relations 10:4–30.
Barbalet, Jack M. 1988. Citizenship: Rights, Struggle, and Class Inequality. Maidenhead and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Barber, Tony. 2017. “Europe’s New Political Divisions.” Financial Times. May 14, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/21138f54-35ab-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e.
Barnett, Michael N. 2011. Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bauer, Laurie. 2008. “Exocentric Compounds.” Morphology 18 (1):51–74.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, Ulrich. 2006. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
Beitz, Charles R. 2011. The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Benczes, Réka. 2006. Creative Compounding in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. Critique, Norm and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1994. “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy.” Constellations 1 (1):26–52.
Benhabib, Seyla. 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 2013a. Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times. Cambridge and New York: Polity.
Benhabib, Seyla. 2013b. “Moving Beyond False Binarisms: On Samuel Moyn’s The Last Utopia.” Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences 22 (1):81–93.
Blau, Judith, and Alberto Moncada. 2016. Human Rights: A Primer. New York: Routledge.
Boli, John, and George M. Thomas. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Borgwardt, Elizabeth. 2007. A New Deal for the World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bosniak, Linda. 2000. “Citizenship Denationalized.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 7 (2):447–509.
Bosniak, Linda. 2006. The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J.D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago press.
Broeders, Dennis. 2007. “The New Digital Borders of Europe: EU Databases and the Surveillance of Irregular Migrants.” International Sociology 22 (1):71–92.
Brown, Garrett W., and David Held, eds. 2010. The Cosmopolitanism Reader. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of Injury. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brubaker, William Rogers. 1989a. “Introduction.” In Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, edited by William Rogers Brubaker, 1–27. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Brubaker, William Rogers. 1989b. “Membership Without Citizenship: The Economic and Social Rights of Noncitizens.” In Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, edited by William Rogers Brubaker, 145–181. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Brysk, Alison. 2002. Globalization and Human Rights. Berkeley, CA. University of California Press.
Brysk, Alison. 2013. Speaking Rights to Power: Constructing Political Will. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Brysk, Alison, and Gershon Shafir. 2004. People Out of Place: Globalization, Human Rights and the Citizenship Gap. London: Routledge.
Chimienti, Milena, and John Solomos. 2011. “Social Movements of Irregular Migrants, Recognition, and Citizenship.” Globalizations 8 (3):343–360.
Cohen, Jean L. 1995. “Critical Social Theory and Feminist Critiques: The Debate with Jurgen Habermas.” In Feminists Read Habermas (RLE Feminist Theory): Gendering the Subject of Discourse, edited by Johanna Meehan, 57–90. London and New York: Routledge.
Cohen, Stan. 2001. States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge and New York: Polity Press.
Cole, Alyson M. 2007. The Cult of True Victimhood: From the War on Welfare to the War on Terror. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cole, Wade M. 2012. “Human Rights as Myth and Ceremony? Reevaluating the Effectiveness of Human Rights Treaties, 1981–2007 1.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (4):1131–1171.
Crouch, Colin, Klau Eder, and Damian Tambini. 2000. Citizenship, Markets, and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Delanty, Gerard. 2006. “The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social Theory.” The British Journal of Sociology 57 (1):25–47.
Delanty, Gerard, ed. 2012. Routledge Handbook of Cosmopolitanism Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Dezalay, Yves, and Bryant Garth. 2012a. “Introduction: Constructing Transnational Justice.” In Lawyers and the Construction of Transnational Justice, edited by Yves Dezalay and Bryant Garth, 3–12. Milton Park and New York: Routledge.
Dezalay, Yves, and Bryant Garth, eds. 2012b. Lawyers and the Construction of Transnational Justice. Milton Park and New York: Routledge.
Domínguez, Edmé, Rosalba Icaza, Cirila Quintero, Silvia López, and Åsa Stenman. 2010. “Women Workers in the Maquiladoras and the Debate on Global Labor Standards.” Feminist Economics 16 (4):185–209.
Douglas-Scott, S. 2006. “A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis.” Common Market Law Review 43 (3):629–665.
Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer. 2003. “World Society and the Authority and Empowerment of Science.” In Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization, edited by Gili S. Drori, 23–42. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dubois, Michel. 2007. “La Construction Métaphorique Du Collectif: Dimensions Implicites Du Prêt-À-Penser Constructiviste et Théorie de L’acteur-Réseau.” L’Année Sociologique 57 (1):127–150.
Dunne, Tim, and Matt McDonald. 2013. “The Politics of Liberal Internationalism.” International Politics 50 (1):1–17.
Edmunds, June. 2012. “The Limits of Post-National Citizenship: European Muslims, Human Rights and the Hijab.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35 (7):1181–1199.
Fassin, Didier. 2012. Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Fassin, Didier, and Richard Rechtman. 2009. The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fine, Robert. 2009. “Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights: Radicalism in a Global Age.” Metaphilosophy 40 (1):8–23.
Fleischer, Doris Zames, Fleischer Doris Zames, and Frieda Zames. 2012. The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Fraser, Nancy, and Linda Gordon. 1992. “Contract Versus Charity.” Socialist Review 22 (3):45–67.
Frezzo, Mark. 2011. “Sociology and Human Rights in the Post-Development Era.” Sociology Compass 5 (3):203–214.
Goodman, Sara Wallace. 2012. “Fortifying Citizenship: Policy Strategies for Civic Integration in Western Europe.” World Politics 64 (4):659–698.
Gündoğdu, Ayten. 2015. Rightlessness in an Agee of Rights: Hannah Arendt and the Contemporary Struggles of Migrants. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2004. “Why Europe Needs a Constitution.” In Developing a Constitution for Europe, edited by Erik O. Eriksen, John E. Fossum, and Augustin J. Menendez, 1:17–33. London and New York: Routledge.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2013. Making Human Rights a Reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Kiyoteru Tsutsui. 2007. “Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most.” Journal of Peace Research 44 (4):407–425.
Hall, John A. 1996. “How Homogenous Need We Be? Reflections on Nationalism and Liberty.” Sociology 30 (1):163–171.
Halsey, A. H. 1984. “TH Marshall: Past and Present 1893–1981: President of the British Sociological Association 1964–1969.” Sociology 18 (1):1–18.
Hammar, Tomas. 1986. “Citizenship: Membership of a Nation and of a State.” International Migration 24 (4):735–748.
Hammar, Tomas. 1990. International Migration, Citizenship and Democracy. Aldershot: Gower.
Hansen, Randall. 2003. “Citizenship and Integration in Europe.” In Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, edited by Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska, 87–109. New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hansen, Randall. 2009. “The Poverty of Postnationalism: Citizenship, Immigration, and the New Europe.” Theory and Society 38 (1):1–24.
Heisler, Martin O., and Barbara Schmitter Heisler. 1991. “Citizenship—Old, New and Changing: Inclusion, Exclusion and Limbo for Ethnic Groups and Migrants in the Modern Democratic State.” In Dominant National Cultures and Ethnic Identities, edited by J. Fijalkowski, H. Merkens and F. Schmidt, 91–128. Berlin: Free University.
Held, David. 1987. Models of Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Held, David. 2002. “Law of States, Law of Peoples.” Legal Theory 8 (1):1–44.
Held, David. 2004. Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Held, David. 2009. “Restructuring Global Governance: Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37 (3):535–547.
Held, David. 2010. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
Hintjens, Helen M. 1995. Review of Review of Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, by Yasemin Nuhoglu Soysal. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–) 71 (4):887–888.
Hopgood, Stephen. 2006. Keepers of the Flame. Understanding Amnesty International. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hopgood, Stephen. 2013. The Endtimes of Human Rights. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hunt, Lynn Avery. 2007. Inventing Human Rights: A History. Book, Whole. W. W. Norton & Company.
Iriye, Akira. 2002. Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Isin, Engin F., and Bryan S. Turner. 2007. “Investigating Citizenship: An Agenda for Citizenship Studies.” Citizenship Studies 11 (1):5–17.
Jacobson, David. 1996. Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Jeffery, Laura, and Matei Candea. 2006. “The Politics of Victimhood.” History and Anthropology 17 (4):287–296.
Jensen, Steffen, and Henrik Ronsbo. 2014. “Introduction. Histories of Victimhood: Assemblages, Transactions, and Figures.” In Histories of Victimhood, edited by Steffen Jensen and Henrik Ronsbo, 1–22. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jo, Hyeran, and Beth A. Simmons. 2016. “Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?” International Organization 70 (3):443–475.
Joppke, Christian. 2010a. Citizenship and Immigration. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Joppke, Christian. 2010b. “The Inevitable Lightening of Citizenship.” European Journal of Sociology 51 (1):9–32.
Joppke, Christian, and Ewa Morawska. 2003. “Integrating Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States: Policies and Practices.” In Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, edited by Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska, 1–36. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaldor, Mary. 2013. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
Klopp, Brett. 1995. Review of Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, by Yasemin Nuhoglu Soysal. American Journal of Sociology 101 (3):779–781.
Keys, Barbara J. 2014. Reclaiming American Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, Patrick William. 2014a. “‘Magic Words’: The Advent of Transnational Human Rights Activism in Latin America’s Southern Cone in the Long 1970s.” In The Breakthrough: Human Rights in the 1970s, edited by Jan Eckel and Samuel Moyn, 88–106. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kelly, Tobias. 2014b. “Recognizing Torture: Credibility and the Unstable Codification of Victimhood.” In Histories of Victimhood, edited by Steffen Jensen and Henrik Ronsbo, 144–160. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kendall, Gavin, Ian Woodward, and Zlatko Skrbis. 2009. The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism: Globalization, Identity, Culture and Government. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kofman, Eleonore. 2005. “Citizenship, Migration and the Reassertion of National Identity.” Citizenship Studies 9 (5):453–467.
Koopmans, Ruud. 2012. “The Post-Nationalization of Immigrant Rights: A Theory in Search of Evidence1.” The British Journal of Sociology 63 (1):22–30.
Koopmans, Ruud, Ines Michalowski, and Stine Waibel. 2012. “Citizenship Rights for Immigrants: National Political Processes and Cross-National Convergence in Western Europe, 1980–2008.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (4):1202–1245.
Kumar, Krishan. 2007. “Global Civil Society.” European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 48 (3):413–434.
Kurasawa, Fuyuki. 2007. The Work of Global Justice: Human Rights as Practices. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Laxer, Gordon, and Sandra Halperin. 2003. Global Civil Society and Its Limits. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Lazaridis, Gabriella. 1995. “Reviews – From Aliens to Citizens: Redefining the Status of Immigrants in Europe Edited by Rainer Baubock / Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe by Yasemin Nuhoglu Soysal.” Journal of Social Policy 24:573.
Levy, Daniel, and Natan Sznaider. 2006. “Sovereignty Transformed: A Sociology of Human rights1.” The British Journal of Sociology 57 (4):657–676.
Levy, Daniel, and Natan Sznaider. 2010. Human Rights and Memory. Philadelphia: Penn State Press.
Lister, Ruth, ed. 2003. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. New York: NYU Press.
Lockwood, David. 1996. “Civic Integration and Class Formation.” British Journal of Sociology, 531–550.
Lyotard, Jean-François. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Mann, Michael. 1987. “Ruling Class Strategies and Citizenship.” Sociology 21 (3):339–354.
Marchetti, Raffaele. 2006. “Global Governance or World Federalism? A Cosmopolitan Dispute on Institutional Models.” Global Society 20 (3):287–305.
Marshall, Thomas H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martiniello, Marco. 1997. “Citizenship, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism: Post-national Membership Between Utopia and Reality.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 20 (3):635–641.
Merry, Sally Engle. 2007. “Introduction: Conditions of Vulnerability.” In The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law Between the Global and the Local, edited by Mark Goodale and Sally Engle Merry, 195–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merton, Robert King. 1967. On Theoretical Sociology: Five Essays, Old and New. New York: Free Press.
Messina, Anthony M. 1996. “The Not So Silent Revolution: Postwar Migration to Western Europe.” World Politics 49 (1):130–154.
Messina, Anthony M. 2007. The Logics and Politics of Post-WWII Migration to Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, John W. 2009. “World Society, the Welfare State, and the Life Course: An Institutionalist Perspective.” In World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer, edited by Georg Krücken and Gili S. Drori, 280–295. Oxford and New York: OUP.
Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1997. “World Society and the Nation-State.” American Journal of Sociology 103 (1):144–181.
Meyer, John W., and Ronald L. Jepperson. 2000. “The ‘Actors’ of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency.” Sociological Theory 18 (1):100–120.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83 (2):340–363.
Meyers, Diana Tietjens. 2011. “Two Victim Paradigms and the Problem of ‘Impure’ Victims.” Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development 2 (2):255–275.
Mollenkopf, John, and Jennifer Hochschild. 2010. “Immigrant Political Incorporation: Comparing Success in the United States and Western Europe.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 33 (1):19–38.
Mouritsen, Per. 2011. “Beyond Post-National Citizenship. Access, Consequence, Conditionality.” In European Multiculturalisms: Cultural, Religious and Ethnic Challenges, edited by Anna Triandafyllidou, Tariq Modood, and Nasar Meer, 88–115. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Moyn, Samuel. 2010. The Last Utopia. Harvard University Press.
Moyn, Samuel. 2013a. “On the Nonglobalization of Ideas.” In Global Intellectual History, 187–204. New York: Columbia University Press.
Moyn, Samuel. 2013b. “The Continuing Perplexities of Human Rights.” Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences 22 (1):95–115.
Mueller, Susanne D. 2014. “Kenya and the International Criminal Court (ICC): Politics, the Election and the Law.” Journal of Eastern African Studies 8 (1):25–42.
Nash, Kate. 2009a. Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics and Power. Chichester and Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
Nash, Kate. 2009b. The Cultural Politics of Human Rights. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nora, Pierre. 1989. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire.” Representations 26:7–24.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1996. “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism.” In For Love of Country? edited by Joshua Cohen, 2–20. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1997. “Capabilities and Human Rights.” Fordham Law Review 66:273–300.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1998. Cultivating Humanity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Olick, Jeffrey K., and Joyce Robbins. 1998. “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1):105–140.
Ong, Aihwa. 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Pakulski, Jan. 1997. “Cultural Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies 1 (1):73–86.
Pogge, Thomas W. 2008. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
Posner, Eric A. 2014. The Twilight of Human Rights Law. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Sainsbury, Diane. 2006. “Immigrants’ Social Rights in Comparative Perspective: Welfare Regimes, Forms in Immigration and Immigration Policy Regimes.” Journal of European Social Policy 16 (3):229–244.
Sargent, Daniel. 2014. “Oasis in the Desert? America’s Human Rights Rediscovery.” In The Breakthrough: Human Rights in the 1970s, 125–145. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control?: Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 2002. “Towards Post-National and Denationalized Citizenship.” Handbook of Citizenship Studies, 277–292.
Sassen, Saskia. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 2009. “Incompleteness and the Possibility of Making: Towards Denationalized Citizenship?” In Political Power and Social Theory 20:229–258. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sassen, Saskia. 2015. “From National Borders to Embedded Borderings: One Angle into the Question of Territory and Space in a Global Age.” In Crossroads in New Media, Identity and Law: The Shape of Diversity to Come, edited by Wouter De Been, Arora Payal, and Mireille Hildebrandt, 17–42. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schain, Martin A. 2009. “The State Strikes Back: Immigration Policy in the European Union.” European Journal of International Law 20 (1):93–109.
Schmidtke, Oliver. 2012. “Commodifying Migration: Excluding Migrants in Europe’s Emerging Social Model.” The British Journal of Sociology 63 (1):31–38.
Schofer, Evan, and John W. Meyer. 2005. “The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century.” American Sociological Review 70 (6):898–920.
Schuster, Liza, and John Solomos. 2002. “Rights and Wrongs Across European Borders: Migrants, Minorities and Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies 6 (1):37–54.
Sen, Amartya. 1995. Inequality Reexamined. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shafir, Gershon, and Alison Brysk. 2006. “The Globalization of Rights: From Citizenship to Human Rights.” Citizenship Studies 10 (3):275–287.
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sluga, Glenda. 2013. Internationalism in the Age of Nationalism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Snyder, Jack, and Leslie Vinjamuri. 2006. “Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice.” International Security 28 (3):5–44.
Somers, Margaret R. 1994a. “Rights, Relationality, and Membership: Rethinking the Making and Meaning of Citizenship.” Law & Social Inquiry 19 (1):63–114.
Somers, Margaret R. 1994b. “The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach.” Theory and Society 23 (5):605–649.
Somers, Margaret R. 2008. Genealogies of Citizenship. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoğlu. 1994. Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoğlu. 2012. “Citizenship, Immigration, and the European Social Project: Rights and Obligations of Individuality.” The British Journal of Sociology 63 (1):1–21.
Spiro, Peter J. 2008. Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Strang, David, and John W. Meyer. 1993. “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion.” Theory and Society 22 (4):487–511.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51 (2):273–286.
Triadafilopoulos, Triadafilos. 2011. “Illiberal Means to Liberal Ends? Understanding Recent Immigrant Integration Policies in Europe.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 37 (6):861–880.
Triandafyllidou, Anna, Tariq Modood, and Nasar Meer, eds. 2011. Beyond Post-National Citizenship. Access, Consequence, Conditionality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Turner, Bryan S. 1990. “Outline of a Theory of Citizenship.” Sociology 24 (2):189–217.
Turner, Bryan S. 1993. “Outline of a Theory of Human Rights.” Sociology 27 (3):489–512.
Turner, Bryan S. 1997. “Citizenship Studies: A General Theory.” Citizenship Studies 1 (1):5–18.
Turner, Bryan S. 2006. Vulnerability and Human Rights. Philadelphia: Penn State Press.
Wright, Charles W. 2004. “Particularity and Perspective Taking: On Feminism and Habermas’ Discourse Theory of Morality.” Hypatia 19 (4):47–74.
Yashar, Deborah J. 2002. “Globalization and Collective Action.” Comparative Politics 34 (3):355–375.
Young, Iris Marion. 1989. “Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship.” Ethics 99 (2):250–274.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Julián López, J. (2018). Humanizing the Citizen. In: Human Rights as Political Imaginary. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74274-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74274-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74273-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74274-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)