Abstract
‘Citizenship’ is still contested concept. A complete and united definition of citizenship does not exist. However, citizenship has been ‘a key aspect of Western political thinking since the formation of classical Greek political culture’ (Turner 1993, p. vii). According to Max Weber (1927), citizenship may be considered a Western concept. Weber argues that oriental civilizations did not recognize this concept. However,
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
They can be civil, political, and social.
- 2.
See Chap. 4.
- 3.
Political and civil rights represent the first generation of human rights, while the social rights represent the second generation of human rights.
- 4.
The peoples who were non-Greek, non-Christian, and non-Latin were regarded as barbarians in Western history.
- 5.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that there are certain external goods, which are necessary for happiness (which he equates with virtue) (Aristotle 2000, p. 14). Those ‘external goods’ are out of reach for slaves and labourers, so they cannot perform a virtuous life. According to Aristotle ‘happiness obviously needs the presence of external goods as well, since it is impossible, or at least no easy matter, to perform noble actions without resources. For in many actions, we employ, as it were instruments at our disposal, friends, wealth and political power’ (Aristotle 2000, p. 15). However, it should be emphasized that Aristotle considers both citizenship and virtues ascribed to citizenship as contingent. Aristotle states: ‘As to the question whether the virtue of the good man is the same as that of the good citizen; the considerations already adduced prove that in some states the two are the same, and in others different. When they are the same it is not the virtue of every citizen which is the same as that of the good man, but only the virtue of the statesman and of those who have or may have, alone or in conjunction with others, the conduct of public affairs’ (Aristotle 1916, pp. 111–112).
- 6.
See Chapter 4.
- 7.
Pistis is the state of being persuaded; it represents the domain of belief.
- 8.
Although Thomas Bridges correctly identifies some fundamental problems that can be identified from modern liberal political thought, he oversimplifies this point of view. Modern liberal political thought cannot be perceived as a totality. However, a number of authors fall in this trap and misinterpret the point of view of some modern political thinkers. This can be perceived on the example of Kant’s understanding of morality. Kant builds his idea of morality on freedom (i.e., autonomy of will), not on reason (Ivic 2008). This was not recognized by Bridges (1994), Gaut (1997), Korsgaard (1996), and a number of other authors.
- 9.
This concept appears in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in articles 2, 4, 11, and 12 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
- 10.
The Declaration of American Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress on 4 July 1776.
- 11.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was adopted on 26 August 1789 by the National Constituent Assembly, during the period of French Revolution. It represented the first step towards writing a constitution for France.
- 12.
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action opted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993.
- 13.
The World Conference on Human Rights, 14–25 June, 1993, Vienna, Austria.
- 14.
The World Summit, 14–16 September, 2005, New York.
- 15.
According to van Ham, ‘Postmodernism offers a new, radical intellectual and political agenda. Its rejection of boundaries of any kind, whether as means of physical demarcation (separating peoples between “us” and “them”) or as intellectual ordering devices (distinguishing between academic disciplines) should be read as a means to overcome modernist mechanisms of marginalization and exclusion of peripheral voices: the poor, women and children, racial and other minorities, artists and youth and other sub-cultures, as well as academic endeavors that try to go beyond the well-trodden path of orthodox discourse. It is broadly interdisciplinary in approach and denies that any particular methodology is better than another […] As a result, postmodernism does not acknowledge monological interpretations of reality, rejects unifying and dominant actors like the nation-state’ (Van Ham 2001, p. 16).
- 16.
See Chapter 4 of this book.
- 17.
‘Every judge must choose or create a coherent theory of political morality that could account for the institutional materials to hand and present them as the outcome of principled decision-making. In carrying out this task individual judges could differ’ (Douzinas et al. 1991, p. 57).
- 18.
Postmodern law theory was shaped in the late 1980s.
- 19.
- 20.
‘In such a public, individuals can participate as individual citizens and members of communities or groups which have equal status in the public sphere—they can take action both as citizens and as black citizens, or gay citizens, or old age pensioner citizens. This will free the European demos from the grip of nationality, without at the same time postulating an abstract, undifferentiated collectivity.’ (Kostakopoulou 1996, p. 346)
- 21.
Boundaries can be perceived as constructed (determined by feeling and belief), not fixed.
- 22.
This is also characteristic of the modern idea of identity, which is described in Franz Kafka’s novels. Kafka describes the impossibility of reconciliation of personal and social identity, and is why, in most of his novels, the main character dies.
- 23.
According to Sonia Kruks: ‘What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, preidentitarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is a qua woman, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of “universal human kind” on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect “in spite of” one’s differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different’ (Kruks 2000, p. 85).
- 24.
Richardson et al. argue about four notions of the self: (1) traditional notion, based on the idea of moral responsibility; (2) modern notion founded on the idea of conscious, rational, and unitary subject; (3) postmodern notion that emphasizes discursive constructedness of the self; and (4) dialogical notion that contains all three ideas of the self: premodern, modern, and postmodern (Richardson et al. 1998).
- 25.
Although Kant’s idea of autonomy of the will is acceptable as a foundation for the ethics of care, that does not imply that care ethics is tied to Kant’s idea of morality. On the contrary, Kant’s ethics and the ethics of care represent two different approaches.
- 26.
Mansbridge et al. argue ‘that there is a considerable consensus among theorists on many of the regulative ideas of deliberative democracy. The deliberation should, ideally, be open to all those affected by the decision. The participants shall have equal opportunity to influence the process, have equal resources, and be protected by basic rights. The process of “reason-giving” is required and central. In that process, participants should treat one another with mutual respect and equal concern. They should listen to one another and give reasons to one another that they think the others can comprehend and accept. They should aim at finding fair terms of cooperation among free and equal persons. They should speak truthfully. One criterion that most clearly distinguishes deliberative from non-deliberative mechanisms within democratic decision is that in the regulative ideal, coercive power should be absent from the purely deliberative mechanisms’ (Mansbridge et al. 2010, p. 66).
- 27.
This form of deliberation is considered represented by Habermas’s early work.
- 28.
‘With equality conceived as sameness, the ideal of universal citizenship carries at least two meanings in addition to the extension of citizenship to everyone: a) universality defined as general in opposition to particular, what citizens have in common as opposed to how they differ, and b) universality in the sense of laws and values that say the same for all and apply to all in the same way; laws and rules that are blind to individual and group differences’ (Young 1989, p. 250).
- 29.
The ethics of justice is mostly founded on Kant’s deontological ethics, based on categorical imperative, which advocates the priority of ‘right’ over ‘good’. The justice (which represents the domain of ‘right’) precedes interests based on cultural or religious diversity, or conception of a good life (which represents the domain of ‘good’).
- 30.
This was argued by John Rawls (1985).
- 31.
Rawls argues that human rights described in his Law of Peoples can be interpreted in different ways. They can be perceived as the part of liberal political conception of justice as liberties guaranteed to all citizens as free and equal. However, they can also be perceived from associanist perspective (held by a decent system of social cooperation) ‘which sees persons first as members of groups, associations, corporations and estates’ (Rawls 1999, p. 68).
- 32.
It is argued that all human beings that are endowed with reason can agree upon the same principles of justice and universal truths.
- 33.
I. M. Young identifies storytelling, greeting, and rhetoric as the modes of speech on which deliberation is based.
- 34.
‘In many cases it is not clear whether some commentators on deliberative democracy merely refer to any kind of communication, or to deliberation in the sense of systematically weighing rational arguments. Some references to deliberation appear to involve nothing more systematic than merely talking. Other deliberationists hold firmly to Habermasian communicative action as the standard of deliberation both too broadly and too narrowly can lead to serious confusion’ (Bächtiger et al. 2010b, p. 33).
- 35.
This form of deliberation is closely tied to the classic conception of deliberative democracy. It is represented by Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action (1981).
- 36.
This form of deliberation is represented by Young, Gutmann, Thompson, and Dryzek.
- 37.
Bächtiger et al. argue that type I and type II deliberation forms are often complementary.
- 38.
According to Radačić, in the Leyla Sahin v. Turkey case, ‘an adult woman challenged the prohibition on students wearing headscarves at university campuses as contrary to her freedom of religion, freedom of expression, right to education, right to respect for her private life, and right to non-discrimination on the basis of religion. The government claimed that the prohibition served the aims of the promotion of secularism and gender equality’ (Radačić 2008, p. 852).
- 39.
For example, in the ‘headscarf cases,’ deliberation starts ‘with others taking seriously and listening to [an] individual woman who has made the decision. This respects her as an equal – a subject who is an end in herself – capable of creating a life for herself and being who she wants to be’ (Marshall, 2008, p. 191). Subsequently, deliberation and ethics of care equate gender equality with the personal autonomy of every individual.
Bibliography
Alejandro, R. (1993). Hermeneutics, citizenship, and the public sphere. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Aristotle. (1916). Politics. (B. Jowett, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aristotle. (1932). Politics (H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bächtiger, A., Pedrini, S., & Ryser, M. (2010a). Analyzing political process: Deliberative standards, discourse types, and sequenzalization. Conference: Democracy as idea and practice, Oslo, 14–15 January. Available from: www.demokrati.uio.no [Accessed 21/9/2010]
Bächtiger, A., et al. (2010b). Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63.
Bauman, Z. (1992). Modernity, postmodernity and ethics – An interview with Zygmunt Bauman. Telos, 93, 137–138.
Bell, C. (2007). Spooked by the demos: Aristotle’s conception of the good citizenry against the mob. Problematique, 11, 11–15.
Bellamy, R. (2014). Citizenship: Historical development of. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/6598999/Citizenship_Historical_Development_of [Accessed 14/1/2015]
Benhabib, S. (1994). Democracy and difference: Reflections on the metapolitics of Lyotard and Derrida. Journal of Political Philosophy, 2(1), 1–23.
Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(5), 1071–1075.
Bridges, T. (1994). The culture of citizenship. Inventing postmodern civic culture. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Butler, J. (1992). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of postmodernism. In J. Butler & J. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political. New York: Routledge.
Cao, W. W. (2008). Personal autonomy in society. In-Spire Journal of Law, Politics and Societies, 3(2), 171–173.
Caputo, J. D. (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press.
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., & Kauffman, K. (1987). Theoretical introduction to the measurement of moral judgement. In A. Colby & L. Kohlberg (Eds.), The measurement of moral judgment (vol. 1, ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, A. E. (1993). Foreword: Toward a postmodern ethics of service. Georgetown Law Journal, 81, 2457–2475.
Danisch, R. (2011). Jane Addams, pragmatism and rhetorical citizenship in multicultural democracies. In R. Danisch (Ed.), Citizens of the World: Pluralism, Migration and Practices of Citizenship. Rodopi: Amsterdam, New York.
Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen. (1789). Available from: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp [Accessed 10/5/2009].
Derrida, J. (2005). The politics of friendship. London, New York: Verso.
Dilthey, W. (1996). Hermeneutics and the study of history: Selected works (Vol. IV), R. A. Makkreel & F. Rodi (Ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Douzinas, C. (2004). Law and justice in postmodernity. In S. Connor (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douzinas, C., Warrington, R., & McVeigh, S. (1991). Postmodern jurisprudence: The law of text in the texts of law. London & New York: Routledge.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Düzgit, S. A. (2012). Constructions of European identity: Debates and discourses on Turkey and the EU. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eaglestone, R. (2004). Postmodernism and ethics against the metaphysics of comprehension. In S. Connor (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engster, D. (2004). Care ethics and natural law theory: Toward an institutional political theory of caring. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 113–135.
European Commission. (2005). The Commission’s contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate. COM (2005) 494 final. 13 October. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Featherstone, M. (1995). Undoing culture: Globalization, postmodernism and identity. London: SAGE Publications.
Folbre, N. (1995). ‘Holding hands at midnight’: The paradox of caring labor. Feminist Economics, 1(1), 73–92.
Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader, P. Rabinow (Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (2002). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London, New York: Routledge.
Fox, J. (2005). Unpacking ‘transnational citizenship’. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 171–201.
Fung, A. (2003). Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.
Fung, A. (2005). Deliberation before the revolution: Toward the ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory, 33(2), 397–419.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). New York: Seabury Press.
Gaut, B. (1997). The structure of practical reason. In B. Gaut & G. Cullity (Eds.), Ethics and practical reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1985). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and morality. The scholar & feminist XXX: Past controversies, present challenges, future feminisms. Available from: www.barnard.edu/sfonline/sfxxx/documents/gilligan.pdf [Accessed 2/9/2013]
Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, J. & Benhabib, S. (1981). Modernity versus postmodernity. New German Critique, 22, 3–14.
Hankivsky, O. (2004). Social policy and the ethic of care. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. Simians, cyborgs and women. New York: Routledge.
Havel, V. (1997) A sense of the transcendent. Cross Currents 47(3). Available from: http://www.crosscurrents.org/havel.htm [Accessed 21/10/2008]
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hülsse, R. (2006). Imagine the EU: The metaphorical construction of a supra-nationalist identity. Journal of International Relations and Development, 9(4), 396–421.
Isin, E. F. & Wood, P. K. (1999). Citizenship and identity. London: Sage.
Ivic, S. (2008). Kant’s regress argument. Micro Journal of Law Ethics and Intellectual Property, 2(1), 1–3.
Kant, I. (1997). What is enlightenment? In Foundations of the metaphysics of morals (L. W. Beck, Trans.), (2nd Rev. ed.) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc..
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). Radford, VA: Wilder Publications.
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kostakopoulou, T. (1996). Towards a theory of constructive citizenship in Europe. Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(4), 337–358.
Kroes, R. (2000). Them and us: Questions of citizenship in a globalising world. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Kruks, S. (2000). Retrieving experience: Subjectivity and recognition in feminist politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1990). Contemporary political philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Liedtka, J. M. (1996). Feminist morality and competetive reality: A role for an ethic of care. Bussiness Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 179–200.
Lister, R. (2007). Inclusive citizenship: Realizing the potential. Citizenship Studies, 11(1), 49–61.
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Follesdal, A., Fung, A., Lafont, C., Manin, B., & Marti, J. L. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64–100.
Marshall, J. (2008). Women’s right to autonomy and identity in European human rights law: Manifesting one’s religion. Res Publica, 14, 177–192.
Marshall, T. H. (2009). Citizenship and social class. In J. Manza & M. Sauder (Eds.), Inequality and society. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
Meštrović, S. (1993). The Barbarian temperament: Toward a postmodern critical theory. London & New York: Routledge.
Meyers, P. A. (1998). The ‘ethic of care’ and the problem of power. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(2), 142–170.
Minda, G. (1995). Postmodern legal movements: Law and jurisprudence at century’s end. New York: New York University Press.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
O’Neill, O. (1994). Justice and boundaries. In C. Brown (Ed.), Political restructuring in Europe: Ethical perspectives. London: Routledge.
Oshana, M. (2006). Personal autonomy in society. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Radačić, I. (2008). Critical review of jurisprudence: An occasional series: Gender equality jurisprudence of the European court of human rights. European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 841–857.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Richardson, F. C., Rogers, A., & McCarroll, J. (1998). Toward a dialogical self. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(4), 496–515.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). What is a text? explanation and understanding. In J. Thompson (Ed.), Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rockefeller, S. C. (1994). Comment. In C. Taylor (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1913). Social contract & discourses (G. D. H. Cole, Trans.). New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stychin, C. F. (2001). Disintegrating sexuality: Citizenship and the EU. In R. Bellamy & A. Warleigh (Eds.), Citizenship and governance in the European Union. Continuum: London, New York.
Tambini, D. (2001). Post-national citizenship. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(2), 195–217.
Tekin, B. (2014). Rethinking the post-national EU in times of austerity and crisis. Mediterranean Politics, 19(1), 21–39.
Trifiro, F. (2005). Anti-foundationalism, deliberative democracy and universal human rights. IIIS Discussion Paper, 47, 1–17.
Tronto, J. C. (1987). Beyond gender difference to a theory of care. Signs, 12(4), 644–663.
Tronto, J. C. (1994). The moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York, London: Routledge.
Tronto, J. C. (2007). Human rights, democracy and care. The Good Society, 16(2), 36–40.
Turner, B. (Ed.) (1993). Citizenship and social theory. London and Newbury Park: Sage.
Van Ham, P. (2001). European integration and the postmodern condition: Governance, democracy, identity. London, New York: Routledge.
Vasiljević, J. (2011). Citizenship and belonging in Serbia: In the crossfire of changing nationhood narratives. CITSEE Working Paper, 17, 1–32.
Velikonja, M. (2005). Eurosis: A critique of the new eurocentrism (O. Vuković, Trans.). Ljubljana: Peace Institute.
Weber, M. (1927). Citizenship. In General economic history. London: Transaction Publishers.
Wieringa, S. E. (1998). Rethinking gender planning: A critical discussion of the use of the concept of gender. Gender, Technology and Development, 2(3), 349–371.
Williams, F. (2001). In and beyond new labour: Towards a new political ethics of care. Critical Social Policy, 21(4), 467–493.
Williams, A. (2005). EU human rights policies: A study in irony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, I. M. (1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250–274.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zaharijevic, A. (2008). From the rights of man to the human rights: Man-nation-humanity. Filozofija i drustvo, 1, 111–151.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ivic, S. (2016). Philosophical Roots of Citizenship. In: European Identity and Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57785-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57785-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57784-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57785-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)