Conceptualizing and evaluating (new) forms of citizenship between nationalism and cosmopolitanism

Abstract

In an age of transnational flows and interdependencies, democratic citizenship cannot be conceptualized anymore exclusively within national boundaries. This paper presents a conceptual map that allows tracing emerging and proposed forms of citizenship within and beyond the nation state in a comprehensive and differentiated way. We disentangle two anchor points: membership in a political community as the fundament of citizenship and the arena of political decision-making as the focal point of citizenship rights, identities and practices. For the former we differentiate between a single national community, the universal community of humankind and multiple (national) communities. For the latter we distinguish the national, supra-national and transnational arena. Our typology thus consists of nine different forms of democratic citizenship. It is used to provide a brief overview over normative proposals and empirical findings leading to the following insights: while membership in a particular national community still dominates the reality in all three political arenas, in the normative discourse it is perceived as deficient. Membership in the universal community of humankind is widely endorsed in the normative discourse, but almost inexistent. In contrast, membership in multiple communities is not only a growing reality but also normatively promising for democratizing a transnationalizing world.

Nationalist cosmopolitanism: the psychology of cosmopolitanism, national identity, and going to war for the country

“…Specifically, based on the findings of existing studies, cosmopolitan identity should correlate positively with giving priority to reducing poverty in the world, negatively with imposing strict limits on foreign workers, and positively with favourable views on ethnic diversity (e.g. Norris ; Norris and Inglehart ; Bayram ; Reysen and Katzarska‐Miller ; Schlenker and Blatter .). We should observe the opposite of these relationships for national identity.…”

Cosmopolitan Europe? Cosmopolitan justice against EU-centredness

“…Third, even if 'the EU is … also a community of people' and that, therefore, the EU's 'cosmopolitan-ness' is 'also dependent on the orientations and convictions of the individuals who make up this entity' (Schlenker 2013, 26), it would be wishful thinking to expect that (something like) a post-national 'EU patriotism' will help to motivate people and, subsequently, the EU itself to help achieve cosmopolitan justice. To be sure, empirical research on CE finds positive correlations between emotional 'European' identification and 'cosmopolitan' identification, and that '[e]motionally, a majority of Europeans are cosmopolitans' rather than 'partisans of fortress Europe' (Schlenker 2013, quotation 48;Pichler 2009;Schlenker and Blatter 2014, 1102, 1106, 1108. However, that many Europeans appear to 'feel emotionally attached' to the whole world as well as to Europe says little by itself about their actual willingness to be guided by the potentially demanding implications of their 'cosmopolitan identity', particularly when these conflict with their 'European identity' or, indeed, 'their' EU.…”

Transnational status and cosmopolitanism: are dual citizens and foreign residents cosmopolitan vanguards?

“…The recent conflict in Ukraine and the reluctance of the Baltic states to accept dual citizenship illustrate this point. However, those interested in transnational or cosmopolitan democracy tend to place hope in transnational status (Blatter 2011;Schlenker and Blatter 2014). It might be precisely the incongruence between inhabitants and citizens that allows national boundaries to be overcome and cosmopolitanism thus to develop.…”

“…However, beyond the national realm, dual citizens or foreign residents can also be regarded as vanguards of cosmopolitan citizenship (Blatter 2011;Schlenker and Blatter 2014). Transnational legal status may reduce the significance of national boundaries and foster the emergence of individual dispositions necessary for new, cosmopolitan forms of citizenship.…”