In Chapter Five of Christopher Pierson’s book, The Modern State, he says the notion of ‘citizenship as membership’ suggests that citizens are granted a prestigious position as members of the state upon birth. There is a strong link with territory and citizenship and an importance placed on the concept of nationality (Pierson 128). To be lucky enough to receive this ‘membership’ in the ‘country club’ of the state gives a person special status and privileges while it precludes others from the same luxuries. This rather simply shows the benefits of the book and also emphasizes the inclusive and exclusive aspects of citizenship as membership. As Pierson notes, “…it is overwhelmingly at [the nation-state] level that the privileging of citizenship and the practice of social closure against outsiders has been observed” (Pierson 130).
‘Citizenship as status’ is parallel with ‘citizenship as membership’ since it too reinforces the notion of nationalism. However, status diverges from membership since it makes a claim to a less normative quality – the ‘imagined community.’ The imagined community is what Pierson denotes as what it means to be of a certain nationality (Pierson 132). Where membership associates people by their territory to a national identity, status seeks to make the relationship deeper by associating people to their culture and traditions and to what those things mean to them on a personal level.
Nick Stevenson’s conception of ‘Cultural Citizenship’, taken from his book The Transformation of the Media: Globalization, Morality, and Ethics, looks beyond the limiting concepts of either membership or status on both a national and global level. He emphasizes the large-scale effects that the media have played in reshaping what it means to be a citizen. The rapid movement of people and information has challenged conventional modes of citizenship (i.e. membership and status). Massive migration within the last half century has resulted in city-centres around the globe that have become truly multicultural with residents now originally from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe now in residence. In today’s world with people of varying ethnicities all across the globe, the nationalist argument is contested by a new and powerful force – multiculturalism, something that is challenged and strengthened by the ‘shrinking’ aspects of modern media, making Citizenship a very productive argument for inclusiveness and tolerance.
Stevenson consistently makes reference to a single feature that is commonplace for all three forms of citizenship, and that is nationalism. Nationalism can be seen as an intrinsic part of any citizenship, and Stevenson suggests that it should remain a significant aspect of cultural citizenship without precluding other features from being realized. He holds that, “…national identities themselves need to be constantly re-negotiated to admit a diverse range of identity constructs...,” while concluding that, “…domains of nation and state remain central if no longer determining” (Stevenson 73, 91). A feature that Parekh conceptualizes in the cultural framework includes, “…institutionally embedded multicultural practices rather than assimilation or mere tolerance” (Stevenson 72). It is clear that there is a fine line between granting too much to multicultural enhancement and risking national traditions, and making nationalism so important that we loose all sense of multiculturalism, we certainly do not want to be seen in the same light is Hitler. As Stevenson puts it: “…we should be careful to avoid a false universalism that simply gestures towards the equality of the globe’s cultures and avoid a form of cosmopolitan optimism that assumes that national cultures do not remain important centres of power and identity” (Stevenson 73). Cultural citizenship concerns itself by trying to support nationalism through ideas of membership and status whilst looking towards a pluralistic society that allows many cultures and traditions to live in harmony.
A step on the way to becoming Global Citizens is for Europe to unite. The Swedish Government’s EU Policy Goals for 2002, suggests three primary relationships that can be conceived. The first relationship seeks to align cultural citizenship to the EU Policy Document. The goals of the document that are behind cultural citizenship are to foster a more cohesive international community by promoting the transcendence of citizenship through nationalistic barriers. There is also a push to strengthen relationships between countries, and a goal to cultivate a more effective government through citizen’s relationships with each other. The policy document expresses this aim through the goal of creating, “enhanced legitimacy, democratic support and relevance to the Union’s citizens” (Swedish Government 5). Stevenson notes, “As many recent commentators have noticed, along with the cultural fragmentation of Western democracies has come a growing decline in relations of trust between members of the political class and the people. In this respect, I would argue, there will be renewed attempts through the construction of a shared national culture to breathe new life into this relationship” (Stevenson 72).
The second relationship addressed is that cultural citizenship’s need to create a better and more pluralistic relationship between global citizens mirrors the EU Policy Document’s goal of realizing a better social structure. Stevenson believes that there is a need to, “…press the importance of cultural pluralism over attempts to reinscribe dominant homogenous cultures” (Stevenson 62). Through cultural citizenship, the heterogeneous nature of civil society should be realized, advocating the, “…maintenance of pluralistic public spheres at the level of the local, the national, and the global” (Stevenson 62). In the Swedish government’s document goals pertaining to socially sustainable development, in the name of, “…more and better jobs and greater social cohesion,” and a focus on gender equality (Swedish Government 6) they express a similar sentiment to the pluralistic attributes of cultural citizenship. Furthermore, the pluralistic ideas of the EU Policy Document are conveyed in the section on ‘The future direction of the EU must be subject to open and broad debate.’ Here, the document expresses the need for intergovernmental conferences to, “…be composed of representatives of Member State governments, national parliaments, the European Parliament and the Commission” (Swedish Government 11). The range of groups that the document prescribes to be involved in intergovernmental talks is in line with the pluralistic conception of cultural citizenship and the need for deliberation to find common, unified interests.
The final relationship is most clearly defined as a mutual goal of retaining national interests. As it has been made clear, cultural citizenship, although focused on pluralism, reserves the importance of nationalism. Likewise, the Swedish EU Policy Document, although centred on integration with European goals, also realizes the importance of retaining national interests, and safeguarding against the compromising of these interests. This is evident through the advocating of a need, “…for national reflection” (Swedish Government 11) before policies are put into motion through intergovernmental action.
It may be possible for us to become part of a unified global society but we need to reinforce the importance of respecting the rights and identities of the local community. The phrase “think globally, act locally” should be the new call to arms of the citizen of the next millennia, it also holds new meaning for the future of our country and other countries. It is the idea behind the integration of societies into a working global whole. The successful government of the future will be the one that is willing and able to make itself a progressive, integrating and aggressive force in the global society. Progressive in that it is willing to move and form new alliances and strengthen partnerships. Integrating in it’s openness to other cultures and the movement to a unified and co-operative society, and aggressive in that it remembers to protect the local society. It makes sense to protect the local neighbourhood, and it is not misguided or wrong to think that governments are the best vehicles by which to do that. The movement towards a global society that is co-operative is necessary in that it will keep us from destroying ourselves. It is possible to become a working global society; we all just have to be part of the process, however it is still vitally important to recognize the need to protect those closest to you and indeed help support your local community.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, K and Brown, M, 2003. Reflections on Citizenship in a multilingual world. CILT Publications.
Crick, B, 1998. The Crick Report. http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/6123_crick_report_1998.pdf
Delanty, G, 2000. Citizenship in a global age: Society, culture, politics. Open University Press.
Goldmann, Kjell, 2001. Transforming the European Nation-State. London: Sage Publications.
Holden, Barry (ed.), 2000. Global Democracy. London: Routledge.
Ichilov, O, 1998. Citizenship and Citizenship Education in a Changing World. Routledge Falmer.
Osler, A and Vincent, K, 2002. Citizenship and the Challenge of Global Education. Trentham Books Ltd.
Pierson, Christopher, 1996. The Modern State. London: Routledge.
Stevenson, Nick, 1999. The Transformation of the Media: Globalization, Morality, and Ethics. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Swedish Government, 2002. The Swedish Government’s EU Policy Goals for 2002.
“Globalisation: What Challenges and Opportunities for Governments?” OECD, 1996.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
. http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumer/consumerProducts/pdf/UKInternationalprices.pdf
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html