Understanding the Labyrinth of Globalization explain the intricate

transformation of theories of citizenship. How does the interplay of

global forces reshape the very essence of civic belonging? Within
the debate of this metamorphosis, what examples from our class
discussions illuminate the evolving patterns of citizenship in this era
of interconnectedness?

Points to address:
 Interplay of global forces as reshaping the essence of civic
belonging
 Examples that illuminate the evolving patterns of citizenship in
this era of interconnectedness

INTRODUCTION
“Globalization refers to the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness
which implies events and decisions in one part of the world are increasingly
affecting people and societies far away”, This definition given by Andrew
Heywood has been reiterated to the point of banality in social sciences. Simply,
it implies that local, national and global events constantly interact and result in
systematic interdependencies. Globalization as a process is omnipresent with its
seamless influence reflecting in a largely homogenized world. Globalization
must be understood as a phenomenon. It has political, cultural, social, economic
and technological dimensions and it refers to the integration and inter-
connectedness across national boundaries along these dimensions. It is a
phenomenon of increased inter-connectedness characterized by increased flow
of goods, services, people and ideas through traditional and new channels.
(Gans,2005).
The discussion of globalization has garnered immense attention in the recent
years owing to the pressures it generates on the traditional Westphalian
Template of nation-states. Deterritorialization and social interconnectedness
across the entire geographic and political boundaries associated with
globalization pose a fundamental threat to the underpinnings of the Westphalian
Model. (Acharya, 2012). The state is compelled to engage multilateral
collaboration and co-operation to pursue its domestic agendas. The primacy of
the state has been eroded by the growth of new centres of political authority
from above and below it and the emergence of financial authorities from MNCs
to NGOs. It has become a space of flows. (Held, 2004).
Traditionally, the concept of citizenship remained largely outside the purview of
the ordinary masses. Distinct qualifications in terms of property, sex and a
certain level of rational were the prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship in
its classical sense. This practice of citizenship was premised upon the politics of
‘exclusion’. Today, the term has evolved to entail certain rights or entitlements
with a list of obligations thrust upon its beneficiaries-the citizens. Citizenship is
thus, the hallmark of one’s membership to a particular community (nation-
state). National identity and belonging are largely based on the exclusion of the
other. The increasing multitude of transnational identities marked by familial,
social and economic connections in more than one state demand a radical
rethinking about what it means and what is ought to mean to belong to a nation-
state. (Brubaker,1998). As globalization entails large scale movement of people,
services and goods across increasingly porous boundaries, the number of people
with dual/multiple citizenships has been increasing. This in turn leads to blurry
notions of belonging and allegiances. Traditional principles of citizenship-were
on the basis of birth or blood. (Jus soli, Jus sanguinis). Today, long term
residence has given rise to a new category of citizenship by domicile accorded
to ‘denizens. Citizenship is now accorded through various combinations of Jus
soli, Jus sanguinis and Jus domicili.
The question of ‘belongingness’ sparks open a whole new debate with respect to
the position of immigrants which are again a by-product of the process of
globalization. These groups claim that formal access to citizenship is not
enough. They are asking for a multicultural approach to their integration in the
mainstream society. They demand a citizenship anchored in the recognition of
difference and otherness, or an accommodation of new identities.
(Acharya,2012). Frequent violations of the civil rights of the migrant groups by
coercive agents such as the police, prison and courts has led to a kind of social
inclusion, particularly for the racial and ethnic minorities. They face the brunt of
racial violence, xenophobia and ethnic cleansing.
Globalization paves way for the perception of one as a global citizen. This has
been facilitated by the gradual receding of the state and the taking over of the
global forces. Today, citizenship is seen beyond the nation-state and people as
members of a post-modern or cosmopolitan society- The very meaning and
ethical salience of the term is under questioning as society is perceived as
dissociated into a variety of ethical and cultural communities with incompatible
allegiances and incommensurable obligations. (Urry, 2000).
This conception of a citizenship model that transcends national boundaries is
also imperative of the creation of various other models of citizenship in the
backdrop of the global forces at play. Yasemin Soysal’s model that rights
traditionally associated with citizenship were becoming increasingly separated
from the nation-state. The resultant creation of a ‘differential multi-tiered
citizenship order’ includes:
 Cultural Citizenship: (Richardson 1998) cultural citizenship involving the
right of all social groups (ethnic, gender, sexual, age) to full cultural
participation within their society. An example of this could be the equal
rights accorded to all people irrespective of distinctions like women, the
people associated with the LGBTQIA++.
 Minority Citizenship: (Yuval Davis 1997) minority citizenship involving
the rights to enter another society and then to remain within that society
and to receive appropriate rights and duties. For example: Muslims in
India too are accorded full citizenship status irrespective of their minority
status
 Ecological Citizenship: (Steenbergen 1994) ecological citizenship
concerned with the rights and responsibilities of the citizen of the earth.
Eg: The responsibility is reflected in a greater consciousness through the
creation and deliberation by groups such as COP, various inter-
governmental Protocols and Climate alliances.
 Cosmopolitan Citizenship: (Held 1995) cosmopolitan citizenship
concerned with how people may develop an orientation to other citizens,
societies and cultures across the globe.
 Consumer Citizenship: (Stevenson 1997) consumer citizenship concerned
with the rights of people to be provided with appropriate goods, services
and information by both the private and public sectors
 Mobility Citizenship: (Urry 1990) mobility citizenship concerned with
the rights and responsibilities of visitors to other places and other cultures
 Diasporic Citizenship: Rights and duties of the diaspora. The diaspora
must be provided with the basic universal human rights irrespective of its
inability to secure complete political rights.
 Cyber Citizenship: Rights and duties of the citizens across interconnected
network connections as ‘Netizens’. As a netizen, there is a tacit
implication of one’s need to use the services in a manner that does not
endanger another.
The rise of such new categorizations must be seen in the backdrop of the
increasingly obsolete notion of the Marshallian Theory of citizenship. The
Marshallian notion of citizenship was largely organized around the membership
to a nation-state. The famous trilogy advocated here consists of civil, political
and social rights. In tending to the new categories of immigrants, guest workers,
refugees and other mobile groups, such a trilogy is highly inadequate.
Post national citizenship is especially connected with the growth of guest
working across many societies, greater global interdependence, increasingly
overlapping memberships of different kinds of citizenship and the emergence of
universalistic ideas and conceptions regarding human rights formalized by
international codes and laws. (By bodies such as EU, ILO,UN, UNESCO,
Council of Europe, etc) (Urry, 2000)
CONCLUSION
While the indisputable effects of globalization are seen to affect every other
sphere of one’s existence, the impact that it has on our territorial sovereignty has
led to many a debate. The hyperglobalist notion to claim that the state has
ended, remains false in the event of the state still being the primary political
actor and provider. Yet, it has driven us to a point of reconfiguring the idea of
citizenship and has raised pertinent questions with respect to one’s allegiances.
Global forces have broadened the horizons of one’s duty and belongingness to
not just the nation-state but to the globe as a whole. As a member of the global
community, rights are no longer confined to the categories of civil, political and
social rights but have within their jurisdiction many new categorizations.
Citizenship in itself has traversed across an arduous path of exclusion in the
ancient period to this day where it reflects an advocacy of the inclusion of all.