Introduction: What's left of citizenship?
Introduction: What's left of citizenship?
复制标题
简介： 公民身份还剩下什么？
DOI：
10.1080/1362102042000256961
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Peter Nyers
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Peter Nyers
公民身份是最著名也是最有问题的政治概念之一。庆祝，因为公民身份据说是一种政治身份，体现了自由、平等、权利、自治、自决、个人主义和人类机构的现代主张。无论何时何地，这都是一项非凡的历史成就。然而，公民身份仍然存在问题，恰恰是因为它的成就几乎总是以一种高度不平等--实际上是排他性的--方式实现的。正如Rob Walker(2002，p.20)所指出的，公民身份是我们划清界限的主要做法之一，包括和排除那些在政治共同体中是或不是政治代理人的人。社会内部的偏见、沙文主义、不平等和等级制度基于种族、性别、种姓、性取向、宗教、地区和其他因素，将个人和群体排除在正式公民身份之外。此外，虽然公民身份被认为是将人们聚集在一个政治社区中的政治类别，但公民身份也具有排他性功能，将世界人口划分为较小的亚群，然后可以由国家管理和治理(Hindess，2000；见他在本期中的文章)。从全球正义或全球福利的角度来看，这意味着一个人出生地的意外对获得足够的食物、医疗保健、教育和生活机会有着深远的影响(Shachar，2003)。可以肯定的是，与T.H.马歇尔(1950)关于公民身份的经典描述相关的社会和政治权利很少说明世界上越来越多的人口所面临的现实。数以千万计的国际难民、境内流离失所者、土著人民、被占领土居民和生活在紧急状态地区的人继续看到他们的公民权利被暂停、被剥夺或完全被忽视。正如Brysk和Shafir(2004)所说，其结果是出现了“公民身份差距”，在全球范围内造成了公民权利和利益的巨大差异。鉴于这些持续不断的压力和新的不平等，目前公民身份保持--更不用说垄断--我们关于什么是真正形式的政治主体性的想象力，已经成为一个关键的政治问题。
Citizenship is at once one of the most celebrated and most problematic of political concepts. Celebrated, because citizenship is said to be the political identity that embodies modern claims to liberty, equality, rights, autonomy, self-determination, individualism, and human agency. Whenever and wherever this occurs, it always stands as a remarkable historical achievement. And yet, citizenship remains problematic precisely because its accomplishments are almost always realized in a highly unequal—indeed, exclusionary—fashion. Citizenship, as Rob Walker (2002, p. 20) points out, ‘is one of our major practices of drawing lines, of including and excluding those who are or are not political agents in a political community’. Prejudices, chauvinisms, inequalities, and hierarchies internal to societies have excluded individuals and groups from full citizenship status on the basis of race, gender, caste, sexual orientation, religion, region, and other factors. Moreover, while citizenship is credited for being the political category that brings people together within a political community, citizenship also serves an exclusionary function, dividing up the world’s population into smaller subpopulations that can then be managed and governed by states (Hindess, 2000; see his article in this issue). From a global justice or global welfare perspective, this means that the accident of the place of one’s birth has profound implications on the availability of adequate food, health care, education, and life opportunities (Shachar, 2003). To be sure, the social and political rights associated with T.H. Marshall’s (1950) classic account of citizenship speaks very little to the realities faced by growing numbers of the world’s population. Tens of millions of international refugees, internally displaced persons, indigenous peoples, residents of occupied territories, and people living in areas under emergency rule continue to see their citizenship rights suspended, withheld, or simply disregarded. The result, as Brysk and Shafir (2004) have argued, has been the emergence of a ‘citizenship gap’ that is creating dramatic differences in the rights and benefits of citizenship across the globe. Given these ongoing pressures and new inequalities, the present capacity of citizenship to hold—let alone monopolize—our imagination about what qualifies as an authentic form of political subjectivity has emerged as a key political