公民身份的阴暗面:成员资格、领土和(反)民主政体

Q3 Social Sciences Issues in Legal Scholarship Pub Date : 2011-01-24 DOI:10.2202/1539-8323.1125
C. Hayward
{"title":"公民身份的阴暗面:成员资格、领土和(反)民主政体","authors":"C. Hayward","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Linda Bosniak’s The Citizen and the Alien and Ayelet Shachar’s The Birthright Lottery are important and provocative new works, each of which draws attention to the exclusions and inequalities bound up in practices of democratic citizenship. In my response, I argue that although each author articulates a powerful critique of the institution of citizenship, neither goes far enough in the political changes she proposes. Because power relations cross the boundaries that define territorially bounded political communities, neither extending nor redistributing the benefits attached to membership in those communities is enough. Democrats must find institutional means to define and secure rights, not according to citizenship understood as political membership, but according to participation in relations of power.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1125","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dark Side of Citizenship: Membership, Territory, and the (Anti-) Democratic Polity\",\"authors\":\"C. Hayward\",\"doi\":\"10.2202/1539-8323.1125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Linda Bosniak’s The Citizen and the Alien and Ayelet Shachar’s The Birthright Lottery are important and provocative new works, each of which draws attention to the exclusions and inequalities bound up in practices of democratic citizenship. In my response, I argue that although each author articulates a powerful critique of the institution of citizenship, neither goes far enough in the political changes she proposes. Because power relations cross the boundaries that define territorially bounded political communities, neither extending nor redistributing the benefits attached to membership in those communities is enough. Democrats must find institutional means to define and secure rights, not according to citizenship understood as political membership, but according to participation in relations of power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Issues in Legal Scholarship\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1125\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Issues in Legal Scholarship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1125\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

琳达·波什尼亚克的《公民与外星人》和阿耶莱特·沙查尔的《出生权彩票》都是重要的、具有挑衅性的新作品,它们都引起了人们对民主公民实践中存在的排斥和不平等的关注。在我的回应中,我认为,尽管两位作者都对公民制度提出了强有力的批评,但在她提出的政治变革方面,她们都做得不够。因为权力关系跨越了界定地域政治共同体的边界,扩大或重新分配这些共同体成员所附带的利益就足够了。民主党人必须找到制度手段来界定和保障权利,不是根据被理解为政治成员的公民身份,而是根据参与权力关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Dark Side of Citizenship: Membership, Territory, and the (Anti-) Democratic Polity
Linda Bosniak’s The Citizen and the Alien and Ayelet Shachar’s The Birthright Lottery are important and provocative new works, each of which draws attention to the exclusions and inequalities bound up in practices of democratic citizenship. In my response, I argue that although each author articulates a powerful critique of the institution of citizenship, neither goes far enough in the political changes she proposes. Because power relations cross the boundaries that define territorially bounded political communities, neither extending nor redistributing the benefits attached to membership in those communities is enough. Democrats must find institutional means to define and secure rights, not according to citizenship understood as political membership, but according to participation in relations of power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Issues in Legal Scholarship
Issues in Legal Scholarship Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Legal Scholarship presents cutting-edge legal and policy research using the format of online peer-reviewed symposia. The journal’s emphasis on interdisciplinary work and legal theory extends to recent symposium topics such as Single-Sex Marriage, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, and Catastrophic Risks. The symposia systematically address emerging issues of great significance, offering ongoing scholarship of interest to a wide range of policy and legal researchers. Online publication makes it possible for other researchers to find the best and latest quickly, as well as to join in further discussion. Each symposium aims to be a living forum with ongoing publications and commentaries.
期刊最新文献
Current understanding of extracellular vesicle homing/tropism. Tort Policy in a Plural Context: Pathways Towards Objective Liability in UAE Tort Law Eliciting Best Evidence from a Child Witness: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and India Bumped Redundancy and the Range of Reasonable Responses: To what Extent, if any, should Employers Consider Bumping? Life after Mirab v Mentor Graphics Limited UKEAT/0172/17DA Deconstructing the Opacity of Pari Passu Clause as a Pathway to Interpretative Clarity: Guidepost to Optimal Adjudicatory Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1