Conrad's post:

The strength of the article by Isin & Wood (1999) is to show how identity politics pointed to the need for new theories of citizenship. Isin and Wood prepare the ground for their conception of radical democracy. Another synonym they use is postmodern democracy. They mean to build on the critiques that have been advanced about the three main formulations of citizenship: liberalism, communitarianism, and civic republicanism. The main argument of Isin and Wood is to introduce a conceptual framework, at the outset of their book, that allows for a reconciliation between citizenship and pluralistic forms of identity. In particular, this conceptual framework asks what becomes of different notions of citizenship under the influence of cultural politics which became hugely influential by the 1990s. Their theory draws support from Mouffe (1993) in particular, as well as a line of theory which can be traced to Oakeshott (1975) that finds compatibility between political community and individual liberty. However their argument is weak in failing to suggest concrete examples for some of the concepts. For example, Mouffe was intrigued by the notion of unversitas and societas proposed by Oakeshott, referring to individuals who coalesce around "common purposes" and individuals who coalesce around "common interests." In reflecting on this idea, I had to come up with my own example. I suggest that a simple example of societas would be a group of different residents from different neighbourhoods who have formed the view that the parkland areas of their city are continually under threat from development. They might be relative strangers but in the issue of greenspace they might find a common interest, which would not be the case if this association entailed a "purposive association." This scenario suggests certain polities can represent conflict free zones, in Oakeshott's conservative view, Isin and Wood write. They argue that for Mouffe, the concept of societas in reality would contain many groups that have to work out amongst themselves what they mean by "common interests"; so it is an always-unstable polity. Although they part company with Mouffe for the way she seems to distinguish sharply between political identity and other identities, the authors encourage us to think in terms of a radical societas idea of citizenship where there is an "articulation" of different subject positions. The task of the subject in such an association is identification, using Hall's term -- getting away from the problematic notion of identity. It's relational; it's a process; a negotiation. However, I disagree with the authors' use of the term allegiances and loyalties, borrowing from other theories, when speaking of identity groups. The terms don't feel quite right, and seem more suited to belonging to teams. I thought the term hybridity and diasporas are also ones in this particular paper could have been explored further, and perhaps since the time of writing, the authors have done so, particularly Isin, who would go on to write Citizens Without Frontiers, which according to his website explores the notion that some people are contained without borders and others are free to cross those borders. Another weakness of the article is that it may appear dated in some respects. For example, Morley and Robins (1995) are cited for the evidence they offer about the dangers of neonationalisms in Europe, and much of this would have no doubt been strongly influenced by the wars following the breakup of Yugoslavia.