Reading note #2 - Redefining citizenship (Cairns, 1999)

           The main idea of the article by Cairns (1999) is that citizenship defines the relationship between citizens and between citizens and the State; these increasingly blurred boundaries of citizenship are being critically analyzed by academics particularly in the West. Citizenship education and discourse has been given more emphasis and value over the past several decades. As part of the “academic research agenda,” discourse on citizenship, particularly in Canadian contexts, is approached from two sides – as a link between citizens and the State (a sense of nationalism) and as a link between citizens themselves (a sense of kinship). The meaning that “citizenship” derives today combines both sides, allowing for the discourse to both critique and celebrate the two sides together and separately.

            Cairns (1999) outlines eight causes and issues that have been instrumental in the rethinking of how domestic and international citizenship works. He first explains how today’s “ethnic heterogeneity” in countries like Canada and Australia is given “official state support” and is easily made part of the nation’s identity (Cairns, 1999, p. 6). In a tolerant and culture-celebrating society, we are defined by this multiculturalism. It’s unfortunate, though, that though we celebrate multicultural diversity, we have a hard time with “multinational diversity” (Indigenous, internal homogenous nations), which Cairns explains is the second issue that has redefined citizenship. So citizenship is again redefined for specific groups in a stunted manner. Identity politics is Cairns’ third issue that he says, “can best be approached by its strong and moderate version” (Cairns, 1999, p. 10). Identity politics is complex and delicate and the associated values are the product of so many backgrounds and stories that identity cannot be fit into set boundaries. Cairns’ final four issues and examples are on a global context. Because of organized unions like the EU and the UN, there is increasing accountability for member nations to uphold shared ideals of human and social rights. Having this level of international discourse is one of the biggest factors in our introspection and revision of citizenship.

            The conceptual and comparative analyses of citizenship in Canada is such a big conversation topic for us, especially when we discuss our performances globally – whether they are political, economical, athletic and even (especially) environmental. The key message here, one that I agree with, is that we know very little about the dynamics of true citizenship both as a personal affiliation (identity) and as a relationship with the nation and neighbours (nationalism and kinship). The discourse surrounding this is an important one because it allows us to open up avenues that people might be reluctant to venture into – discussions based/biased on gender, sexual orientation, feminism and equality, race, religion and the overall level of nationalism. I have to add that it is because our own constant introspection and critique of our own and old-world values that we are able to progress further into a community of inclusivity. The discourse will be ongoing for a long time as we unravel even more of the intricacies that form the concept of citizenship and identity.

Reference:

Cairns, A. (1999). Introduction. In Citizenship, diversity, and pluralism: Canadian     and comparative perspectives. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s UP.