Reading Note # 1:

Language Policies and (Dis)Citizenship: Rights, Access, Pedagogies.

Similar to many editors of a volume, Ramanda gives the overall framework for the book “Language Policies and (Dis)Citizenship” (2013) by calling for the necessity of a larger understanding of citizenship in the globalized world. Contributions in the volume analyze how individuals with linguistically vulnerable or minority backgrounds are excluded to varying degrees from civic participation and explore the potential for change.

While the concept of citizenship seems more familiar to the average reader in social sciences and education, that of ‘dis-citizenship’ sounds rather uncharted in that it incorporates the negative side of citizenship to come to a new definition of citizenship. In fact, similar to Saussure, who locates the meaning of a sign in the exclusion of anything it does not designate, the author argues that a new meaning of citizenship can emerge when the so-called “undocumented people” or the “shadowy masses” as the other side of the citizens are used to define what (dis)citizenship means.

The volume brings together leading female scholars – whose research focuses on globalization, citizenship, language policies, and pedagogic practices – to discuss the social phenomenon of dis-citizenship. While the choice of female scholars for this volume does not hold a claim for a feminist agenda, it justifies itself by giving voice to half of the population who has historically been deprived of their citizenship, if it is understood in terms of “being able to participate fully”.

Ramanda does not content herself with this minimalist definition of citizenship, as it cannot account for the new conditions of the global world. In an attempt to enlarge the meaning of citizenship, she suggests, first, exploring the possibility of a more historicized understanding of the places we have in the world. An understanding of citizenship can no longer be restricted to the traditional geographical borders. Rather, it begs for a “deeper sociological, historical and philosophical inquiry into the bordered character or social membership and the most local of concerns that inhibit fuller participation”. Echoing Deleuzian thinking, she calls citizenship processual, i.e. a continued process of becoming. Secondly, she highlights the potential that translation theory can add to a more inclusive understanding of citizenship. If not understood in its literal sense, translation alludes to the gaps and the spaces in between languages, cultures and histories and raises the awareness of how we humans are both translators and translations.  While translation brings the other to the self by making the other similar to us, it makes it also clear that the root of what is similar is difference. Thirdly, she finds fault with a legal understanding of citizenship that is based on the commonality of humans and the blindness of rules to individual and group differences. It seems that this line of thinking has penetrated into language policies. She argues that “side-stepping policies and hot losing sight of human agency and the transformative potential of humans” are likewise important factors that should be taken into consideration when reflecting citizenship concerns in language policies.

I found this contribution interesting in that it suggests an interdisciplinary approach to understanding citizenship. I liked the twofold definition of citizenship, one that is less based on “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” than on full participation, and one that defines citizenship less by focusing on what it means to be citizen than on what it means to be excluded from the status of a citizen.

The issue I think would beg for more critical reflection is to clarify what it means to ‘fully participate’, which is used as the guiding criterion for citizenship definition. In principle, the modern society gives every individual to participate in different spheres of society, be this politics, economy, law, arts, religion, or education. Citizenship is the necessary, but not the sufficient condition for participation. It can at times be secondary. For example, as we discussed in the seminar, Canada is accepting more work force with work permit than permanent residents. These newcomers are not citizens, and yet they can participate in the economic system and if they wish, they can participate in many more spheres of society. Of course they cannot participate in the political system. But does citizenship ensure that everybody participate in the political system by voting?