Redistribution, Recognition, and Representation by Isin and Wood

The article asks how can the current theory of citizenship be regarded differently so that it takes on a more malleable characteristic to accommodate and support the complexities of an individual’s and group identity(ies).

The authors suggest that we extend the definition and narrow view of citizenship. They state that the current view of citizenship as “…more of a concept of status than identity” (Isin and Wood, p.19, 1999), in that it is only seen as a label, or description, for an individual’s rights and freedoms. Isin and Wood (1999) do not want the term to be regarded as one dimensional, such as one single identity.  Rather, they want it to be seen as a more flexible concept and a tool to be used for an individuals and groups so as to exercise their rights/freedoms and support their journey of identification,

“Conceive citizenship broadly- not only as a set of legal obligations and entitlements which individuals possess by virtue of their membership in a state,but also as the practices through which individuals and groups formulate and claim new rights  or struggle to expand or maintain existing rights” (p.4).

Isin and Wood (1999) believe the terms citizenship and identity are regarded as two separate concepts, however they actually share several similarities such as their ever-changing definitions.  For instance, both are fluid and evolve over time. Citizenship, from it’s political to social definitions, has been assigned several characteristics over time such as how rights have been reformed.  As for identity Isin and Wood (1999) point to Hall’s view that it also is not a static concept but continuously changing and evolving. However, the difference I see is that these fluid characteristics are given, or handed, to individual’s and groups, when referring to citizenship. Whereas identity is formed and created by the individual and group’s themselves. The nation-state declares what and how citizenship should entail and identities are available for people to choose and manipulate.  This presents another difference in terms of accessibility (Isin and Wood, 1999). Citizenship is regulated and informed by one group where identities are somewhat free to take and be used. Furthermore, once an individual chooses an identity it may not have the same effectiveness, such as power, to the world as their citizenship status does.  

Another similarity (and difference) seen is how there are struggles and limits placed on both concepts.  The authors state that we should see group identities as being created toward the aim of gaining citizenship status (p.20).  The unfortunate reality is that not everyone has the resources, power, or access to these identities, therefore this can result in limited citizenship rights for example (Isin and Wood, p.21, 1999).

The authors express the need for citizenship to be multilayered, like identity, but ultimately its definition hinders this ability (p.21).

I feel that the authors should have expanded more on their own concept of citizenship and how it can be used as a platform to empower individual’s and groups in navigating their identities and fighting for an equal space in a globalised world. 

Reference

Isin, E. & Wood, P.  (1999).  Redistribution, recognition and representation. Citizenship and identity. London, Sage.