Redistribution, Recognition and Representation by Isin and Wood

In Redistribution, Recognition and Representation, Isin and Wood describe citizenship not only as practices, rights and duties but the relationship between a sociological and a legal concept that are not mutually exclusive but constitutive. In this article, the authors provide a comprehensive vocabulary for better understanding the definition of citizenship. They do so, by analyzing the work of other scholars and reviewing some current debates. They address and deconstruct concepts like liberalism, communitarianism, civic republicanism and radical democratic citizenship.

Isin and Woods describe the origins of citizenship and its different conceptions through time. By using several examples, the authors not only illustrate how citizenship has been an unstable concept throughout history but how it has been a highly contested and constantly changing institution.  

In certain sections the elements described in each perspective seemed valid and relatable. Liberalism renders service to individual interests and purposes, to protect citizens in the exercise of their rights, and to leave them unhindered in the pursuit of whatever individual and collective interests they might have (Oldfield, 1990). While communitarianism claims that individuals are situated and embedded and not isolated and independent. These individuals are defined in part by the community they belong to or are part of. (Sandel, 1998). On the other hand, Beiner’s civic republicanism advocates a concept of citizenship neither individualist nor collectivist. - An element I can also agree with.      

The article draws attention and support from Chantal’s Mouffe debate over citizenship and community, and how her theoretical resources are drawn from post-modern political and cultural theory. Mouffe argues that groups should work together for their own interests. She also argues the need for political theory to go past individualism to questions of justice, equality and community. My question would be how could we do this without a proper understanding of sociological issues of belonging, recognition and solidarity?

Some concepts addressed and presented by the authors were difficult for me to agree with as well. They speak about identities and allegiances that may involve renewing our understanding of membership and participation within and beyond a context. -  I also felt the use of the term “borderlands” to be somewhat vague and. Isin and Woods do not go into depth about the sensibility of this issue and what it can challenge.