Isin & Wood (1999) - May 7 Reading Note - Jenn Bergen

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

Main Argument

Isin and Wood (1999) argue that globalization and postmodernization necessitate the pluralisation of the concepts of both citizenship and identity, moving beyond formerly homogenous conceptions of citizenship and essentialist assumptions about identity, and toward new discussions/tensions between the two. 

Supporting Points

The emergence of cultural politics, where “groups demand rights ranging from political representation to affirmation of group difference” (p. 1) (from both states and corporations) has challenged the oppression created by both capitalism and liberal democracy. Isin and Wood (1999) define cultural politics as inclusive of movements that struggle for durable group representation (‘identity politics’), and for equality and group rights (‘politics of difference’), including the tensions between these two forms of group identification. Since cultural politics does not have formal representation in partisan political parties, the push for group rights has meant both “progressive politics of inclusion and … regressive politics of exclusion” (pp. 1-2) in efforts to resist “injustice, inequality, domination and oppression engendered by advanced capitalism and institutionalized by neoliberalism” (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 2). Isin and Wood (1999) describe the purpose of their book as investigating these issues - what conceptions of citizenship look like that take the issues of group rights under advanced capitalism seriously, and how the perceived conflict between identity and citizenship can be theorized.

When citizenship is constructed as the relationship between an individual and a ‘state’, it assumes a universality of interests among a polity that diminishes other identities (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 3). Departing from this narrow definition, the Isin and Wood describe different ways that identity and citizenship have been theorized, including their own view of citizenship as both a legal construct and a tool for articulating group rights (1999, p. 4). The authors begin by stressing that citizenship must be recognized both as a set of cultural, symbolic, and economic practices, and as political and social status and rights, and that it is the relationship between these two sociological and legal/political definitions that constitute citizenship (1999, p. 4). They also preface their discussion by warning against the assumptions that citizenship is a ‘natural’ concept (historically) or that it is a necessarily durable one (1999, p. 5).

In the wake of increased recognition of difference and the decline of grand narratives in nation-states in the postmodern and globalized world, Isin and Wood describe four conceptions of citizenship: liberalism, communitarianism, and civic republicanism (as found in the literature), and radical democratic (a conception they argue for). Liberalism, they describe, holds that the individual is primary to groups, and citizenship is seen as protecting and bestowing rights on to the individual, and not as a tool for affecting political and social systems (1999, p. 7). Communitarianism is described as a form of citizenship where the group is primary to the individual, and that individuals are shaped by their communities. Civic republicanism holds that citizenship does not have to be either of these exclusive conceptions, and is instead the articulation of shared group politics (1999, p. 9). Isin and Wood also note the critiques to these three conceptions: liberalism levels ethnic and civic identities, communitarianism advocates ‘extreme pluralism’, and civic republicanism assumes a shared civic identity that fails to acknowledge systemic oppression (1999, p. 9). A radical democratic conception of citizenship, on the other hand, accepts that conflict between “universalism and particularism” (1999, p. 10) will always be present, and instead advocates for a kind of citizenship that is non-essentialist and fluid, and which does not require “allegiance to the common good” (1999, p. 11). Instead, it proposes citizenship be based on common interest, where issues of recognition and identity are central to rights and equality (1999, p. 13).

In endeavouring to problematize the essentialist and constructivist concepts of identities, Isin and Wood (1999) draw on the concepts of difference, fragmentation, hybridity, and diaspora in order to grapple with a radical democratic conception of citizenship as it related to the process of identity formation. The concept of difference is necessary to counter-hegemonic understandings of identity, while fragmentation holds that multiple identities can always be claimed, and that these can be contradictory. Hybridity draws on theories of the “borders” and “between-ness” of particular identities, and diaspora considers identity as ties to a community or place (1999, pp. 17-19). In addition, they argue that all of these concepts are not mutually exclusive in their influence on identity and citizenship, both of which are group markers.

Assessment & Critique

Isin and Wood’s (1999) introduction to their book, Citizenship and Identity, articulately maps the histories of the debates in conceptualizing citizenship and theorizing identity. In this way, it provides a strong basis for analysis of the tensions between these two concepts, and notes how the subsequent chapters in the book will seek to address and discuss some of these tensions. One drawback to the strength of their initial analysis in this introduction is the fifteen years that have passed since it was authored, potentially unsettling parts of their arguments around globalization (as an example, they argue that globalization has begun to destabilize the nation-state, whereas arguments levelled since focus more on how this destabilization has progressed). That said, I still found this article to be extremely useful in its articulation of the complicated synergy between citizenship and identity, in particular how these concepts are treated by various theoretical conceptualizations and interpretations in the face of the declining power of the nation-state and the pluralisation of identities.