Citizenship beyond the State


John Hoffman

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part One: Definitions and Debates

    Part Two: Barriers to Democratic Citizenship

    Part Three: The Future of Democratic Citizenship

  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page


    To Keith Faulks, whose idea this book was, and whose work has been a great inspiration to me


    Chapters One, Three, Four and Eight were drafted while on study leave, and I am very grateful to the Department of Politics and the University of Leicester for this sabbatical.

    I would like to thank Keith Faulks particularly for reading the book in its entirety. His feedback and comments proved invaluable, and as the reader will see, I have drawn heavily upon his work on citizenship. I would also like to express my gratitude to Gillian Youngs and Audrey Osler for reading particular chapters. While writing this book, I have also been helped by Rose O'Toole who promised that she would read the book when it was produced!

    I am also grateful to my partner, Rowan Roenisch, who supported and encouraged me, and my son and daughter, Fred Hoffman and Frieda Roenisch, who expressed an interest in the book.

  • Conclusion

    The central theme of my argument is that the state itself is a barrier to citizenship. The state is defined by Weber as an institution that claims a monopoly of legitimate force. It is a paradoxical institution and increasingly scholars have come to recognize its problematic nature. This book stands or falls as an attempt to convincingly detach citizenship (and democracy) from the state.

    It argues that the state tackles conflicts of interest through force. But the use of force is inimical to conflict resolution: only negotiation and arbitration can resolve conflicts of interest, since force crushes agency and the agency of all the parties is essential if a dispute is to be successfully tackled. Two important points need to be added here. The first is that it may not be possible to employ negotiation and arbitration in particular circumstances, since the latter only operate as conflict-resolving mechanisms where common interests between contending parties exist. Common interests do not exclude differences, but they imply that such differences are amenable to compromise. Hence force may be necessary but my point remains: force cannot resolve conflicts – it can only suppress them. It is justified if it provides a breathing space, thereby allowing policies that do cement common interests, to be implemented.

    The second point is that negotiation, although undermined by force, is compatible with coercion and constraint. The distinction between coercion and constraint, on the one hand, and force on the other, is of the utmost importance to my argument, since it would be naive (and contrary to all we know about stateless societies, whether domestic or international) to imagine that disputes can be resolved without the kind of pressures that I have labelled coercive and constraining.

    The distinction between coercion (and constraint) and force translates into the equally vital distinction between state and government. States use force; governments employ coercion and constraint. This means that in seeking legitimacy, states increasingly rely upon negotiation and compromise to solve problems and when they do, they cease to be states, and act governmentally This is a crucial point because it is only through the advance of government that states gradually die out.

    Nationalism, Democracy and Gender

    Distinctions between coercion, constraint and force and between state and government assume a relational (as opposed to an atomistic) view of the individual. This relational stance is also crucial in defending the linkage between citizenship and democracy. Liberal objections to democracy – that it tramples on the rights of minorities, that it suppresses individual difference in the name of majoritarian uniformity – only make sense as objections to the state, and central to my definition of democracy as self-government is the argument that democracy cannot be a form of the state. Indeed, the idea that democracies suppress individuals and minorities rests upon an atomistic view of the latter, so that violence towards individuals and minorities is not related to the freedom of the majority and the well-being of society as a whole. Liberal societies can only become more democratic if a critique of the monopolistic character of the state is developed.

    This is why nationalism is inherently undemocratic. Unlike a national consciousness (which increasingly exists in plural form), nationalism privileges one particular national identity. The notion of the nation state is all revealing, for not only is the nation tied to an institution that uses national identity to provide cohesion to its claim to a monopoly of legitimacy and force, but the term nation is in the singular. When nationalism is involved, one nation in particular has pre-eminence over others. National differences, like all differences, are certainly a source of tension and conflict. But tensions and conflict can (and where possible should) be tackled governmentally through social rather than statist sanctions. A democratic policy must respect differences, not in a supinely relativist way (as multi-cultural policies are sometimes accused of doing), but in a way which strengthens democracy and therefore rejects practices that are exploitative and marginalizing.

    One of the differences crucial to citizenship is gender. Women in liberal societies are still second-class citizens even when they have formal political rights. The public/private divide serves to keep them out of leadership roles and both nationalism and the state marginalize women. Women are both different from men and differ among themselves, but as long as these differences are dealt with by the state, violence will be normalized, and women will particularly suffer. An attempt to render citizenship more inclusive must address itself to the mechanisms that favour men and degrade women.

    Capitalism, Participation and Globalization

    Capitalism divides, and therefore like the state, is a barrier to an inclusive citizenship. Marx is right, however, to stress the positive and historically necessary role of capitalism, but his notion of class is too narrow and appears to exclude national, regional, gender divisions, etc. In my view, the notion of class needs to be expanded so that class exploitation always expresses itself in a culturally specific form, whether this is national, regional, gendered, religious, etc. The critique of the market in classical Marxism is helpful in that it emphasizes the mystifying character of abstraction – a real but confusing process.

    The rise of the welfare state has seen real inroads into the market logic of capitalism and it is through the continuation and extension of these inroads that capitalism is transformed and the market itself overcome. The case is made for a citizen's income – a reform that would dramatically accelerate these inroads – and the rise of the New Right is seen as a neo-liberal reaction to these inroads. This reaction, although mostly negative, does at least have the merit of bringing the concept of individual autonomy to the fore.

    Citizenship involves participation. With the rejection of the ‘equiliberal’ model of a low-participation society, radicals have rightly sought to make the case for greater participation. But how? Macpherson's argument is persuasive in that it seeks to show how consumer-minded citizens have to take an increasingly longer-term view of their interests (just to carry on as consumers). However, Macpherson (like other radicals) ignores the anti-participatory character of the state, and a case is made for compulsory voting as a way of popularizing the responsibilities of citizenship. Communitarians are right to stress the importance of community responsibility, but even where they avoid authoritarian and relativistic arguments, they ignore the psuedo- or anti-communitarianism of the state. Like republicans, liberal-minded communitarians are strong on the need to avoid domination but weak in their critique of force.

    Globalization raises the prospect of a global citizenship. But to move in this direction, we need to defend a positive, post-capitalist version of globalization and not a ‘market fundamentalist’ one. The latter in fact strengthens inequality, nationalism and the need for the state, whereas the former must be guided by goals of social justice and the need for global institutions to work for a more equal world. The United Nations can only become a global government if it is democratized, and the concept of a European citizenship, although hugely positive, must win the argument for post-statism. A global citizenship does not involve obliterating differences, but rather celebrating them through a multi-layered form of government that involves people in governing their own lives at every level.

    Emancipation and the ‘Realization’ of an Inclusive Citizenship

    The notion of emancipation has become controversial. Many (self-styled) postmodernists regard emancipation as a modernist concept and it is certainly true that it is a concept with unambiguously modernist origins. But the concept can be reconstructed and, to this end, I propose a distinction between momentum concepts whose potential for change and development is infinite, and static concepts that are divisive and repressive. What makes emancipation a momentum concept is that it cannot be realized at any given point in time.

    The notion of emancipation reinforces the self-governing attribute of an inclusive citizenship, since only the individual can emancipate him or herself. This is why the use of force is inimical to emancipation, although a whole range of social pressures (which I label coercive and constraining) can be brought to bear on behaviour deemed harmful. Self-government involves both direct action and representation by others, and it is important, here as elsewhere, that we do not surrender to a modernist logic of either/or. The need to embrace both sameness and difference becomes particularly salient with respect to distinguishing adult citizens from children as citizens-to-be, and humans from the rest of the natural world.

    As for the problem of ‘realization’, we need to distinguish between theory and practice in a way that does not demoralize, but empowers. Although we would expect the victims rather than the beneficiaries of the market and the state to be particularly concerned with the struggle for an inclusive citizenship, all have skills they can contribute, and there is no prima facie case for excluding anyone. The classical Marxist view would narrow the question of agency down to the proletariat, while anarchists invert rather than transcend liberalism, by exalting spontaneity, and generally refusing to distinguish between coercion (and constraint) and force, or state and government.

    New social movements must be seen as vehicles for transforming an inegalitarian society as a whole, while the Crick Report weakens its laudable aim of developing citizenship education in secondary schools, by defining politics in a traditional statist manner and treating citizenship in a nationalist way.

    All members of society are potential agents for developing an inclusive citizenship. If we are moving inexorably towards a veritable Hobbesian state of nature, in which insecurity, violence and arbitrariness become all pervasive, then the relational argument is expressed in the most graphic manner. No-one benefits, and all have a vested interest in looking beyond the state to a world of democracy and inclusive citizenship.


    Allen, J. (1990) ‘Does Feminism Need a Theory of the State?’ in S.Watson (ed.), Playing the StateLondon: Verso, 21–37.
    Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities revised edn., London: Verso.
    Arblaster, A. (1984) The Rise and Decline of Western LiberalismOxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Ashley, R. (1988) ‘Untying the Sovereign State: a Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’, Millenium17 (2), 227–62.
    Avineri, S. (1970) The Social and Political Thought of Karl MarxCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Bankowski, Z. and Christodoulidis, E. (1999) ‘Bound and Citizenship Unbound’ in K.Hutchings and R.Dannreuther (eds), Cosmopolitan CitizenshipBasingstoke: Macmillan, 83–104.
    Barbalet, J. (2000) ‘Vagaries of Social Capital: Citizenship, Trust and Loyalty’, in E.Vasta (ed.), Citizenship, Community and DemocracyBasingstoke: Macmillan, 91–106.
    Barry Jones, R. (2000) The World Turned Upside DownManchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
    Baumeister, A. (2000) ‘The New Feminism’ in N.O'Sullivan (ed.), Political Theory in TransitionLondon and New York: Routledge, 49–69.
    Beck, U. (1998) Democracy Without EnemiesCambridge: Polity Press.
    Beetham, D. (1984) ‘The Future of the Modern State’ in G.McLellan, D.Held and S.Hall (eds), The Idea of the Modern StateMilton Keynes and Philadelpia: Open University Press, 208–22.
    Bellah, R. (1998) ‘Community Properly Understood: A Defense of “Democratic Communitarianism”’ in A.Etzioni (ed.), The Essential Communitarian ReaderOxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 15–19.
    Bellamy, R. and Warleigh, A. (eds) (2001) Citizenship and Governance in the European UnionLondon and New York: Continuum.
    Benn, M. (2002) ‘The Hour of Reckoning’, Guardian, 30 January.
    Bourdieu, P. (1998) Acts of ResistanceCambridge: Polity.
    Breuilly, J. (1993) Nationalism and the State
    2nd edn
    , Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    Brown, W. (1992) ‘Finding the Man in the State’, Feminist Studies18 (1), 7–34.
    Brubaker, R. (1998) ‘Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism’ in J.Hall (ed.), The State of the NationCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 272–306.
    Bryson, V. (1992) Feminist Political TheoryBasingstoke: Macmillan.
    Bryson, V. (1994) Women in British PoliticsHuddersfield: Pamphlets in History and Politics, University of Huddersfield.
    Bubeck, D. (1995) A Feminist Approach to CitizenshipFlorence: European University Institute.
    Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical SocietyLondon: Macmillan.
    Calhoun, C. (1997) NationalismBuckingham: Open University Press.
    Canovan, M. (1996) Nationhood and Political TheoryCheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    Carter, A. (2001) The Political Theory of Global CitizenshipLondon and New York: Routledge.
    Childe, G. (1964) What Happened in HistoryHarmondsworth: Penguin.
    Cohen, R. and Rai, S. (2000) ‘Global Social Movements: Towards a Cosmopolitan Politics’ in R.Cohen and S.Rai (eds), Global Social MovementsLondon and New Brunswick: Athlone Press, 1–17.
    Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our Global NeighbourhoodOxford: Oxford University Press.
    Connell, R. (1987) Gender and PowerCambridge: Polity Press.
    Connell, R. (1990) ‘The State, Gender and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal’, Theory and Society19: 507–44.
    Coole, D. (1988) Women in Political TheoryHemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
    Crick, B. (1982) In Defence of Politics
    2nd edn
    , Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Crick Report (1997) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in SchoolsLondon: Department for Education and Employment.
    Dagger, R. (1997) Civic VirtueOxford: Oxford University Press.
    Dahl, R. (1956) A Preface to Democratic TheoryChicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
    Dahl, R. (1961) Who Governs?New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
    Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and Its CriticsNew Haven: Yale University Press.
    Dahrendorf, R. (1998) ‘A Precarious Balance: Economic Opportunity, Civil Society and Political Liberty’ in A.Etzioni (ed.), The Essential Communitarian Reader Lanham et al. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 73–94.
    Davis, H. (1967) Nationalism and SocialismNew York and London: Monthly Review Press.
    Davis, H. (1978) Toward a Marxist Theory of NationalismNew York and London: Monthly Review Press.
    De Jasay, A. (1985) The StateOxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship in a Global AgeBuckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
    Department for International Development (2002) Issues Paper 3Kingston upon Thames: DFID Development Policy Forums.
    Dickenson, D. (1997) ‘Counting Women In: Globalization, Democratization and the Women's Movement’ in A.McGrew (ed.), The Transformation of DemocracyCambridge and Milton Keynes: Polity and the Open University Press, 97–120.
    Dryzek, J. (1999) ‘Transnational Democracy’, The Journal of Political Philosophy7 (1), 30–51.
    Dunn, J. (1979) Western Political Theory in the Face of the FutureLondon: Cambridge University Press.
    Eisenstein, Z. (1981) The Radical Future of Liberal FeminismLondon: Longman.
    Eisenstein, Z. (1994) The Color of GenderLos Angeles: University of California Press.
    Enloe, C. (1993) The Morning AfterBerkeley: University of California Press.
    Etzioni, A. (1996) The New Golden RuleLondon: Profile Books.
    Etzioni, A. (ed.) (1998) The Essential Communitarian Reader Lanham et al. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Falk, R. (1994) ‘The Making of Global Citizenship’ in B.Van Steenbergen (ed.), The Condition of CitizenshipLondon: Sage, 127–40.
    Faulks, K. (1998) Citizenship in Modern BritainEdinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    Faulks, K. (1999) Political SociologyEdinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    Faulks, K. (2000) CitizenshipLondon and New York: Routledge.
    Faulks, K. (2001) ‘Should Voting be Compulsory?’, Politics Review10 (3), 24–5.
    Freedman, J. (2001) FeminismBuckingham: Open University Press.
    French, M. (1992) The War Against WomenLondon: Hamish Hamilton.
    Galston, W. (1998) ‘A Liberal-Democratic case for the Two-Parent Family’ in Etzioni, A. (ed.), The Essential Communitarian Reader Lanham et al. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 145–55.
    Garner, R. (1993) Animals, Politics and MoralityManchester: Manchester University Press.
    Gatens, M. (1991) ‘“The oppressed state of my sex”: Wollstonecraft on reason, feeling and equality’ in M.Shanley and C.Pateman (eds), Feminist Interpretations of Political TheoryCambridge: Polity, 112–28.
    Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and NationalismOxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Geras, N. (1994) ‘Democracy and the Ends of Marxism’ in G.Parry and M.Moran (eds), Democracy and DemocratizationLondon: Routledge, 69–87.
    Gerth, H. and Mills, C.W. (eds) (1991) From Max WeberLondon and New York: Routledge.
    Giddens, A. (1985) The Nation-State and ViolenceCambridge: Polity Press.
    Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and RightCambridge: Polity Press.
    Giddens, A. (1998) The Third WayCambridge: Polity Press.
    Giddens, A. (1999) Runaway WorldLondon: BBC Reith Lectures 1–5,
    Giddens, A. (ed.) (2001) The Global Third Way DebateCambridge: Polity Press.
    Giddens, A. (2002) Where Now for New LabourCambridge: Polity Press.
    Gilmour, I. (1977) Inside RightLondon, Melbourne, New York: Quartet Books.
    Goodwin, B. (1997) Using Political Ideas
    4th edn
    , Chicester, New York, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.
    Gray, J. (1999) False DawnLondon: Granta Books.
    Guibernau, M. (1996) NationalismsCambridge: Polity Press.
    Hall, S. and Held, D. (1989) ‘Citizens and Citizenship’ in S.Hall and M.Jacques (eds), New TimesLondon: Lawrence and Wishart, 173–88.
    Hamilton, A. et al. (1961) The Federalist PapersNew York: Basic Books.
    Harding, S. (1990) ‘Feminism, Science and the Anti-enlightenment critiques’ in L.Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/PostmodernismNew York and London: Routledge, 83–106.
    Hayek, F. (1960) The Constitution of LibertyLondon and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Heater, D. (1999) What is Citizenship?Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Held, D. (1987) Models of DemocracyCambridge: Polity.
    Held, D. (1995) Democracy and the Global OrderCambridge: Polity Press.
    Held, D., Goldblatt, D. and Perreton, J. (eds) (1999) Global TransformationsCambridge: Polity.
    Held, V. (1993) Feminist MoralityUniversity of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.
    Hirshmann, N. (1992) Rethinking ObligationIthaca and London: Cornell University Press.
    Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in QuestionCambridge: Polity Press.
    Hoffman, J. (1984) The Gramscian ChallengeOxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Hoffman, J. (1986) ‘The Problem of the Ruling Class in Classical Marxist Theory: Some Conceptual Preliminaries’, Science and Society50 (3), 342–63.
    Hoffman, J. (1988) State, Power and DemocracyBrighton: Wheatsheaf Press.
    Hoffman, J. (1991) ‘Capitalist Democracies and Democratic States: Oxymorons or Coherent Concepts’, Political Studies39 (2), 342–9.
    Hoffman, J. (1995) Beyond the StateCambridge: Polity Press.
    Hoffman, J. (1996) ‘Antonio Gramsci: The Prison Notebooks’ in M.Forsyth and M.Keens-Soper, (eds), The Political Classics: Green to DworkinOxford: Oxford University Press, 58–77.
    Hoffman, J. (1998) SovereigntyBuckingham: Open University Press.
    Hoffman, J. (2000) Reconstructing Conflict as a Building Block of DiplomacyLeicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, University of Leicester.
    Hoffman, J. (2001) Gender and SovereigntyBasingstoke: Palgrave.
    Hoffman, J. and Mzala, N. (1990–91) ‘“Non-Historical Nations”: a South African Perspective’, Science and Society54 (4), 408–26.
    Hofstadter, R. (1967) The American Political TraditionLondon: Jonathan Cape.
    Huntington, S. (1996), The Clash of CivilizationsNew York: Simon & Schuster.
    Hutchings, K. (1999) ‘Feminist Politics and Cosmopolitan Citizenship’ in K.Hutchings and R.Dannreuther (eds), Cosmopolitan CitizenshipBasingstoke: Macmillan, 120–42.
    Independent (2003) ‘Britain Today: A Nation still Failing its Ethnic Minorities’, 8 May.
    Isin, E. and Wood, P. (1999) Citizenship and IdentityLondon: Sage.
    Janoski, T. (1998) Citizenship and Civil SocietyCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Johnston, S. (1993) Realising the Public World OrderLeicester: Centre for the Study of Public Order, University of Leicester.
    Jones, K. (1990) ‘Citizenship in a Women-Friendly Polity’, Signs15 (4), 781–812.
    Jones, K. (1993) Compassionate AuthorityLondon and New York: Routledge.
    Jordan, B. (1985) The StateOxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Kant, I. (1959 [1785]) Foundation of the Metaphysics of MoralsIndianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
    Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multi-Cultural CitizenshipOxford: Clarendon Press.
    Laver, M. (1985) Invitation to PoliticsOxford: Blackwell.
    Leftwich, A. (1983) Redefining PoliticsLondon and New York: Methuen.
    Lerner, G. (1986) The Creation of PatriarchyNew York: Oxford University Press.
    Linklater, A. (1999) ‘Cosmopolitan Citizenship’ in K.Hutchings and R.Dannreuther (eds), Cosmopolitan CitizenshipBasingstoke: Macmillan, 35–59.
    Lister, R. (1997a), Citizenship: Feminist PerspectivesBasingstoke: Macmillan.
    Lister, R. (1997b) ‘Citizenship: Towards a Feminist Synthesis’, Feminist Review57, 28–48.
    Lloyd, G. (1984) The Man of ReasonLondon: Methuen.
    Locke, J. (1927) Two Treatises of Civil GovernmentLondon: Dent.
    Löwy, M. (1998) Fatherland or Mother Earth?London and Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press.
    MacKinnon, C. (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the StateCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Macpherson, C. (1977) The Life and Times of Liberal DemocracyLondon, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
    Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence InquiryLondon: TSO.
    Mair, L. (1962) Primitive GovernmentHarmondsworth: Penguin.
    Mannheim, K. (1991) Ideology and UtopiaLondon: Routledge.
    Marcuse, H. (1968) One Dimensional ManLondon: Sphere Books.
    Marshall, T. and Bottomore, T. (1992) Citizenship and Social ClassLondon: Pluto Press.
    Marx, K. (1966 [1894]) Capital Vol. 3Moscow: Progress Publishers.
    Marx, K. (1970 [1867]) Capital Vol. 1London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1967 [1848]) The Communist ManifestoHarmondsworth: Penguin.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975a [1835–1843]) Collected Works vol. 1London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975b [1843–1844]) Collected Works vol. 3London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975c [1844–1845]) Collected Works vol. 4London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975d [1844–1895]) Selected CorrespondenceMoscow: Progress Publishers.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1976a [1845–1847]) Collected Works vol. 5London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1976b [1845–1848]) Collected Works vol. 6London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    McKinnon, C. and Hampsher-Monk, I. (2000) ‘Introduction’ in C.McKinnon and I.Hamphsher-Monk (eds), The Demands of CitizenshipLondon and New York: Continuum, 1–9.
    Melucci, A. (1988) ‘Social Movements and the Democratization of Everyday Life’ in J.Keane (ed.), Civil Society and the StateLondon: Verso, 245–60.
    Melucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the PresentJ.Keane and P.Mier (eds), London: Hutchinson Books.
    Miliband, R. (1973 [1969]) The State in Capitalist SocietyLondon, Melbourne and New York: Quartet Books.
    Mill, J.S. (1974 [1859]) On LibertyHarmondsworth: Penguin.
    Miller, D. (1995) On NationalityOxford: Clarendon Press.
    Miller, D. (1999) ‘Bounded Citizenship’ in K.Hutchings and R.Dannreuther (eds), Cosmopolitan CitizenshipBasingstoke: Macmillan, 60–80.
    Monbiot, G. (2002) ‘The Rich World's Veto’, Guardian, 15 October.
    Mouffe, C. (1992) ‘Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Democratic Politics’ in J.Butler and J.Scott (eds), Feminists Theorize the PoliticalNew York and London: Routledge, 369–84.
    Mouffe, C. (1996) ‘Radical Democracy or Liberal Democracy’ in D.Trend (ed.), Radical DemocracyNew York and London: Routledge, 19–26.
    New Internationalist (1994) Special Issue, December.
    Nicholson, P. (1984) ‘Politics and Force’ in A.Leftwich, (ed.), What is Politics?Oxford: Blackwell, 33–45.
    Nimni, E. (1989) ‘Marx, Engels and the National Question’, Science and Society53 (3), 297–326.
    Novak, M. (1998) Is There a Third WayLondon: IEA Health and Welfare Unit.
    Offen, K. (1992) ‘Defining feminism: a comparative historical approach’ in G.Bock and S.James (eds), Beyond Equality and DifferenceLondon and New York: Routledge, 69–88.
    Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Nation-StateNew York: Free Press.
    O'Leary, B. (1998) ‘Ernest Gellner's Diagnoses on Nationalism: A Critical Overview or What is Living and What is Dead in Ernest Gellner's Philosophy of Nationalism’ in J.Hall (ed.), The State of the NationCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–88.
    Oliver, D. and Heater, D. (1994) The Foundations of CitizenshipNew York and London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Oommen, T. (1997) Citizenship, Nationality and EthnicityCambridge: Polity Press.
    Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2001) ‘Citizenship Education and National Identities in France and England: inclusive or exclusive?’, Oxford Review of Education27 (2), 288–305.
    Parekh, B. (1990) ‘When Will the State Wither Away?’, Alternatives15, 247–62.
    Petit, P. (1997) RepublicanismOxford: Oxford University Press.
    Pettman, J.J. (1996) Worlding WomenLondon and New York: Routledge.
    Philp, M. (2000) ‘Motivating Liberal Citizenship’ in C.McKinnon and I.Hampsher-Monk (eds), The Demands of CitizenshipLondon and New York: Continuum, 165–89.
    Plato. (1955 [380 BC) The RepublicHarmondsworth: Penguin.
    Poggi, G. (1978) The Development of the Modern StateLondon: Hutchinson.
    Pringle, R. and Watson, S. (1992) Women's Interests and the Post-Structural State’ in M.Barrett and A.Phillips (eds), Destabilizing TheoryCambridge: Polity Press, 53–73.
    Reiss, H. (ed.) (1970) Kant's Political WritingsCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Ross, K. (2000) Woman at the TopLondon: Hansard Society.
    Rousseau, J.J. (1968) The Social ContractHarmondsworth: Penguin.
    Runyan, A.S. and Peterson, V.S. (1991) ‘The Radical Future of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory’, Alternatives16, 67–106.
    Sader, E. (2002) ‘Beyond Civil Society’New Left Review 17, Sept./Oct., 87–99.
    Sandel, M. (1982) Liberalism and the Limits of JusticeCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sandel, M. (1992) ‘The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self’ in S.Avineri and A.De-Shalit (eds), Communitarianism and LiberalismOxford: Oxford University Press, 12–28.
    Saunders, P. (1995) Capitalism: A Social AuditBuckingham: Open University Press.
    Schumpeter, J. (1947) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
    2nd edn
    , New York and London: Harper.
    Selznick, P. (1998) ‘Social Justice: a Communitarian Perspective’ in A.Etzioni (ed.), The Essential Communitarian Reader Lanham et al. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 61–71.
    Shanley, M. and Pateman, C. (eds) (1991) Feminist Interpretations and Political TheoryCambridge: Polity Press.
    Sharp, P. (2001) Making Sense of Citizen DiplomatsLeicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy, University of Leicester.
    Smith, A. (1998) Nationalism and ModernismLondon and New York: Routledge.
    Sorensen, G. (2001) Changes in StatehoodBasingstoke: Palgrave.
    Soysal, Y. (1994) The Limits of CitizenshipChicago and London: University of Chicago.
    Sperling, L. (2001) Women, Political Philosophy and PoliticsEdinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    Spragens, T. (1998) ‘The Limits of Libertarianism’ in A.Etzioni (ed.), The Essential Communitarian Reader Lanham et al. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 21–40.
    Squires, J. (2000) ‘The State in (and of) Feminist Visions of Political Citizenship’ in C.MacKinnon and I.Hampsher-Monk (eds), The Demands of CitizenshipLondon and New York: Continuum, 35–50.
    Steans, J. (1998) Gender in International RelationsCambridge: Polity Press.
    Stepan, A. (1998) ‘Modern Multinational Democracies: Transcending a Gellnerian Oxymoron’ in J.Hall (ed.), The State of the NationCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–39.
    Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its DiscontentsLondon: Allen Lane, Penguin.
    Sylvester, C. (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern EraCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sylvester, C. (2002) Feminist International RelationsCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Taylor, C. (1998a) ‘Nationalism and Modernity’ in J.Hall (ed.), The State of the NationCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191–218.
    Taylor, C. (1998b) ‘The Dangers of Soft Despotism’ in A.Etzioni (ed.), The Essential Communitarian Reader Lanham et al. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 47–54.
    Tickner, J. (1992) Gender and International RelationsNew York: Columbia University Press.
    Tickner, J. (1995) ‘Re-visioning Security’ in K.Booth and S.Smith (eds), International Relations Theory TodayCambridge: Polity Press, 175–97.
    Tocqueville, A. de (1966 [1835 and 1840]) Democracy in AmericaLondon and Glasgow: Fontana.
    Touraine, A. (1981) The Voice and the EyeCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Touraine, A. (1995) ‘Democracy: From a Politics of Citizenship to a Politics of Recognition’ in L.Maheu (ed.), Social Movements and Social ClassesLondon: Sage, 258–75.
    Tully, J. (2000) ‘The Challenge of Reimaging Citizenship and Belonging in Multicultural and Multinational Societies’ in C.McKinnon and I.Hampsher-Monk (eds), The Demands of CitizenshipLondon and New York: Continuum, 212–34.
    Turner, A. (2002) Just CapitalLondon: Pan Books.
    Turner, B. (1986) Citizenship and CapitalismLondon: Allen and Unwin.
    Turner, B. (1994) ‘Postmodern Culture/Modern Citizens’ in B.Van Steenbergen (ed.), The Condition of CitizenshipLondon: Sage, 153–68.
    United Nations (1993) Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of JusticeUnited Nations, New York.
    Van Creveld, M. (1999) The Rise and Decline of the StateCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Van Steenbergen, B. (1994) ‘Towards a Global Ecological Citizen’ in B.Van Steenbergen (ed.), The Condition of CitizenshipLondon: Sage, 141–52.
    Vincent, A. (1987) Theories of the StateOxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Viroli, M. (2000) ‘Republican Patriotism’ in C.McKinnon and I.Hampsher-Monk (eds), The Demands of CitizenshipLondon and New York: Continuum, 267–75.
    Voet, R. (1998) Feminism and CitizenshipLondon, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
    Vogel, U. (1994) ‘Marriage and the Boundaries of Citizenship’ in B.Van Steenbergen (ed.), The Condition of CitizenshipLondon: Sage, 76–89.
    Walker, R.B.J. (1999) ‘Citizenship After the Modern Subject’ in K.Hutchings and R.Dannreuther (eds), Cosmopolitan CitizenshipBasingstoke: Macmillan, 171–200.
    Weldon, T. (1953) The Vocabulary of PoliticsHarmondsworth: Penguin.
    Williams, R. (2002) ‘Full text of Dimbleby lecture delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury’,, 1–9.
    Yeatman, A. (1994) Postmodern Revisionings of the PoliticalLondon: Routledge.
    Youngs, G. (1999) International Relations in a Global AgeCambridge: Polity Press.
    Yuval-Davis, N. (1997a) ‘Women, Citizenship and Difference’, Feminist Review57, 4–27.
    Yuval-Davis, N. (1997b) Gender and NationLondon: Sage.
    Yuval-Davis, N. (1999) ‘The “Multi-Layered Citizen”: Citizenship in the Age of “Glocalization”’, International Feminist Journal of Politics1 (1), 119–36.
    Zalewski, M. (1995) ‘Well, What is the Feminist Perspective in Bosnia?’, International Affairs71 (2), 339–58.


    Words as used in this book.

    • Abstraction

      A conceptual and practical process that mystifies and conceals underlying social relationships.

    • Anarchism

      A theory that seeks to abolish the state, but adopts statist tools of analysis and hence enjoys no success.

    • Atomistic

      An approach that treats individuals and entities in purely discrete terms and ignores the relationships between them.

    • Capitalism

      A system of production that divides society into those who can hire the services of others and those who are compelled to work for an employer.

    • Citizen

      A person able to govern their own life. Citizenship is an emancipatory situation towards which we move, but can never actually reach.

    • Class

      An identity that divides people based upon economic, social, regional, religious, gender, ethnic and other differences.

    • Coercion

      A concept and practice that should be rigorously distinguished from force. Coercion embraces social pressures that deliberately punish those who harm a person or collectivity's interests.

    • Communitarianism

      A theory which stresses that all people belong to communities and can only identify themselves in relations with others.

    • Conflict

      A clash of interests that can be tackled through violence, but only resolved through non-statist pressures. Conflicts of the latter kind are inevitable and arise from the fact that we are all different from one another.

    • Constraint

      A natural or social pressure ensuring that we do something which we had not intended to do. Unlike coercion, this pressure is unintentional and informal in character.

    • Deconstruction

      The act of criticizing. Deconstruction involves pulling an argument to pieces, but in a way that works from the assumptions upon which this argument rests.

    • Democracy

      A society in which people govern themselves.

    • Difference

      Identifications that separate people and inevitably cause conflict to arise.

    • Division

      Differences that undermine common interests and necessitate the use of force.

    • Emancipation

      The capacity of people to act freely and thus govern their own lives.

    • Feminism

      A theory that works toward emancipation of women.

    • Force

      A pressure that undermines the agency of individuals by physically harming them.

    • Globalization

      A linkage between peoples of the globe that enables them to understand and empathize with one another.

    • Government

      The resolution of conflicts of interest. It can occur at every level in society; it is inherent in social relationships, and needs to be contrasted with the state.

    • Hierarchy

      An assymetrical linkage inherent in relationships. It is normally assumed to be repressive, but it need not be.

    • Individual

      A person who is separate from others but who finds their identity through relating to these others.

    • Liberalism

      A theory which stipulates that individuals realize their freedom through the possession of private property and through the market mechanism.

    • Market

      A mechanism enabling exchanges to occur, but in a way that conceals the real power that people possess.

    • Marxism

      A theory whose potential for emancipation is undermined by notions of class war, revolution and dictatorship.

    • Momentum Concept

      A concept that has a potential for freedom and equality, but whose progress is infinite, and therefore can never be realized.

    • Multi-culturalism

      A respect for and a belief that we can learn from the cultural differences of others, provided these differences express themselves in a democratic manner.

    • Nationalism

      A statist attitude and movement that arises when one nationality is privileged at the expense of others.

    • Nationality

      An identity that arises from a sense of belonging to one or more nations.

    • Natural

      A developmental process. What is natural is therefore susceptible to historical change.

    • Naturalism

      A doctrine that treats the natural in a static and ahistorical way. It assumes that what exists at the present can never change.

    • Order

      A stability in the possession of things; security against violence, and a trust in others that promises will be kept.

    • Patriarchal

      A static concept and practice that enshrines male domination. Patriarchy can be pursued by women. It need not be pursued by men.

    • Politics

      A public process that involves resolving conflicts of interest. Politics is undermined by force and is inherent at every level in all societies.

    • Post-liberalism

      A theory that accepts liberalism but goes beyond it, by extending liberal values to all individuals, and thus challenging the need for a state.

    • Postmodernism

      A theory that goes beyond modernism and therefore challenges the dualisms and one-sidedness expressed in the modernist tradition.

    • Pre-modern

      A theory and practice that has yet to obtain the institutions and to support the values of liberalism (or modernism).

    • Private

      The sphere of life in which conflict is imperceptible or embryonic.

    • Public

      The sphere of life in which conflict is manifest and has to be resolved.

    • Reconstruction

      The reworking of concepts so that an alternative to the status quo is charted.

    • Relational

      An approach which stresses that individuals and collectives only find their identity in relationship with one another.

    • Relationship

      A linkage that is vitiated by force but whose mutuality is necessarily hierarchical in character and sustained by coercion and constraint.

    • State

      An institution that claims a monopoly of legitimate force for a particular territory. This claim makes it contradictory and paradoxical.

    • Static Concept

      One which is divisive in character and cannot therefore be reconstructed.

    • Statism

      An approach that creates or accepts divisions and thus the need for force to tackle them.

    • Violence

      A synonym for force.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website