Summary with Chapter: The virtualization of citizenship - Schinkel - 2010

This article discusses the connection between globalization and the concept of citizenship, particularly in the Dutch context. It highlights how citizenship has become a key policy concept in recent years, linked to issues of integration. The focus has shifted from formal citizenship to moral citizenship, leading to a virtualization of citizenship. This means that citizenship is seen as a possibility rather than an actuality, emphasizing the virtue of being a citizen. The state controls the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion based on notions of active citizenship and cultural adjustment. This article also explores the tension between the modern state/society differentiation and the pressure on traditional forms of citizenship.

How has the role of citizenship developed?

Citizenship traditionally served as a mechanism for inclusion and exclusion within nation-states. It represented the modern form of political membership, encompassing a set of rights and duties. By regulating entrance to the state, citizenship also secured national borders. During a period of relative overlap between society and the nation-state, citizenship ensured inclusion in society, which was ethnically homogeneous.

However, this regionalized notion of society loses credibility in the era of globalization, where society becomes a discursive construct strategically defining the social collectivity. Society is now a non-codified and discursive entity, distinct from membership in the nation-state. In the 20th century, citizenship guaranteed membership in both the nation-state and society. But with permanent migration flows, this becomes implausible. Previously, membership in society was primarily based on birth, but because of ethnic heterogeneity, the citizenship of immigrants and their children is problematized.

As people with different socialization gain political membership, the seamless overlap between state, nation, and society weakens. This calls for analyses of citizenship and the nation-state to move beyond methodological nationalism. Despite this, the concept of citizenship remains popular within the state, indicating a relative shift from formal to moral citizenship. This reorientation of the state towards society has implications for its contemporary role. 

What is the difference between formal and moral citizenship?

Throughout history, citizenship has been associated with inclusion in a state. Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers emphasized the active participation of citizens in political affairs. This moral aspect of citizenship, alongside its formal juridical aspects, continues to shape our understanding of citizenship. Formal citizenship refers to the legal rights and duties of citizens, including social rights. On the other hand, moral citizenship encompasses the idealized notion of the good citizen, involving counterfactual and normative concepts.

While all conceptions of citizenship contain both formal and moral elements, the relative emphasis on these aspects varies. Liberal, communitarian, and republican theories of citizenship all incorporate formal and moral dimensions to different degrees. In recent times, the concept of "active citizenship" has been linked to political participation and socialization. However, the focus here is on the moralization of citizenship within policies of immigrant integration, particularly examining how the moral aspect of citizenship is addressed in Dutch national and local policy discourse.

What is the 'virtualization' of citizenship?

How did integration become citizenship?

The current phase of Dutch integration policy can be described as "culturist," with a focus on "cultural integration" rather than "socio-economic integration." This shift in policy can be traced back to the influence of right-wing politicians, such as Frits Bolkestein and Pim Fortuyn. The mediatized National Minorities Debate in 1991, along with influential essays like Paul Scheffer's "The Multicultural Drama," brought the theme of culture into the integration discourse. The rise of populist politics further accelerated this trend.

During this culturist phase, integration policies became stricter, particularly under conservative minister Verdonk, paradoxically focusing on immigration control while emphasizing cultural assimilation. The public and political interventions of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the conservative party, further intensified the debate on cultural integration, particularly regarding issues related to Islam.

This phase of integration discourse narrowed down the discussion to cultural matters, with a specific emphasis on "Islam." The term "culturism" emerged to describe a culturalized form of racism or neo-racism, where cultural differences were problematized in relation to the "dominant Dutch culture."

In this discourse, citizenship became a central concept in integration policies. It was seen as a choice and a matter of participation in Dutch society. The discussion of citizenship was framed in a culture-centered manner, where practices aligned with the "dominant culture" were normalized. Loyalty to society became a significant aspect of being a "good citizen." The focus on culture and loyalty dominated the political debate on integration, with loyalty being a central concern.

The equalization of integration and citizenship took place in 1994, with integration defined as "shared citizenship." Policies emphasized activating citizenship for ethnic minority groups, and the measurement of integration was based on acquiring citizenship and participating in society.

Recent integration policies, as outlined in the Integration Memorandum 2007-2011, continue to emphasize citizenship as a central aspect of government policy. The memorandum maintains the accent on citizenship while incorporating a neoliberal discourse of individual responsibility. It calls for active citizenship and stresses individual responsibility for societal participation and mutual acceptance.

However, the burden of bridging societal divides and improving citizenship falls mainly on those whose citizenship is deemed in need of improvement, placing the responsibility on individuals rather than addressing broader structural issues.

What is the virtualization of citizenship?

The increased emphasis on 'culture' and 'citizenship' in Dutch integration policy has two effects:

1. Citizenship is increasingly framed as moral citizenship: The focus of citizenship shifts towards its moral aspects, emphasizing the moral responsibilities and obligations of citizens. Active citizenship and participation in society become key elements of being a 'real' citizen.
2. Citizenship is being virtualized: Citizenship, instead of being an actual juridical status, becomes a virtuality. It becomes a possible but absent actuality, defined in diffuse and shifting moral terms. The virtualization of citizenship blurs its formal side and reduces it to a virtuous concept, resembling the Roman humanist notion of citizenship.

This virtualization of citizenship leads to a discursive disenfranchisement of certain individuals. Those who are formal citizens but deemed insufficiently integrated are marginalized, and their citizenship is downplayed or virtualized. The moralization of citizenship creates unenforceable demands and limits to what can be demanded from migrants in terms of their moral citizenship.

The moralization of citizenship also shapes the power dynamics between the state and the citizen. The state's force and the government's ideology on civic behavior intersect, creating a diffuse hybrid of unenforceable force. Immigrants are now expected to first prove their moral citizenship and integration into society before they can obtain formal citizenship status, reversing the previous assumption. The distinction between membership of the nation-state (formal citizenship) and membership of society (moral citizenship) becomes significant, with the latter being discursive and non-codified.

Additionally, the diffuse nature of moral citizenship makes it a strategic mechanism for inclusion and exclusion in society. It remains discursive and unenforceable, but extra-legal policy practices may be invented to address this paradox, often framed as exceptional measures or administrative innovation.

What are the discursive markers of 'non-active citizenship'?

In Dutch integration policies, a distinction is made between 'active' and 'non-active' citizens based on the terms 'Dutch natives' and 'allochthones' (non-native Dutch). This creates an opposition between different ethnic groups. Policies further differentiate between 'Western' and 'non-Western allochthones', often implying socio-economic differences.

Although the discourse no longer directly addresses 'ethnic minorities', ethnicity still influences citizenship policies, particularly in the culturist phase of integration. The focus is on the active participation of 'allochthones' in society, including language learning, education, employment, and cultural integration. This emphasis on 'allochthones' reinforces a culturist discourse that promotes assimilation. The 'ethnic' marker is associated with potential problems, while 'Dutchness' is portrayed as neutral and universal. 'Active citizenship' is presented as a solution to address both the fear of Muslims among native Dutch and the feeling of unacceptance among non-native Dutch. Similar divisions and discourses can be observed in local citizenship policies.

What is the 'regionalization' of citizenship?

The concept of the 'regionalization' of citizenship refers to the dispersal of different aspects of citizenship across various levels of executive agency, creating a localized understanding of citizenship along a local/global axis. This shift is observed not only at the national level but also at the local level, particularly within cities and municipalities that construct their own ideas of what it means to be an 'active citizen'. The focus on the local dimension of citizenship has gained prominence due to the multi-layered nature of citizenship and the diminishing role of the state in a globalized world. This regionalization of citizenship occurs alongside the moralization of citizenship, which is emphasized in a culturist discourse on integration.

Historically, citizenship was primarily a local affair, with individuals residing in cities or burghs. As political units expanded beyond the city, citizenship became more national in scope, although local aspects of citizenship persisted. The regionalization of citizenship can be seen as a response to the problematization of national citizenship in the context of globalization, shifting the focus to the local level as a means of engaging the population through citizenship. This regionalization aligns with the concept of 'glocalization,' highlighting the renewed significance of the local in a globalized world.

In the city of The Hague, for example, despite being the seat of the Dutch national government, there is significant segregation along native/non-native lines. The city's citizenship policy reflects a virtualization of citizenship, where the term 'integration' is seen negatively, and 'citizenship' is presented as a more inclusive concept. However, citizenship is redefined as a shared task rather than a shared form of being, emphasizing its virtual and potential nature. The policy emphasizes citizen participation, taking responsibility for the quality of housing, community life, and expressing opinions. 'Good citizenship' entails being an owner of one's street, contributing to the city through education, work, or other forms of engagement, and actively shaping the city together. This notion of citizenship blurs the boundaries between the public and private spheres and aligns with new paternalist and neoliberal policy discourses that prioritize personal responsibility. Failure to live up to this concept of citizenship is associated with 'anti-citizenship,' 'rudeness,' and 'anti-social behavior,' placing individuals outside the societal framework.

What is the effect of this change in citizenship?

The virtualization of citizenship shifts the state's focus from social welfare to control and surveillance. It distinguishes between formal and moral citizenship, leading to the marginalization of immigrants. The state gains power by defining society through moral citizenship, but at the expense of excluding certain citizens. This virtualization serves the state's function of gaining control over citizens and society, particularly in response to globalization. It allows the state to regain control over cultural identity and loyalty, shifting from material benefits to cultural allegiance as defining characteristics of a good citizen.