The Berliner Gazette’s annual conference, FRIENDLY FIRE, explores new forms of citizenship. Among other things, it examines the thriving trade in citizenship today, prompting Al Jazeera America editor Atossa Araxia Abrahamian to reflect on the concept’s greatest weaknesses as well as the utopia of global citizenship. An interview.
*
While researching your book *The Cosmopolites*, was there a specific moment when you envisioned the future of political citizenship? If so, what was that moment like, and what did that vision of the future look like?
When I discovered that there is a large, legal market for citizenship for investors, it became clear to me that citizenship is much more (or less!) than the emotionally charged, meaningful, democratic idea that many people see it as. The mere fact that nation-states sell their passports and the rights that come with them in a legal, unassailable manner says something about how citizenship is understood today: as a commodity, not as a reflection of rights and responsibilities.
I think this became clear to me when I attended a “Global Citizenship” conference in London. I had assumed that the agenda item “Global Citizenship” would involve discussions of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism—instead, financially struggling island nations used the opportunity to promote their passports in the hope of attracting investment.
That sounds pretty dystopian! Since we’re talking about the future of citizenship—I wonder if you have a utopian vision for it? That is, for a policy and/or practice of citizenship that you encountered during your fieldwork, one that aims for a more democratic future? Perhaps you recall an experience or observation that sparked that?
By a truly utopian vision of citizenship, I imagine something like a global citizenship that would allow people to live wherever they want—regardless of their parents or place of birth, and regardless of how much money they have. Time and again, thinkers have advocated for some version of this, from Saint-Simon to Karl Marx, but mostly in connection with religion or class. There is a reason for this: it is difficult to live in a democracy without barriers or restrictions.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that we are wired for clan-based economies and exclusion, but we must also consider fundamental historical facts that cannot possibly be undone. Even in the most progressive visions, redistribution mechanisms require a certain level of coordinated bureaucracy (unless they are fully automated, which in turn brings its own set of problems!). If global citizenship or open borders were not possible, my idea of a utopia would be one in which all people could obtain citizenship much more easily, and in which residency takes precedence over ethnicity, religion, or country of birth when determining who is a citizen and who is not.
In Europe, a political figure has long been defined as follows: rational-minded people made public demands, and then, with the help of consensus-building measures, they used the tools of democracy to realize those demands. And yet these tools (elections, etc.) have lost their appeal and their power; the state itself, from which these tools were supposed to originate, is becoming increasingly out of reach. Do we need to redefine what it means to be political? If so, what might it mean today?
I believe this basic idea—that voters make demands and expect to be heard—is still sound. And clearly, elections exude a powerful force; otherwise, we wouldn’t be living in a world with Trump and Brexit. But the political process is corrupted at every turn and is now so heavily mediated and influenced by business interests that the nature of the demands, the rationality behind them, and the outcome of elections are compromised. Those who are not well-informed cannot make good decisions; if one feels that no one is listening, the demands will hardly meet the expectations of “normal” politics; if politicians manipulate and if deep-pocketed lobbyists work to change voting laws so that marginalized groups have the hardest time possible just getting to the polls, then perhaps one cannot vote at all. It all adds up.
A person’s citizenship was also part of their political identity. Yet in the wake of the developments mentioned above, political citizenship is being replaced by a depoliticized version of itself: the citizen as consumer, beneficiary, etc. Is citizenship within the framework of the state still something that can have political significance? If so, what kind of significance could that be?
Citizenship traditionally entails having rights and responsibilities. I believe there are fewer and fewer responsibilities in this equation. At the same time—perhaps as a consequence of disengagement and the loss of a coherent national identity—“rights” are also being undermined; cuts to welfare spending, austerity, etc.
But it’s worth noting that for a lot of people—especially those who see themselves as nationalists or patriots—citizenship really does matter, and the fact that everyone else doesn’t see it that way is an affront to their worldview. Remember “Make America Great Again”? Ironically, these are the people in the U.S. who are most opposed to welfare and the social safety net.
But it does make sense, because the idea of citizenship is usually defined very narrowly from an extreme right–wing perspective—it essentially claims that citizenship should be reserved only for white people, or for people of European descent, or for some other ethnically defined group. That may be undemocratic, but it is not depoliticized. And if you don’t recognize your fellow Americans (or other fellow citizens) as part of your community, you won’t want the government to support them either. For the ultra-rich, citizenship is not depoliticized; rather, they wield ever-greater power to finance and influence political campaigns. This is an extremely political vision of wealth and power. It’s just not particularly fair or democratic.
I’ve described groups that lean toward conservatism because they’ve hijacked the narrative in a way the left didn’t anticipate. The political discourse of recent years has focused so heavily on the concept of freedom that governments believe they cannot dictate anything to the people. That may be a good thing—but there is no denying that it goes hand in hand with a society whose political significance is waning.
This ultimately raises the question: what might citizenship mean to people who are not nationalists, patriots, and/or the ultra-wealthy? Aren’t we discussing the politics of citizenship too narrowly if we leave out “the rest” of our society—not to mention the people of the Global South who, broadly speaking, often have entirely different questions about the social contract, but who are migrating to the Global North in ever-increasing numbers today… Where might one begin to explain these views and positions?
By pointing out that citizenship means different things to different groups and individuals, you are highlighting something important. In general, people tend to identify with their citizenship—emotionally, or at least, let’s say, administratively. For people from the Global South—and that includes both the poor and the rich—citizenship dictates what one can or cannot do and where one can or cannot go due to visa restrictions.
In much of the West, we expect citizenship to be accompanied by certain protections, certain rights, including the right to vote. In the case of Israel—and I am using this example in the most theoretical sense—citizenship serves as a safety net; it is a place to which Jews can turn when they are persecuted elsewhere. In short, I don’t think it’s really possible to define in a uniform way what citizenship can mean for all people. The meaning of citizenship ultimately reflects the inequalities we see in the world.
If we want to repoliticize citizenship, we must also examine the weaknesses and shortcomings inherent in citizenship as a product (and catalyst) of nation-states—for example, its logic of exclusion based on a person’s place of birth, etc. What do you see as the greatest weaknesses of citizenship in the era of the nation-state, and how can we use the current crisis to address and overcome them?
The biggest flaw is that the people who would be the most dedicated, proudest, and—whatever you want to call it—most patriotic citizens aren’t even granted the right to legal status. This, of course, stems from this ethnic conception of citizenship, which is highly destructive. I find it crazy that countries like the U.S. want to deport so many immigrants who would give an arm and a leg to be American. If you treat immigrants well, they become your greatest advocates and a tremendous asset. Bret Stephens—a conservative, mind you—made this point in a Swiftian manner in a column for the New York Times that is well worth reading.
For example, he explains: “Because I am the child of immigrants and grew up abroad, the United States was, for me, a country that belongs first and foremost to the newcomers—the people who try hardest to belong because they know how valuable that is; and who strive most for renewal, so that our ideas and our appeal do not lose their freshness. That used to be a cliché, but in the Trump era, it has to be explained over and over again. We are a country of immigrants—also by and for them. Americans who don’t get that should get lost.”
If we want to repoliticize citizenship in light of the rise of transnational networks as new shared horizons for human coexistence—what institutional structures do you see emerging that actually take into account such a development, which you have described in your book as something that could be called global citizenship? Conversely, what institutional structures are currently lacking but could be developed? Which institutional structures, in turn, are the most difficult to develop and may pose the greatest obstacles to be overcome?
To be honest, I didn’t come across much in my research that gave me cause for optimism! So many utopian ideas about technology that were supposed to unite us all have failed to materialize; many of them were championed by extreme liberals. Now that we’re facing a massive nationalist backlash, this will likely set us back several decades.
There are glimmers of hope in socialist politics, but they don’t deal with citizenship on a global level—at least not yet. I think it’s unrealistic to expect more open borders or easier access to citizenship for immigrants anytime soon. I believe we are in a period where nationalism is being reinterpreted; I hope it will be defined socially, not ethnically. That’s a pretty low bar, but it’s an improvement.
Editor’s note: Atossa Araxia Abrahamian will give a talk on November 3, 2017, as part of the public evening program at the Berliner Gazette’s annual conference, FRIENDLY FIRE. Also speaking on the panel will be media artist Ingo Günther. Both will address the issue of global citizenship. More info here. The questions were posed by the Berliner Gazette editorial team. Translated from English by Stephanie Fezer. Photo: Krystian Woznicki (CC license).