Polity and group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of universal citizenship summary

Iris Young, in her chapter, “Polity and Group Difference”, from her book Throwing Like a Girl, examines society’s baseline assumption that “modern political thought generally,” assumes that the universality of, “citizenship status transcends particularity and difference” (Young, 1990, 114). Given that modern society has (over time) awarded full citizenship status (here read as equal political and civil rights) to all groups, why do we still see inequality and consequently oppression (ibid. 114)? Young postulates that this inequality still exists due to the irreconcilability of the specificity of groups trying to align with established assimilated norms of citizenship. And, unless you are a member of the group which created the assimilated norms, you cannot, metaphorically speaking, cross the river. To cross over suggests different types of groups (women, blacks, American Indians, Hispanic, elderly) must change holistically to create the homogeneity (historically – white bourgeoisie male) required for assimilation. And how does this idea of citizenship and assimilated norms impact science and the development of new knowledge? In Flint, we can see that the maldistribution of clean water was exacerbated by an extreme injustice of misrecognition – particularly among the poor and minority population of the city. These people should be heard by those in power (government) and those with authority to influence government decisions (scientists/engineers). They can and should identify data and create knowledge which has a direct impact on mitigating any negative risk brought upon them. In her essay, “The Five Faces of Oppression”, Young says that, “social justice requires not the melting away of differences, but institutions that promote reproduction of and respect for group difference without oppression” (Young, 1998, 94).  So what are these institutions and how can they help bring participatory parity? As a STS community we need to ask ourselves, how should scientists and engineers engage effectively with a community such as Flint? How can they educate and inform a community and what (metrics) would we use to know if that community was indeed informed? What is the approach for these two entities (science and society) to achieving a shared understanding.

Young, Iris. (1990). Polity and Group Difference: A critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship. (I. Young). Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory. (pp.114-137). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Young, Iris. (1998). Five Faces of Oppression. In A.E. Cud and R.O. Andreasen, eds., Feminist Theory: A Philosophical Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Polity and group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of universal citizenship summary

Three Models of Citizenship

  • P. Schuck
  • Sociology

    Local Citizenship in a Global Age

  • 2020

This conference paper, focusing on the citizenship debate in the U.S., elaborates three distinctive models of citizenship, which I call nationalistic, human rights, and Marshallian (after sociologist

The Concept of Citizenship and the Democratic State

  • Sureyya Yigit
  • Political Science, Sociology

    Electronic Journal of Social and Strategic Studies

  • 2021

This article investigates the differences and the interrelationships between two conceptions of citizenship: one concerned with the ethical and the other with juridical dimensions concerning

SHOWING 1-2 OF 2 REFERENCES

A Want of Harmony: Perspectives on Wage Discrimination and Comparable Worth

  • both in Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities

  • 1981

An ideal of universal citizenship has driven the emancipatory momentum of modern political life. Ever since the bourgeoisie challenged aristocratic privileges by claiming equal political rights for citizens as such, women, workers, Jews, blacks, and others have pressed for inclusion in that citizenship status. Modern political theory asserted the equal moral worth of all persons, and social movements of the oppressed took this seriously as implying the inclusion of all persons in full citizenship status under the equal protection of the law.

Skip to main content

Polity and group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of universal citizenship summary

Polity and group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of universal citizenship summary

Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Home

  • Subscribe/renew
    • Institutions
    • Individual subscriptions
    • Individual renewals
  • Librarians
    • Rates, orders, and payments
    • Complete Chicago Package
    • Full run and content coverage
    • KBART files and RSS feeds
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Chicago Emerging Nations Initiative
    • Dispatch dates and claims
    • Librarian FAQ
  • Agents
    • Rates, orders, and payments
    • Complete Chicago Package
    • Full run and content coverage
    • Dispatch dates and claims
    • Agent FAQ
  • About us
    • About Chicago Journals
    • Open access at Chicago
    • Publish with us
    • Newly acquired journals
    • Publishing partners
  • Updates from the Press
    • Sign up for eTOC alerts
    • Press releases
    • Media

What is the importance of universal citizenship?

OVERVIEW. The right to a nationality is of paramount importance to the realization of other fundamental human rights. Possession of a nationality carries with it the diplomatic protection of the country of nationality and is also often a legal or practical requirement for the exercise of fundamental rights.

What do you mean by universal citizenship?

Universal citizenship, a product of the French and American revolutions refers to the equality of rights and status that have come to define membership in liberal-democratic nation-states: 'citizenship for everyone and everyone the same qua citizen' (Young, 1989: 250).

Who is associated with group differentiated citizenship?

Differentiated Citizenship is defined as “the granting of special group-based legal or constitutional rights to national minorities and ethnic groups” (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn 2013, 89).