Page 147 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Citizenship 133

“ normal ” citizens. It is much more common now that cultural politics
contest and displace what is “ normal ” as just one of a range of possibili-
ties. In this respect, social movements challenge the idea of citizenship as
consisting of individuals enjoying identical rights and imply a more open,
pluralist model of society.
Indeed, the risk that group - differentiated rights themselves may produce
“ Otherness ” in relation to a norm tends to be taken very seriously in
social movements concerned with difference and equality. The identities
and positions represented by social movements are never homogeneous.
It is impossible, for example, to simply be a woman; women are always
also socially positioned in terms of ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital
status, occupation, age, geographical location, and so on. Furthermore,
contemporary society changes fast, partly as a result of the activities of
social movements themselves. Social groups contain within them, there-
fore, a range of more or less traditional or “ de - traditionalized ” identities.
This is evident, for example, where young people have been brought up
in a society that is quite different from that of their parents – whether as
a result of migration or simply of social change. The heterogeneity and

fluidity of social identities is very important to a consideration of citizen-
ship rights intended to promote more progressive and egalitarian ideals.
Another way of putting this is to say that “ freedom ” to create new identi-
ties is just as important as “ equality ” between groups. But this raises very
real difficulties. The aim of social movements is not just to equalize citi-

zenship rights but also to avoid constraining the development of new ways
of life. We will discuss these issues particularly in relation to sex and
sexuality in section 4.3 , and racialized ethnicity in section 4.4 .
Social movements have typically addressed civil spheres in relation to
nation - states, even if, as we saw in the previous chapter, they have also
long shared ideas, resources, and tactics transnationally. Similarly, soci-
ologists have understood the civil sphere as a space between the nation -
state and state - regulated markets. It is important, however, not to see the
civil sphere as literally a geographical space; the civil sphere is not neces-
sarily national. Indeed, people living within the same national territory
may be excluded from the civil sphere by “ internal borders, ” as Margaret
Somers argues that people in poverty are today (Somers, 2008 ). By exten-
sion, the civil sphere might include those living outside a national terri-
tory. Though given that, as we have noted, rights are ultimately guaranteed
by states, it is harder to imagine how this might develop.
Marshall ’ s thinking on citizenship epitomizes “ methodological nation-

alism ” in that he assumes that society is confined within national borders
and that the state is the ultimate power over citizens. Since that time,