Guide to the vibrant and

Download 17.16 Mb.
Size17.16 Mb.
1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   162

community of personally charismatic individuals

whose charisma or qualification must be publicly

demonstrated (for example through rebaptism for

Baptists). In Weber’s definition, a sect is a select

group whose associational claims in essence preclude

universality and require the free consent of

its qualified members; it is not a group that splits

off from another because of persecution or condemnation.

Sects typically reject office charisma,

adhering instead to a democratic model whereby

authority lies in the congregation, who, through

daily knowledge of the individuals in the community,

are qualified to determine who among them

is visibly deserving of sect membership. Although

sect membership is voluntary, based on individual

Chodorow, Nancy (1944– ) church–sect typology


choice rather than ascribed by birth, admission

and continued participation is contingent on

the individual’s consistent adherence in everyday

life to the sect’s religious beliefs and moral


The sect community functions as a selection

apparatus for separating the qualified from the

unqualified, and for ensuring that qualified

members interact with each other rather than

with nonmembers. Although a negative consequence

of this boundary maintenance is that it

encourages withdrawal from, rather than engagement

or accommodation with, the nonqualified, a

positive function is the solidarity and social

integration that sects provide their members,

especially necessary for blunting the anomie and

alienation found in highly mobile modern societies

and among diasporic religions (such as Judaism).

Moreover, Weber argued, the high moral and

ascetic standards typically associated with sects

means that their business interests thrive, because

members and nonmembers alike trust their

economic security to them. Although the small

congregation is best suited to monitoring sect

members’ behavior, Weber emphasized that a

sect is not a small group; as he noted, the Baptists

are one of the most typical sects and also one of

the largest Protestant denominations in the world.

The contrasting universal and compulsory

claims of a church against the selective and voluntary

nature of a sect are particularly useful in

understanding how different emphases on freedom

and especially on freedom of conscience

filter into public debates and assumptions about

the relation between church and state. Whereas a

church would typically argue for the universal

applicability of its moral teachings to human society,

a sect would typically argue in favor of a

differentiation between religious and political


Cicourel, Aaron Victor (1928– )

An American sociologist, who contributed seminal

work to cognitive sociology and ethnomethodology,

Cicourel received his BA and MA

from the University of California, Los Angeles, in

1951 and 1953 respectively, and his PhD from

Cornell University in 1957. Cicourel has taught

all over the world but primarily within the

University of California system, and is currently

Research Professor of Cognitive Science, Pediatrics,

and Sociology at the University of California,

San Diego. Cicourel has made important contributions

to the sociology of education, law and

society, medical sociology, methodology, and

sociological theory. The bulk of his research has

focused on the nature and function of tacit knowledge

in social interaction, particularly in institutional

settings. His fundamental interest has been

to reveal the internalized interpretive schema

that govern how social actors assign meaning

and relevance to objects in their environments

and how they discern the relevance of social

norms and social roles in specific practical situations.

More specifically, his research explored

how tacit knowledge and tacit social competences

underlie and inform language use, practical

inference, and the application of standardized

procedures in different social organizational contexts.

Cicourel is particularly well known for a

series of groundbreaking articles and books including

“The Use of Official Statistics” (1963,

Social Problems, with John Kitsuse), Method and Measurement

in Sociology (1964), and Cognitive Sociology

(1974), wherein he articulates a foundational critique

of sociological research methodologies that

fail to attend adequately to the tacit presuppositions

and social competences that underlie

their application in actual instances of empirical



The notion of citizenship can be traced back to the

Greek polis that tied rights to membership of the

city, excluding women and slaves. The modern

version of citizenship is connected to the twin

processes of nation building and industrialization

following the American and French Revolutions.

Freedom of contract and protection of property

rights were important elements, and the growth

of markets contributed to breaking down traditional

hierarchies and to fostering equality and


Citizenship has become a key concept at the

center of policy debates within and across national

borders. T. H. Marshall, in Citizenship and

Social Class (1950), first developed a modern framework

for the notion of citizenship based upon

principles of freedom, equality, and solidarity.

Since then citizenship has had a double focus: as

a vision of equal rights and respect, and as a tool

to analyze the social and political development of

modern societies.

In social science, citizenship has become a

key concept, and studies have focused both on

social rights (in sociology) and on participation

(in political science). Citizenship has different

meanings, institutional designs, and patterns

Cicourel, Aaron Victor (1928– ) citizenship


cross-nationally. The definition includes three different

dimensions: (1) individual rights and obligations;

(2) political participation including the

right to vote; and (3) belonging to a nation-state.

Modern citizenship has proved to be Janus-faced:

it can express both exclusionary and inclusionary

state practices and be a basis for discipline as well

as resistance.

Today immigration, globalization, and Europeanization

have challenged the meaning and

practice of citizenship and new forms of claimsmaking

by minority groups have widened the

content of citizenship. This has raised questions

about what a good citizen is, whether citizenship

can be transferred from the nation-state to the

transnational level, and whether it is possible to

combine citizenship rights tied to the nation-state

to global citizenship and human rights?

In Marshall’s seminal work, citizenship was defined

as “a status bestowed on those who are full

members of a community.” All citizens should

have the same rights and duties. Marshall’s work

was based on a vision of equal rights for the

working class in capitalist society inspired by the

evolution of civil, political, and social rights in

Britain from the eighteenth to the twentieth


Citizenship is part of the two major political

traditions of civic republicanism and liberalism.

Liberalism has been preoccupied with the defense

of the freedom of individuals and civil rights vis-a`-

vis the state, and has given priority to the private

virtues of individuals over public virtues. This

understanding has been criticized, because it

tends to underestimate the need for an active

state to defend political liberty and for a political

community that can defend individual freedom.

Civic republicanism has been preoccupied with

the creation of a just society, and it has given

priority to the creation of solidarity between citizens

tied together in a political community. This

understanding has been criticized because it

underestimates civil rights and tends to subsume

individuals under the needs of the political community.

Communitarianism has a strong emphasis

on belonging to the political community and

can be understood either as a form of civic

republicanism or as a separate tradition.

Marshall’s framework has become a key reference

for analysis of contemporary citizenship

from a cross-national context and has also been

taken up by marginalized social groups. It has

been criticized for its Anglo- and Eurocentric bias

as well as for its male bias, because it was premised

upon the reality and vision of a British model

and on the second-class citizenship of women and


A number of scholars have tried to rethink the

framework of citizenship from a historical and

comparative perspective. One example is Bryan

Turner who, in his article “Outline of a Theory of

Citizenship” in Sociology (1990), introduced a

model that aims to identify political dynamics as

well as variations in citizenship regimes: (1) an

active/passive dimension that expresses how citizenship

rights became institutionalized in

modern democracies “from above” by the involvement

of the monarchy or “from below” through

revolutionary movements; (2) a public/private dimension

that expresses whether citizenship rights

and norm(s) are associated with the public or

private arena.

The first differentiates between an active, participatory

republican model and a model with

institutionalization “from above.” The second differentiates

between a liberal model – with an

emphasis on private, individual rights and a passive

state – and a model that emphasizes public

virtues and an active state.

Another example is Richard Bellamy, Dario

Castiglione and Emilio Santoro’s recent study,

Lineages of Citizenship: Rights, Belonging and Participation

in Eleven Nation States (2004). It gives an

overview of the different legal traditions and historical

contexts which have contributed to creating

various liberalisms and republicanisms. This

study differentiates between a “polity” dimension,

which specifies the territorial and functional

spheres – seeing the subjects either as passive

or active – and a “regime” dimension, which refers

to the political arrangements and styles of governance,

the scope of intervention in private life.

The three main European traditions – the

German, the French, and the British – correspond

to some extent to the three legal citizenship traditions:

the ethno-cultural definition of nationality

(jus sanguinis), the romantic definition of nationality

(jus soli) and the English common law. Since the

1990s, political developments in relation to immigration

and asylum have moved the three closer


Marshall’s focus was on the social and political

inclusion of the working class in society, while

post-Marshallian frameworks raise new issues

and debates. Gender and marginalized social

groups represent a major challenge for the universal

framework of citizenship to respect diversity.

This tension between equality and difference/diversity

has inspired alternative frameworks,

models, and designs.

citizenship citizenship


Carole Pateman, in The Sexual Contract (1988),

presented one of the first feminist approaches to

citizenship. She analyzed the dilemma of Mary

Wollstonecraft (1759–97) that illustrates that

women in modern societies are caught between

a strategy focusing on equality and inclusion of

women as equal citizens that tends to deny their

particularity “as women,” and a strategy focusing

on inclusion of their difference and particularity

that tends to reproduce inequality. Ruth Lister, in

Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives (1997), has noticed

that the tension between the universalistic ethic

of justice and the particularistic ethic of care that

gives equal status to women and men in their

diversity is a creative tension that can be overcome

by a “differentiated universalism.”

Another influential approach has introduced

models that link the inclusion of women with

marginal social groups. One example is Iris Young,

who, in Justice and the Political Difference (1990), emphasizes

inclusion and empowerment “from

below.” Another example is Anne Phillips,

who, in The Politics of Presence (1995), emphasizes

inclusion “from above” through a change of the

institutional design.

In the development towards multicultural societies,

ethnicity tends to become an independent

factor explaining differentiation in citizenship

rights. Ruud Koopman and Paul Statham, editors

of Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics.

Comparative European Perspectives (2000), have

introduced an institutional model with two dimensions

that is used in comparisons between different

ethnicity regimes. One is the formal and legal

basis for citizenship – the vertical dimension – that

places a regime between an ethno-cultural – jus

sanguinis – and a territorial – jus soli – pole. The

other is a political-cultural – horizontal – dimension,

that places a regime between cultural

monism (assimilation) and cultural pluralism.

Multiculturalism has also inspired normative

models that stress minority rights. One example

is in Will Kymlicka’s Multicultural Citizenship (1995),

which introduced the notion of multicultural citizenship

based on group rights of minorities. He

differentiates between rights of autonomy for

national minorities, for example aboriginals;

poly-ethnic rights such as financial support and

legal protection of ethnic and religious groups;

and rights of representation involving, for instance,

guaranteed seats to ethnic and national

minorities. The multicultural approach has initiated

a debate about multiculturalism and gender

equality, and, in a famous article, Susan Moller

Okin (1999), in the volume edited by J. Cohen,

M. Howard and M. C. Neusbaum on Is Multiculturalism

Bad for Women?, considers whether multiculturalism

is incompatible with gender equality.

Sexual and ecological citizenship are examples

of new meanings of citizenship. In Citizenship: Feminist

Perspectives, Lister defines sexual citizenship as

the claims for sexual autonomy by women, lesbians,

and gays. The politics of citizenship thus

promotes the citizenship status of sexual minorities

and articulates new claims to “sexual rights,”

understood as “a set of rights to sexual expression

and consumption.” Ecological citizenship refers

both to rights and responsibilities of citizens

and to their relationship to nature and the wider

environment, for example green activism.

Finally, globalization and European integration

have inspired a notion of post-national citizenship.

Marshall’s framework was tied to the

nation-state, but membership of a community

allows for a broader discourse about local and

global levels of citizenship. It is contested whether

the vision of a global citizenship can become a

reality and what kind of model of global citizen

should indeed prevail. Skeptics argue that the

state has the power to exclude outsiders through

the policing of the boundaries of citizenship and

residence. Optimists (such as Derek Heater in

World Citizenship, 2003) have argued that globalization

could become the basis for a multi-layered

conceptualization of citizenships that would embrace

the notion of global citizenship and the use

of international human rights law.

One key issue in the current debate about

cosmopolitanism is whether it is possible to transform

the values of responsibility, individual

rights, and democracy associated with nationstate

citizenship to the international level?

The globalization of rights and responsibilities

can be seen as the essence of a globalization of

citizenship. David Held and Anthony McGrew in

Globalization/Anti-globalization (2002) differentiate

between a strategy for cosmopolitan democracy

aiming to develop a set of democratic institutions

at the global level and a strategy for radical democracy

aimed at forming a global civil society

“from below,” through which social movements

and nongovernmental organizations can pursue

their goals across national borders.

Global governance has created both problems

and opportunities for democracy. Markets are

hard to control, but political globalization may

be used to expand democracy and human rights

through the “human rights regime” – that is,

an international framework for the protection of

human rights. The international movement for

citizenship citizenship


women’s rights as human rights is one example of

an expansion of the scope of human rights to

protect women.

It is contested whether the discourse of human

rights is more appropriate once we live outside

the confines of the nation-state? Bryan Turner in

his “Outline of a Theory of Human Rights” in

Sociology (1993) has argued that there is a need

for a sociological theory of human rights as a

supplement to the theory of citizenship. There is

also a need for a global concept of citizenship that

can contribute to focusing the responsibilities of

the more affluent nation-states vis-a`-vis those societies

in the “developing world” that lack the resources

to translate the development of human

rights, as defined in the UN Covenant, into effective

citizenship rights.

Another main issue is the dilemma connected

to EU citizenship. The European Union has given

citizens new rights, for example attached to paid

work, but many scholars find that the European

Union is an elitist project of nation-building

where rights are the entitlements of subjects

rather than citizens. On the one hand, the European

Parliament has obtained more power,

but on the other hand there is a democratic

deficit, and political identities are still tied to

local, regional, and national communities rather

than to transnational politics. There have been

developments in EU citizenship, and the antidiscrimination

doctrine of the Amsterdam Treaty

that incorporates race, ethnicity, and sexual

preference in anti-discrimination law may suggest

a more inclusive definition of rights and

protection in the European Union.

Globalization and migration have made new

claims from minorities for recognition and respect

for diversity into a contested question for

nation-states and the global community. At

the analytical level, it is a challenge to develop

institutions that may help to bridge the tension

between equality and respect for diversity. At the

normative level, it is a challenge to develop a vision

for an inclusionary and multi-layered citizenship

that is able to reconcile national belongings with a

transnational notion of citizenship. B IRTE SIIM


Given the dramatic increase in urbanization in the

nineteenth century and the claim of much social

theory and sociology to be an analysis of contemporary

societies, it is surprising that the nature of

contemporary cities was not deemed worthy of

wider study. F. Engels’s 1844 study of the urban

working class in Manchester and elsewhere and

his writings on the housing question must be set

against Karl Marx’s neglect of cities in his analysis

of capitalism, despite his statement that the division

between town and country is one of great

historical importance. Of the major sociologists

around 1900, only Max Weber provided a historical

analysis of the rise of towns and cities.

Although many of the analyses of dimensions of

contemporary society by Weber, E´mile Durkheim,

Ferdinand To¨nnies, Werner Sombart, and others

clearly presupposed a metropolitan modernity,

this was seldom reflected upon in any detail.

Only Georg Simmel made the modern metropolis

one of the sites of modernity.

Beyond the confines of sociology, there was an

increasing interest in the nature of the modern

city and its populations. This concern took the

form of early ethnographies such as the studies

of London by Henry Mayhew (1812–87), and, later,

the London survey by Charles Booth (1840–1916),

and W. E. B. Du Bois’s study of segregation in

Philadelphia. Both the state and local city authorities

also increasingly devoted attention to their

populations, as evidenced in population surveys

and other statistical compilations and modes of

governance. By the late nineteenth century in Germany,

for example, which experienced one of the

greatest urban expansions since its unification in

1870, the issue had arisen as to what constituted a

city. The statistically expedient but by no means

unproblematic solution was to declare an urban

concentration with 100,000 or more inhabitants

as a city, while a world city or metropolis had a

population of 1 million (in 1900, only Berlin

achieved this status).

In part influenced by Simmel’s concern with

modes of “sociation” in the city, the Chicago

School of the early twentieth century had a major

impact upon the study of the city. Yet its key

figures Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and Louis

Wirth did not have a unified research program.

Rather, their focus upon the city was diverse,

ranging from studies of land use and social segregation,

through the city as a social laboratory,

programs of social reform, the ecology of the

city, and urban ethnographies, to the urban

way of life in modernity. It could be argued that

the ethnographic tradition is what has remained

significant for later study of the city.

In more recent decades, the turn to the political

economy of cities has been in evidence, whether it

Share with your friends:
1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   162

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page