Complex Citizenship and Globalization

This chapter reflects upon the importance the notion of citizenship has acquired in the context of globalization. I will defend the idea that the citizen and his or her actions correspond to the political domain; specifically, in a way that confronts the problem of social order. To accomplish my objective, I have divided the chapter into three parts: a) I will define the idea of the citizen inherited from the Enlightenment; b) I will present an idea of complex citizenship and suggest why we should consider it as an alternative; and c) I will offer an interpretation designed to understand political actions from the perspective of complex citizenship.


Introduction
This chapter reflects upon the importance the notion of citizenship has acquired in the context of globalization.Iwill defend the idea that the citizen and his or her actions correspond to the political domain; specifically, in aw ay that confronts the problem of social order.Thisp revious statement mays eem unnecessary to repeat; however,Iwills how thati ti sw orthyo fc lose attention.It is a common idea to consider politics, as enacted by government officials, as aremedyt ot hose conflicts that need an egotiated solution.Within the social aspect, manyc onflicts requiren egotiated solutions,b ut not all of them are political, e. g., the conflicts between parents and their descendants,orm anybureaucrats' actionsc oncerning issues of their privatel ives.
Instead, politics consists of actionsd irected towards bringing closer those who differ in their visions of the world or perspectivesthat coexist in the aspect defined as public.As Bernard Crick mentions, "politics mayb ed efined as the activity through which divergent interests reconcile within adetermined government unit" (2001, p. 22).That said, the origins of politics in societieso rganized under the Nation States model has restricted them to the domain of the state.In this way, acitizen'sactions, whenever they are political, are related to state matters (Clarke 1996).
Certainly, political actions aim to bring togetherdiverging positions with the purpose of generatingorder.Until the 1980s, the State was in charge of this task.Nevertheless,atthe present time order is produced in different bodies other than the State.There are various levels of authority under which citizens feel obliged, such as local, regional, national, or supranational authorities.Additionally, there are non-state entities that contributetogenerating order,such as non-governmental organisations liket he UN,o rc ivil society organizations.As ar esult, we can sayt hat politics no longer determine the State'sf igure per se.
Consequently, political actions have been understood in two different ways: firstly, as goal-oriented intentional actions, with specific objectives (In the case of state politics, it would be anyactionthatquestions the State.);and secondly, as actionst hat produce am eaning.E xamples of the latter appear in concession manifestations through non-institutional means, made by the society aiming to make visible atopic that does not exist for the State.The two need not be incompatible-we can instead understand them as complementary: This means that an action cannot be completelyu nderstood if the matrix of such is not known.But also, that an action cannot be graded as belongingt oacertain category if the intention and meaninga ssociated with it aren ot acknowledged.In other words, an event cannot be defined as political, social, musical, sportive or anyother kind if the social matrix, as well as intentional, into which it fits is not known.(Clarke1 999,p .99) The notion of citizenship acts in conjunction with seeking goals and generating significancea ccordingt ot he social order.H owever,c lassical interpretations, such as the Illustrated, restricted their horizons for the sake of consolidating the goal-oriented perspective.I nc ontrast, the response to this vision was the meaning-oriented perspective,a se videncedb ycommunitarianism.Thisc hapter will talk about another possibility, which Ithink is more complete-thatofcomplex citizenship.
Recent literature has again referred to the topic of citizenship because of the recurringcrisis of the state-political model-considered from the end of Welfare until the rise of the Workfare.However,there is no consensus,n either between academics nor political analysts,ofwhich maybethe main attributes of the concept of citizenship.On one side, the dominant posturesu nderstand citizenship as al egal statusg iven as ap rivilegeb yt he State, to which citizens owe loyalty for the fact that it warrantees certain prerogativeswithin adelimited space made by concrete physical frontiers (Carrasco 2009).Politics in this caseare preceded by ar elationship with the State (Rawls 2001).On the other side, there are those who consider the idea of legal citizenship as obsolete.They appeal to substantial aspectso fi dentity-culture, language, blood,e tc.-with the purpose of giving more importance to the citizen'si dentity roots.I nt his case, politics would be based on its relationship with the roots of the community (McIntyre 2007).
Regardless of whether one is in favorofthe legal formal posture,orthe substantial vision, both sides restrict understanding of citizens' actions.There are two difficulties of the previous approaches thatstand out as limitations.The first is related to the right of assistance giveno nb ehalf of the States to illegal migrants groups.T he second is the type of social benefitp rogram focused on guest workers in nations such as Germanyo rC anada,w hich originated from the need to hire workers from other countries temporarilyt os atisfyl abor demand.Givent he impossibility of making migrantso rg uest workers return to their native countries,t herea re two suggested main solutions-integration into the State through naturalization processes or Workfare.
Integratedp eople lose substantial aspects of theiro riginal culture, conferring it to the privated omain.This represents one of the main complaints from minoritydefendergroups,because they consider that forcingt he new members to break away from theirlanguageorregional habits (such as dressingorpublic religious practice)toadopt the hegemonic cultureofthe host country violates a fundamental aspect of identity thatn ourishes the citizen.
The second solution comes from new work demands, incarnatedb yt he socalled Workfare.This perspective,w ith neocommunitarist origins,a ppeals to a bottom-up process.In this process, citizenship is determined by the culture, particularlyt he one represented by the spirit of 'civil society': Such approaches conveyanew hegemonic conception of governance, an instrumentf or forging 'social cohesion',ad istinct ideological and political alternative to the corporative compacts between the social partners (unions and employers) which weres till dominant in the Western European countries in the 1980s.( Schierup, Hansen, &Castles 2006,p.58).
The problem with the wayo fu nderstanding citizenship has to do, then, with knowing which actions count as political.The protests made by legal or illegal foreignersa re not considered political.O ur reflection up to this point tries to show the difficulties that entail the conceptions of state citizenship-but also, to expose the problems generated in globalized societies.Now,toaccomplishour objectiveIhave divided the chapter into three parts: a) Iwilldefine the inherited idea of the citizen from the Enlightenment; b) Iwill present an idea of complex citizenship and whyw es hould consider it as an alternative;a nd c) Iw ill offer an interpretation to understand political actions through the complex citizenship'sp erspective.

Citizenship and itse nlightenment heritage
The idea of citizenship is, accordingt oP ierre Rosanvallon (1999), one of the greatest achievementso fE nlightenmentm odernity,s omething unparalleled that did not exist at anyo ther previous time.Rosanvallon'sc oncept of citizenship is more focused on the importance of human action in politics than on other kind of extra-human or divine forces.Thisf act allowed people to transfer human action to an autonomous domain never before reached.Certainly, in the political thought of classical Greece and Rome, there werecitizenship ideals, but they were circumscribed to the polis, beyond the borders of which people did not have anylegal rights.Besides, prerogativeswerelimited to areducedgroup-free men.Dante (2006) and Machiavelli (1985) exemplify two different ways to understand citizenship and political action.Both showed the need to extend the political conception, by separating the agendas of power and secularizingi t.They also stated the possibility of projectingadual Romanc itizenship,which could be passive (a person with rights) or active (a person who could exercise rights).Dante discerned citizenship as the joy of exercisingthe political action, whereas Machiavelli discerned it onlyasthe response of the subjecttowardsthe governor.
When Enlightenment arrived, Hobbes' citizenship idea-stating thatt he mere ownership of rights did not translate into an effective exercise-had matured.Therefore, onlyt hose who fulfilled residencya nd administrative requirements, and who exercised autonomy, could become citizens.Women, for example, could not do it (Roldan 2008;W estheimer 2008).Consequently, the scaffoldingo fS tate was required (Skinner 1999).
The requirements to determine what it takes to make politics, how apolitical community is formed, and how can one participate in it wereelaborated during the Enlightenment.During this period, politics became independent from social domains, producing contradictory consequences.On the one hand, political actions were redefined as different from moralo reconomical because they are related to the State.Onthe otherhand, there is the aspect of the fragmentation of subjectivity because when clarifyingwho are citizens, apart of humanity is discriminatedagainst.This concept of citizenship is of "[…]abounded population, with as pecific set of rights and duties,excluding 'others' on the grounds of nationality" (Soysal 1994:p .2 ).
Once established thatt he State is the onlyr eferencet op olitics,i tw as defined at the same time what wasi mportant and what counted in the public domain (Clarke 1996).In this way, during the Enlightenment asubjectivation mode emerged, which fractured the man, privileging au niversal wayo fb eing (Pérez-Luño 1989,p .2 7).The transformation-subject,o rt he individual'sc onversion into an intelligible subjectb efore ap olitical regime, generated the suppression of the action'se njoyment,a sD ante would think.T he citizen'sc ondition as a holder of political participation rights led to exclude important social groups by definition: women, children, indigenous people and foreigners.
Citizenship as an abstract unit,ideal for aprocedural republic (as defined by Michael Sandel), reduced apart of the contingencyoft he conflicts produced by culturali dentity features.B ut,l egal identityi ncreasedt he complexity in many other ways (Follesdal 2014).
Iwill now focus on the cognitivec apacity of the Enlightenment ideal (Pettit 1990).This is the citizen'scapacity to generate actionsaccordingtospecific aims.The fact that we maychoose and know the consequences of that choice, as well as the corresponding responsibility when acting,isaconsideration of principle.This particulara ttribute of subjectivity emphasizes the following four points: 1. the citizen has apattern to recognize the actions orientated to decision-making (so that the deliberative function becomes avirtue and damagep revention measure simultaneously); 2. the citizen'scognitive capacity can generate acodification register that optimizes the information that reaches the electorals ubsystem; 3. such ac apacity results in accordance with at emporality and speciality of the political process (Palti 2007); and 4. rationality from the political information channels allow the elimination of excessive information that mayd estabilize the system.
The cognitivec apacity of the citizen expresses the impartiality principle necessary to making ap olitical election (Allard-Tremblay2 012).Thus, anyd ecision made shall be fair,a si tw ill go through ad epuration system of conversion from privateinterest into public opinion.Consequently, the citizenbecomes areflective agent,c apable of 'mediating interests and making decisions' (Melucci 2002,p .1 68).Judgment capacity,d erived from the cognitivec omponent,i sa ppreciated because it produces choices, deliberation and decision while it reactivates options to link to the system-despite its lack of spontaneity (Pettit 1990).
The epistemic capacity consists of: […]favoringthe open circulation of relevantinformation, allowingintersubjective interests to participate, even with censorship bias.As it is known, they open the alternative option field that could not be considered under the system'sformal restrictions and mainly, allows the alternativesthat mayhavenegative consequences to be exposed and summited to test.

Complex citizenship
In the Enlightenment conception, the definition of citizenship wasm ore or less clear.I tw as restricted to the legal-political, so its debates werer elated to privilegeconcession-the acquisition of freedoms.However,this view omits the complaints of those who submit thatt here are other actions, which do not pass through the State and still, have ap olitical value (Cfr.F ranco de Sá 2017, pp. 28-29).As such, political concepts face challenges in the globalization context.G lobalization is understood as "the processes of widening and deepening relations and institutions across space.Increasingly, our actions and practices systematicallya nd mutuallya ffect others across territorial borders."(Sterri 2014,p .71).Regarding the relationship between citizenship and global( mainly economic) forces, it expresses ad ispute between real forces for the hegemony of meaning (Zolo 2007)between the variables: a) amarket'scompetitive and selective logic;b)c orporate logic generated by the political-state structure; and c) the logic of identity culturalp rocesses.In view of this tension, the dynamics of the meaning of the political conceptss eem to be facing af ragmentation.In summary,the ground-breakingcondition of globalized complex societies raises contradictions between citizenship conceptions generated from the legal, economic and political orders.Apertinent definition of citizenship needstoconfront the tensions between the competitive logic of the global market,the configuration of an identity sense and loyalty towards politics, and the need to construct ap lural us.In the words of Zolo (2007), the citizenship concept has, within the individual and the collective,t he axis of complexity.
With the new globalized scenarios,p olitics onlyd evelops instrumental solutions that answer to the market'sl ogic.Fore xample, negotiated solutions based on the privatew ith universalization pretensions contrast with what is the proper feature of politics-the creation of ah uman order or an approach of them towards common interest (Arendt2 005).The current vision of politics is unable to generate futurep ossibilitiesw ithin the contingency context to which societiesa re exposed because of globalization (Inneraty 2012; Franco de Sá 2007).As such, it lacks the possibilityofestablishing athrust of social coordination (Huysman 2006:p.10;cfr.Bell &Shaw, 1994).Consequently, the question is whether it is possiblet om otivate citizens with political commitment.
When politics was considered the central articulator of social life, the citizen'si ntegration commitments werel inked to one single authority.N ow that the borders are thin and politics is decentralized, loyalties are weak.This state of affairs has produced the appearance of aphenomenon called 'flexible citizenships' (Ong 1999).In the Asian continent,the Chinese are an oticeable example of this phenomenon.As it has been documented, as ignificant number of (middle and upperclass) Chinese people have more than one nationalityand possess multiple passports accordingly.Such documents become the instruments of their flexibility.With them, Chinese people can changet heir residence, nation, and commitments accordingtothe country'sc ircumstances.The reasons for seeking new nationalities are mainlyeconomic and political,but there can be others (referred to in Ong 1999).Interestingly,e veni nc ases when Chinese people seek new nationalities, they maintain as ense of cultural belongingt hat transfers to their businesses or communities outside of China, making the 'Chinese' concept atrulytransnationalcurrency-alocal-global product.Another case of flexibility is that of 'guest workers' who, through extraterritorial workingp rogrammes, incorporate themselvesinto public life in other nations.These workers are not formal citizens, but generate public structures that recognize them through social, economic, and legal benefits.
From this culturaldeepening of human rights, guestnations have limited capacities to make thosew orkers return to their countries of origin or to suspend their benefits (Soysal 1994,pp. 6 -7).Flexibility,then, has become another way of producing subjectivity.Itisthe result of "the culturallogics of capitalist accumulation, travel and displacement thatinducethe subject to respond fluidlyand opportunisticallyt oc hangep olitical-economic conditions."(Ong 1999,p .6 ) Thus, subjectivation processes (mechanisms expressed through ag lobalizing logic that provide intelligibility to the individual) introduce the capital mobility pattern to practicesthat give meaning to things; particularly, the ones related to loyalty,p olitical commitment and obligation towards the authority (Savransky 2011).
The flexible citizen facing structuralc onditions is supposed to have ac lear understanding of his or her interests.This allows establishingstrategicallyplanned objectivesa nd having support for the advantageso ffered by the context, thus conditioning the citizent oe xpress obligations and loyalty to whoever ensures his or her particulari nterests.However,t his presents ac ontradiction, because it assumes that the aims and advantagesthat give sense to this identity are stable and do not requireo thers' mediation (Wisnewsky 2008).Asian experience is an example of how interaction ranges (between local and transnationalm atters) give unfair privileges, because ag uestw orker and atransnational investor do not have the same advantages.Thismakes publicauthority sources precarious (Massey 2008, 52).Regarding this, Ong says that the citizen's "very flexibility in geographical and social positioning is itself an effect of novel articulations between the regimes of the family, the state,a nd capital, the kindso fp ractical-technicala djustments that have implications for our understandingo ft he late modern subject."(1999,p .3 ) Defenders of globalization respond to critics posingafallacy.They admit as ap remise that the market does not have as an objective the destruction of politics.The market has as purpose to make available to people aw ide variety of options, and thoseoptions are subjected to people'schoice.Then, not admitting the diversification of the authority sources becomesabottleneck thatu niforms motivation and therefore impoverishes the decision'ss cheme.In this way, only the market could favort he plurality that enriches politics.Thec itizen "[…]e mbodies the split between state-imposed identity and personal identity caused by political upheavals, migration, and changingglobal markets."(Ong 1999,p.2) The promoters of flexibilityo mitt he historical and material conditions of structural context.They assume that they can manipulate citizenship according to their interests and omit that such abstraction produces simultaneouslyavariety of forms of exclusion, hidden in the constitution processes of identity (Savransky 2011).Globalization theorists point out that flexibilityi mproves the notion of citizenship by endowing it with particular features.H owever,f lexibility also producesf ragmentation-it makes identity precarious.While flexibility certainlym ultiplies differences, it does not find aw ay to generate an axis that articulates thosedifferencesfor the sake of public affairs.Putting it simply, flexible citizenship makes the citizens of poor countries payfor rich citizens' advantages facing a 'differentiated world economy' (Zolo 2007,p .49).
In response to the flexible postures,Isuggest the perspective of complexity.I subscribe to Zolo'sd efinition of complexity as: […]t he cognitive situation in which agents, whethert hey are individual or social groups, find themselves.The relations which agents construct and project on their environment in their attempts at self-orientation-i.e. at arrangement,p rediction, planning, manipulation-will be moreo rl ess complex accordingt oc ircumstance.(Zolo 1992, p. 2) Citizenship as ac omplex phenomenon admits the presenceo fadeep global logic in identity processes-besides the meaningsg enerated by transnational and imaginative political practices.Under this approach, politics are not derived from subordination to the State.It is an affair of strategic 'practices' thatconsist of: […]t he exercise and mobilization of social demands through ac ertain performance.Then, these can act intramarco and in consequence, reproduce parameters by which the recognition, distribution and, of course, cultural identity aredefined.But it can also be extramarco.Hence,to(per)form in confrontation with recognition'sown terms,givingrise to even more radical social and identity transformations and, openings pacefor intercultural identification and the debatea bout citizenship terms.(Savransky,2 011:p .120)The functionality of complexity is to show the areas of uncertainty generatedby the accumulation of information (security,p roperty,p restige,m oney,p ower, time, information, etc.) that nourishes identity,w ithout leaving aside the 'prescriptive structure of possibilities preselection' (Zolo 1992, p. 39).Thism echanism of selective regulation of social conflicts and value distribution makes it possiblet o" operate on the basis of stable behaviour expectations, according to collective rules" (Zolo 1992, p. 40).The aforementioned focuses on the objective of political actions-the expectations of the creation of paths to make men closer in conflict contexts-rather than on administrative criteria of immediate security.Iwill now offer an analysis from the perspective of complex citizenship.
The Enlightenment notiono fc itizenship, seen as al egal status, is insufficient to address the three variables mentioned in the previous section: market, state and pertinence.T his being the case, neither individuals nor collectives can act in isolation, withoutt he support of structures and variables.I nt his sense, as Ihaveclaimed, citizen identity can be explained as the resultofagent's practices,and within them, the subjects and structures that are integratedinto a relational, reflexive and strategic context.I td oes not seem excessive to emphasize that the constitution of the citizen'si dentity is not governed onlyb yt he broadeningo ft he conventional political frame.I tm ust include the acquisition of new freedoms, because, refiningt he political subsystem does not transform by itself the nature of our debate.This is whyN ancy Fraser has started to reinterpret politics from at hree-dimensionalp erspective.
Under our perspective of complexity,t he subjectivation process occurs through the practices in which the subject is.This impliesthat relevance should be giventothe '"subjective" adhesiontoanorder' (Savransky 2011, p. 118).Individualization-the attribution of as ense to the subjectt hrough social action-is double-edged: if people exist within an organized world, then all aims come from interaction.There is clearlyapresenceo fs ocial control in this interaction, which increases accordingt ot he different levels of 'socializing' pressure.This social control is then transferred to the motivational and cognitive structures of individuals (Melucci 2002,p.171).It is important to consider the asymmetries that subjects and collectivesf ace when interacting with different authority systems.
Let us return to the essential component of politics.Such activity has to do with the conciliation formsofd ivergent interests within ag overnment unity orientated towardst he common good.Iw ill now describe the ways in which this goal is pretendedt ob er eached.
The case Ipropose is far from antagonistic postures that we shall name 'topbottom' or of the 'bottom-top' through which citizenship is presented, or rather as the result of ad ecision orientated from the elites for the sake of ap redeter-mined general conception beyond social practices.When citizenship is conceived as ap rocess directed by social movements-from bottomt ot op-it encourages changes directed by homogenizing social forces: Top-Bottom Citizenship Scheme or order constitution starting from the idea

STRUCTURES AND DEMANDS
Herecitizenship is the result of the ideal construction of an order produced from the decisions of elites.Social performers are interrelated with power in apermanent way, within aw ider social system that demands interaction as au nit beyond their internal divisions and generatesa no rientation towards the inferior layers.Heret he authority is in charge by decree.We can find an example in the conversion process from subjects to citizens, as in the Spanish colonies,during the enactment of the Constitution of Cadiz in 1812.

ELITES STRUCTURES
This scheme could be adjusted to the imagination of social revolutions,wherean apparentlys table organization system is transformed by the complainants' demands, in order to secureadvantagesinacontext run by weak rules, maintained by ageneral state of injustice.Examples in Latin America are within the Mexican constitutions of Apatzingán in 1814o rt he Constitution of 1857.In this scheme,citizenship is in permanent reprocessingand unable to be established, duet oits lack of unity regardingits objectives.In this scheme,the political value of citizenship is usually mistaken for consumable goods of other dimensions-economic, legal or cultural.Former Yugoslavia can be considered ap articular casew ithin this scheme, in which the fragmentation of identities cannot generate an orientation to form aunity due to the competenceofpowers.

Complex Relational CitizenshipScheme
Complex Citizenship and Globalization In this scheme, the concept of subject lacks as trongd enomination for identity constitution.The conflicts are produced by af ormal framing of institutions, one of which is the political structure.Within this political structure, displacements can be made because thereare different relevant aspects to consider-personal,l ocal, regional or global interests.Additionally, ac itizen'sc ircumstances are temporallya nd spatiallyd efined, and his or her knowledge of context and possibilities are conceivable, but not completelyu nknown.The demands of a particularc itizen match the objectiveso fo ther individuals.I nt his scheme,t he partiesa re involved in the constitution of different identities that have differentiated performances.The concept of citizenship is the resultofthe interactionbetween the chain of social demands, the social structure and the elites' perspective.This interactiondevelops astructure, which promotes ademand that can be more or less integrating.Inthis moment,the demands could be the supplies for social structures.These resources are integrated to an imaginary,b ut the structure is invaded by the limits of elites.H eret here are twom oments: 1.In the first moment,the structure of demands is constituted.This structure links events thatare usually antagonistic-for instance, 'who faces whom' or 'who is who'-establishingw ith it an identifiable polemic, in which the formationo fi dentitiesi sn ecessary (Laclau&Mouffe 1985).2. Once these links are established, the identity is then transferred to the contexts that created it.This kind of identity can be further broken down into two moments: a) ad efinition of citizenship is constituted thatu sually seems to be unitary (for example, it can be called liberal citizenship, equalitarian citizenship, etc.); and b) the definition then loses its content-freedom, equalityo ri nclusion-and becomes af loating concept.
Iappeal to the idea of Laclau.The different contextschangethe use of concepts making them more restrictive.F or example, duringt he nineteenth century in Mexico, the notion of aliberal citizen(drivenbythe CadizCortes after Ferdinand VII'sa bdication) was interpreted in an egative wayb yt he Mexican indigenous people.They considered such statusharmful for the autochthonous communities and thought that the implications onlybenefitted thosewho adjusted to an individualistic ideal.The moreE uropean youw ere, the closer youw eret oc itizenship.This triggered the questfor shelter in domestic networks, in order to be supported by ac ollectivist citizenship,e vent hough they did not fulfil the requirementst ob ec alled ac itizen.What can we extract from this scheme?I tc an be inferred that concrete historical events dispute for the configuration of an identity,n ot necessarilylinked to as pecific context or claim.The identity of ad emandc an come togetherf rom another event or series of events, which allows the foundingo faconcept.This scheme is an analytical exercise that shows how certain practices aim to reclaim the identityofc itizenship,f acing exclusion.It can be modelled from different demand platforms.The requests for inclusion can be highlyd iverse.Some concepts expressed from the interior of the demands chain can be employment,political recognition, migration conflicts, economical inclusion, etc.One of these demands maybepresented likethe flag of asocial identity that gets to reunify different interests or to make them coexist.This positioning puts a 'mark' upon diversity-it 'enrichesthe chain'scontent',because it generates adialectic effect in which apparentlythe chain is fulfilled; obtaining more thickness, it acquires ap olitically relevant sense.
In this way, the social conflict expressed in the struggles for citizenship acquires af undamentallyp olitical aspect,i nwhich it is determined how power is distributed according to the possible coalitions that can be formed by agents that pursue their demands.The idea of political power is ar elationaln otion.Everything refers to the obtaining of resources in aw ide sense to reduce risks.However,power is not absolute, but relative.The use of power requires the possibility to evaluate whether it is more appropriate to perform cost-benefit calculations, or to construct symbolic resourcesi no rder to form the identity.
If ind this scheme to be the most adequate wayt ou nderstand the effect of power constituting ac oalition.The idea is that the elites' threats do not determine the chain of demands.However,t hey introduce an element in this chain, which is the spectre of 'the who'.T hat is, both demands and limits imposed by elites become supplies for social structures.I nt his perspective,t hose elements conform the social imaginary whose elements orientate the concept of citizenship.
My scheme shows that the structure of demands emergesf rom complex practices that constitute and organizes ocial relationships.W ithin these demands, the concepts are regulated by aprinciple that does not remain just in aggregation.In this sense, citizenship is an 'overdetermined' identity-i.e., it contains ap rocess that cannot become universal, because in ac ertain sense, it is formedb yf ragments.F or the same reason, identity cannot become essence.
Finally, following this consideration, it can be accepted thatthere is nothing pre-determined in the social aspect: there is no meaning; 'the' citizen does not exist.There are citizenships-or,following Savransky,there are 'forms of subjectivity and political investiture ' (2011, p. 120) , T, Rand Lare examples of social demands.
susceptible to revision and critical reformulation.