Tribune – news, features and comment from Britain's left-wing magazine

Citizenship: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Concept by Andreas Fahrmeir
Yale University Press, £30

LIKE the concept of a human being, the idea of a citizen is defined by rights and duties. But unlike the former, which essentially stands for that which is finite, alive and human, the latter depends on what it stands for. As the title of this book suggests, citizenship is a contingent concept.

The question is, Andreas Fahrmeir asks, whether the combined effect of regionalism, European unification, “post-democracy” and economic globalization are eroding state citizenship or whether increased immigration controls and stringent criteria for nationality render it as relevant today as ever. Is there a rise and fall, or just the rise and rise of this modern concept?

In searching for relevant answers, Fahrmeir follows the development of various types of citizenship, namely formal (legal), political, economic and social, from the 18th century to the present day, in four Western countries – Britain, France, Germany and the United States.

First he examines the idea of formal citizenship which emerged around 1800 and led to the development of other forms of citizenship. He looks at events in the history of state citizenship including the American Revolution and subsequent Declaration of Independence of July 4 1776; the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of August 26 1789, which defined the concept of social organisation in terms of rights not authority; and the comprehensive passport regime in France in 1790 which gave birth to the “documented citizen” and was soon adopted throughout Europe.

A century later, in 1885, the press and parliaments of Austria, France, Britain and Switzerland used the concept of citizenship to sharply criticise Bismarck’s ambition to create a German empire which thrived on anti-Polish sentiments. Fahrmeir’s insight into the Prussian measures and the protests against them is particularly illuminating.

However, there is little excitement to be found in his assessment of state citizenship. Although these developments contributed to human progress, he argues, the idea of citizenship inherited contradictions. The concept of citizenship was closely connected to the ideology of classical liberalism: until the 19th century, only those not subject to the commands of employers, husbands or guardians were considered to be citizens and could speak their minds without fear in public debates. This meant limiting political rights to citizenship while insisting that all men were equal. In France in 1789, as well as in Britain around the same time, only around 4 per cent of the population were allowed to vote.

In Germany and France, legal citizenship has been linked directly to political, social and economic rights. In the United States, on the other hand, and to a lesser extent in Britain, formal citizenship was and remains only loosely tied to political, social and economic rights. Formal citizenship was regulated by the federal government in the US while most other rights were determined by the states. Race, for example, was significantly more important than formal citizenship until the 1960s.

In Britain, particularly after the Second World War, when the creation of a welfare state reduced regional differences and Britain’s political structures was separated from those of the British empire, a weak impact of formal citizenship was less apparent. Although, Fahrmeir argues, differences have recently reappeared with the creation of regional assemblies for British citizens resident in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. British citizenship has more recently been restricted to individuals with a substantive tie to the country, mainly in response to an increase in illegal immigration.

Farhmeir analyses the current decline in the concept of citizenship as exemplified by reduced voter participation, which some connect with a shift of power away from the political citizenry to other institutions, such as international corporations. The picture he paints here is grim, yet his analysis is interesting and instructive. European Union citizenship does not inspire much optimism, either. As Fahrmeir shows, this idea appears to have stalled, mainly because the rights it confers – freedom of movement within the EU for financially independent citizens – is limited and does not include political or social citizenship.

The idea of citizenship, Farhmeir complains, has become quite diffuse. “Like the civil society”, he notes, “citizenship has come to mean everything and nothing: the nationality indicated by a passport, entitlement to benefits, commitment to a particular political or social order, even decent behaviour towards one’s colleagues on university campuses”. This observation is a bit confusing, coming from someone who so carefully follows the history of citizenship from its “restrictive, less relevant” beginnings through its complex, “more relevant” development and who, in the end, fails to place the meaning of “diffuse” within his parameters of “relevance”.

But Fahrmeir is to be congratulated for providing a solid history of citizenship, while capturing well the fluidity of its boundaries. Impressively researched, the book admirably draws its attention to the current debate on immigration and citizenship.

Amna Whiston