Citizenship is not a homogeneous concept:
Citizenship also constitutes an identity, not just a bundle of rights. Insofar as it implies an identity, it is also a tool for nation-building.
The link between common citizenship rights and national integration is now under attack, because many groups (colored or indigenous people, women, ethnic and religious minorities, gays and lesbians) still feel marginalized or stigmatized despite possessing citizenship rights.
This leads to separation or independence movements, or citizenship with weak national identity.
Another model is differentiated citizenship. Members of certain groups get incorporated into the political community not only as individuals, but also through the group, and their rights depend partly on their group membership.
Western democracies have two powerful hierarchies:
Economic hierarchy: one’s relationship to the market or the means of production. Creating equality means to engage in a politics of redistribution or economic restructuring.
Status hierarchy. (It is better to be white than black, better to be male than female, better to be heterosexual than homosexual, Christian than Muslim, etc.) Struggle against it requires a politics of recognition.
Economically well-off, but culturally stigmatized: Gays, Asian (Japanese) Americans.
Economically disadvantaged, but high-status groups: White working-class males. They have an interest in challenging economic hierarchy (Unions), but a self-interest in preserving the status hierarchy, because it is their source of feeling superior.
Group-differentiated citizenship rights is a problematic concept:
If we eliminate economic inequalities, would cultural inequalities automatically disappear?
Should the liberal state treat culture in the same way as religion? (Benign neglect.) People are free to pursue their cultural identities in their private lives, and the State adopts a position of strict neutrality. Would such a model work in favor of nation-building in a multicultural society?
We have to distinguish between a civic and an ethnic nation. Ethnic nations have the goal of reproducing a particular ethno-national culture (Germany, Japan, Russia, etc). Civic nations are indifferent to the ethno-cultural identity of the citizens and define national membership in terms of adherence to certain principles of democracy and justice. (US.) If you accept that special rights are necessary, the question for the third stage becomes: Do majority efforts at nation-building create injustices for minorities?
Multicultural states emerge through various social and historical processes:
National minorities can be complete and functioning societies that were once incorporated, like indigenous people. The resulting political problems can be addressed through regional autonomy, federalism, or separatist movements.
Immigration, legal and illegal (metics.)
Isolationist ethno-religious groups
Groups who have been subject to racial or religious segregation. (African Americans, Shia groups)
What are some tools for state - and nation building:
citizenship policies
language laws
education policy
centralizing power
public service employment programs
national symbols, holidays, media.
Military service.
Minority rights can take various forms:
immigrant multiculturalism
multi-nation federalism
inclusion of illegal aliens
religious exemptions.
Question: How do countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, or the US solve their problems with multi-culturalism?