Andrea Schlenker

Cosmopolitan Europeans or Partisans of Fortress Europe? Supranational Identity Patterns in the EU

In parallel to the EUs founding universal principles, European identity is usually conceived of as a postnational and cosmopolitan identity. However, it can also be exclusive, leading to a “fortress Europe”. This article analyses the relationship between European identity and cosmopolitanism by looking into the commonalities and boundaries of the former. Building upon socio-psychological approaches as well as different constructions of national identity, the content of European identity is analysed. Concerning its boundaries, we differentiate between external and internal boundary drawing, operationalised by looking at attitudes towards potential or new member states, and those towards immigrants of different origin. Empirically, Eurobarometer data from the last decade covering the 27 member states are used. A structural equation model rounds up the analysed relationships between identity patterns. The results show a strong and positive relationship between European identity and cosmopolitanism. However, the kind of European identity construction makes a difference. A civic and even cultural construction of European identity is positively related to cosmopolitanism, whereas an ethnic one is negatively related. The overall widespread cosmopolitanism in Europe still has to work out its relationship to existing external and internal boundaries, drawn by European citizens.

Conceptualizing and evaluating (new) forms of citizenship between nationalism and cosmopolitanism

In an age of transnational flows and interdependencies, democratic citizenship can no longer be conceptualized exclusively within national boundaries. This paper presents a conceptual map that allows tracing emerging and proposed forms of citizenship within and beyond the nation state in a comprehensive and differentiated way. We disentangle two anchor points: membership in a political community as the fundament of citizenship and the arena of political decision-making as the focal point of citizenship rights, identities and practices. For the former we differentiate between a single national community, the universal community of humankind and multiple (national) communities. For the latter we distinguish the national, supra-national and transnational arena. Our typology thus consists of nine different forms of democratic citizenship. It is used to provide a brief overview over normative proposals and empirical findings leading to the following insights: while membership in a particular national community still dominates the reality in all three political arenas, in the normative discourse it is perceived as deficient. Membership in the universal community of humankind is widely endorsed in the normative discourse, but almost nonexistent. In contrast, membership in multiple communities is not only a growing reality but also normatively promising for democratizing a transnationalizing world.

Divided loyalty? Identification and political participation of dual citizens in Switzerland

In spite of the recent increase in dual citizenship, there are widespread fears that this double status undermines loyalty towards the state, understood as identification with and political participation in the country of residence. We analyze whether there are systematic differences between dual citizens, mono citizens, and foreign residents in this respect, based on data from a 2013 survey of dual citizens in Switzerland with very different migration backgrounds. The results reveal that controlling for migration-related and socio-demographic factors, dual citizens are more loyal in many respects than foreign residents, but there are no significant differences between dual citizens and mono citizens in their level of identification with Switzerland and political participation there. They are even more likely than mono citizens to participate in serving its interests. In addition, there is no trade-off between these forms of loyalty to the country of residence and identification and political participation in the country of descent. On the contrary, they are positively related. Transnational loyalties seem to co-exist or even to be mutually reinforcing. Thus, dual citizenship does not seem to diminish loyalty to the country of residence and countries therefore do not stand to lose anything by allowing it.

Practising transnational citizenship: dual nationality and simultaneous political involvement among emigrants

ABSTRACT Acceptance of dual citizenship allows migrants to naturalise in the country of residence (CoR) without giving up their former citizenship. For migrant sending countries the question emerges whether emigrants who acquire another citizenship are less attached to and politically active in the country of origin than those who do not. This would be the assumption of traditional perspectives on migration and citizenship. However, according to the transnational perspective neither multiple nationalities, nor participation in and identification with the CoR, preclude ongoing ties and participation back home. We test these perspectives with survey data on Swiss citizens residing in France, Germany, Italy and the US. Our results suggest that Swiss dual citizens abroad are not significantly less attached to and active in Switzerland than their mono national counterparts. Our data further supports the transnational perspective by showing not only simultaneity, but a mutually reinforcing relationship when transnational citizenship is practised. Identification with, and political participation in, the CoR positively relates to equivalent feelings and activities in the country of origin. Since dual citizenship sets the legal foundation for simultaneous involvement in two countries, it correctly assumes a central place in the study of transnational citizenship.

Zwischen Nationalismus und Kosmopolitismus: Wie lassen sich (neue) Formen demokratischer Bürgerschaft konzeptualisieren und bewerten?

In Zeiten transnationaler Verflechtungen und (Inter)Dependenzen kann demokratische Burgerschaft nicht mehr ausschlieslich innerhalb nationaler Grenzen gedacht werden. Dieser Beitrag prasentiert eine zweidimensionale Typologie, die es erlaubt, tatsachlich entstehende und normativ vorgeschlagene Formen von Burgerschaft innerhalb und jenseits des Nationalstaats in einer umfassenden und zugleich differenzierten Weise konzeptionell zu verorten. Die erste Dimension umfasst die Verankerung von Mitgliedschaft in politischen Gemeinschaften. Die zweite Dimension bilden verschiedene Arenen politischer Entscheidungsprozesse, auf welche Burgerrechte, -identitaten und -praktiken ausgerichtet sind. In beiden Dimensionen werden jeweils drei Kategorien unterschieden: Mitgliedschaft a) in einer singularen nationalen Gemeinschaft, b) in mehreren (nationalen) Gemeinschaften oder c) in der universellen Gemeinschaft aller Menschen. Bei den politischen Arenen unterscheiden wir a) innenpolitische, b) grenzuberschreitende und c) supranationale Arenen. Hieraus ergibt sich eine Typologie mit neun verschiedenen Formen demokratischer Burgerschaft. Mithilfe dieser Typologie geben wir einen kurzen Uberblick uber normative Vorschlage und empirische Befunde, der zu folgenden Erkenntnissen fuhrt: Die Realitat in allen drei politischen Arenen wird nach wie vor durch das Konzept der Mitgliedschaft in einer einzigen nationalen Gemeinschaft dominiert; dieser Tatbestand wird aber in normativen Diskursen als mangelhaft empfunden. Die Idee der Mitgliedschaft in der universellen Gemeinschaft aller Menschen hingegen erfahrt im normativen Diskurs breite Unterstutzung, es lassen sich (bisher) jedoch wenig empirische Belege fur ihre Existenz vorweisen. Im Gegensatz dazu ist Mitgliedschaft in mehreren Gemeinschaften nicht nur eine wachsende Realitat, sondern auch normativ vielversprechend fur die Demokratisierung einer transnationalisierten Welt.