Citizenship: proportion of its people. Hampshire (2005) delves

Citizenship:

 

This chapter aids us to grasp how Britain,
according to James Hampshire (2005), has turned into a multi-racial society against
the wishes of its politicians and a large proportion of its people. Hampshire (2005)
delves into the politics of immigration in post-war Britain and brings to light
how unease about public health service and welfare scrounging impacts government
policy and influences changes made to the law. Hampshire (2005) puts forward
the argument that radical ideas are becoming more prominent in post-war deliberations
about immigration and says that the such deliberations have serious
consequences on our society. He demonstrates clearly in his argument how the
government claims to appeal to the notion of “belonging” (pp. 126) so it can validate
racialized policies put in place to slow down the immigration rates from
previously colonised countries such as Algeria and Morocco. As immigration has been a prominent topic of conversation
on the political agenda over the past decade, Hampshire gives an essential framework
to present-day debates by demonstrating how notions about race, demography and
belonging overlap to shape immigration policy. One
strength which cannot be overlooked in this text is Hampshire’s referencing to a
large wealth of contemporary archival material to back up this argument, his fascinating
analysis alters the way we consider citizenship. I Find it extremely potent how he incorporates
old case studies with recent ones to bridge between historical and contemporary
debates, overall, this create a well-rounded argument.

                                                                                                

In her introduction, Marilyn Friedman (2005) outlines the complexity of the term “citizenship”.
She states that it is hard to pinpoint exactly one definition to the word, as
she goes onto stating some widely used definitions such as, the term
citizenship can be a set of privileges, rights and responsibilities; however,
it can also be seen as a relationship between an individual and the state, this
shows us that political terminology is fluid, as one term can mean multiple
things. Although citizenship has been explored through many discipline, there
is hardly any exploration of the relationship between gender and citizenship. This comes
to me as a surprise, as we know that women’s global denial of citizenship has a
long history and is still ongoing to date. With reference to works of influential
scholars such as Young. I. M (1980), Jaguar A. M (2003), Martha Nussbaum (2002),
and Sandra Bartky (2001), Freidman takes a fresh cope in the way she addresses citizenship
as she discusses in depth the relevance of culture and politics in influencing women’s
experience of citizenship. At the heart of the argument in this text is the
conceptual problems and gimmicks which helps to influence the feminist pursuit to
give woman a full experience of citizenship and stop customs and conditions
which extenuate women’s citizenship in many parts of the world. One prominent
example of women’s citizenship being compromised due to traditions, is in Saudi
Arabia where women are deprived of mundane rights such as Driving. We can see
clearly that this is oppressive of women’s autonomy and citizenship.

 

The overarching topic in both readings is the politics of citizenship,
however, both authors take different focal points to their argument about the experience
of citizenship. Hampshire considered the legalities and policies surrounding
immigration while Freidman approaches as she thinks about citizenship through
gender and not as a stand-alone topic.