Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper examines the genealogy of Anthropology of citizenship, from a historical and philosophical perspective. It proposes to understand, beyond previous historical accounts, what Anthropology of citizenship, if taken as a legitimate approach, does to our understanding Citizenship (Studies).

Paper long abstract

This paper questions the politics underlying the forms of description, along with their underlying conceptualization process, invented and developed within past anthropologies of citizenship, which provided access to the “ordinariness” of citizenship (Neveu 2015); the uncanny actions, imaginaries, experiences and processes that make a specific situation one of citizenship. Since such a descriptive activity often requires that it be carried out beyond analytic frameworks commonly used to investigate citizenship, anthropologists are faced with the need to resort to other categories, political imaginaries or narrative dispositives as descriptive tools.

I consider such normative shifts/bifurcations as events worth telling, as they invite us to revisit the way we define citizenship by blurring our usual distinctions and connections.

These itineraries are, mainly, motivated by a shared political concern: challenging the ‘political ontologies of violence’ (Graeber 2007) that confine the political field of citizenship (im)possibilities, in imagination(s) and in practice(s), while also foreclosing the possibility of capturing other political futures being citizenshiply crafted under precarious conditions, in present times. As such, anthropology of citizenship has always critically engaged with ‘normative specters’ (statism, coloniality, imperialism, legalism, patriarchy, racism, consequentialism, etc.) haunting our imaginaries of citizenship and, when left uncritically approached or unreflexively used as heuristic devices, still continue to resist the possibility of describing alternative forms of citizenship.

Along the way, it is a unique philosophy of citizenship actions that anthropologists, each in their own way, have been tacitly developing. How can such a philosophy help us see Citizenship Studies and their own history differently?

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper examines the discourses, languages and vocabularies of political participation articulated by marginalized Muslim communities in India, particularly Miya Muslims in Assam. Based on ethnographic fieldwork it situates these expressions within the Indian state’s polarizing citizenship regime

Paper long abstract

The paper examines how members of the Miya community conceive of themselves as active political subjects through the act of voting, in a context where fear of not voting is intertwined with fear of not being documented and thus rendered invisible or suspect within the documentary, political, and social imagination of the Indian nation-state. This fear is believed to have shaped the community’s relationship to the Indian state.

By locating the discourses surrounding participatory democracy and political subjectivity in India, the paper aims to unsettle this trope of Muslims as a monolithic, scared or easily appeased ‘vote bank’. Fieldwork with the Miya Muslim community reveals varied motivations for voting: maintaining community belonging, avoiding social isolation, building documentation trails to facilitate mobility and avert citizenship trials, upholding neighbourhood harmony in mixed localities, or feeling anchored in the social world. These motivations are rarely framed solely in the language of rights, duties, or good citizenry. Instead, voting emerges as a textured social and political practice embedded in everyday life.

Voting thus functions as a political ritual shaped by locally grounded meanings of citizenship that do not always align with normative ideals of ‘good citizenship’. Participation often emerges from everyday concerns such as maintaining neighbourly relations, signalling one’s place in the community, and performing belonging within family, gendered households, and village life. Citizenship is thus articulated less through fear, party politics or polarized ideologies than through social expectations, relational obligations, and the desire for inclusion in both local society and the imagined nation-state.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper examines how ideals of social responsibility are appropriated by professionals in the Danish social housing sector and resisted by citizens in three housing estates. It argues for understanding such disputes as value conflicts and for making ethics a part of political anthropology.

Paper long abstract

This paper examines how citizens in three social housing estates of Copenhagen, Denmark, mobilize around their politically ascribed role as key agents for obtaining values of a “mixed” and “sustainable” city. Based on long-term ethnographic fieldwork among professionals and residents in a social housing organisation, it revolves around the relationship between recent neoliberal national policy, the organisation’s official strategy for enhancing “engagement” among residents in its estates, and the everyday political tactics through which residents in the “resident democracy” (beboerdemokrati) - an association-based structure formalizing tenants political influence over maintaining and developing their estate - resist proposed models for how to “engage” in developing their estate according to universalist ideals. While associational citizenship are discursively understood to foster a somewhat uniquely Danish trustful cohesion between state, institutions and convivial civil communities, my situational analysis of residents in three estate democracies illustrate how disagreement and conflict are integral to the citizenship of associational politics. Such conflicts are embedded in current neoliberal policy strategies aiming to enhance local democracies’ capacity to form partnerships with “the surrounding world” to solve social and technical issues previously financed by public welfare schemes. Fruitful understandings of resident’s resistance against such ascribed values, I argue, can be gained from recent anthropological debates on ethics and social movements and favours a substantivist view on values as the outcome of specific collective, political processes (Graeber 2013, Zigon 2021) rather than a formalistic cultural structure (e.g. Robbins 2017).

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

The Chakmas, an indigenous refugee group from Bangladesh (CHT), are living in India for over 50 years without citizenship. This paper examines their struggle for citizenship and belonging, navigating local and ethnic tensions to position themselves as “becoming citizens” through everyday practices.

Paper long abstract

The struggle for citizenship and belonging intensifies for refugees when the local community consists of indigenous groups. The Chakmas, an indigenous refugee group from Bangladesh (Chittagong Hill Tracks) have settled in the North-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh in India for more than 50 years without citizenship or recognition by the state. Although the supreme court of India has passed multiple judgements to grant citizenship for Chakmas, most recently in 2015, but implementation has been stalled due to local ethnic and legal issues that complicate their status in the region. Despite this prolonged struggle, the Chakmas engage in political and ethnic maneuvers to forge closer ties with local ethnic communities to create a sense of belonging in the region. This ethnographic paper explores how the Chakmas navigate citizenship (Das 2004) and local indigenous territorial claims (Li, 2010) to position themselves as “Becoming Citizens” through everyday practices. Against the backdrop of persistent ethnic and legal tensions, the paper argues that Chakmas exist in a state of perpetual liminality, where they constantly negotiate their identities and positioning their sense of belonging within a complex sociopolitical landscape to become citizens.

Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

This history of "citizenship" within anthropology examines the transition from engaging cultural citizenship and novel forms of belonging to theorizing diminishing rights and necrocitizenship. We ask: what does it mean to write about citizenship without simultaneously questioning "democracy."

Paper long abstract

This paper is a meditation on the history of the concept citizenship within anthropology based on our own theoretical transition from a) engaging the concept of cultural citizenship to b) theorizing these difficult times in terms of necrocitizenship. Our retrospective on the anthropology of citizenship asks: where did the concepts of democracy go? What does it mean to write about citizenship without simultaneoulsy questioning "democracy." In the first part, we explore the emergence of citizenship as a topic within anthropology in the 1990s through the introduction of the concept “cultural citizenship,” an idea that focuses on citizenship practices on the ground and in terms of a more general politics of belonging. We explain why and how this concept became a focus of anthropological theory and reflect on how anthropologists applied this concept to explore novel forms of political belonging. Looking back at the anthropology of citizenship, we discuss the marginal role of theorizing democracy and reflect upon the explosion in frames for understanding expressions of citizenship---from "insurgent" to "biological" and "ghost" citizenship. We then discuss our engagement with citizenship as deriving from primarily a U.S. perspective and reflect upon the shift in our own thinking about democracy and belonging. We call for an anthropology of citizenship that both accounts for the researchers' own positionally while questioning the concept of democracy.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Extending on the definition of infrastructure as “matter that moves matter” through asking what happens when matter stops moving. The cessation of access to water due to aging, absent and overloaded infrastructure has influenced the citizenship of farmers in a former bantustan under dual governance.

Paper long abstract

In this article I extend Larkin’s definition of infrastructure as “matter that moves matter” by asking what happens when matter stops moving, long after the political animation that once accompanied democratic change. Drawing on 10 months of ethnographic fieldwork at the Ratanang Vegetable Garden in Mankweng, the periurban area in the former bantustan of Lebowa in Limpopo, I conceptualise ‘lost momentum’ as an infrastructural condition that links water, land and governance. While the 1994 transition to democracy set post-apartheid South Africa “in motion” through promises of universal services and equal citizenship, three decades on recurrent load-shedding, aging and absent infrastructure, uneven service delivery and low density urban sprawl have produced chronic interruption rather than reliable flow.

At Ratanang, women farmers confront hydrological and electrical breakdowns—a stolen water tank, deteriorated and bypassed water connections, stolen cables, mounting bills and load-shedding—that mean many must rely on labour intensive manual watering. These infrastructures show that momentum is less about speed than about maintaining flows, and that infrastructural breaks are unevenly distributed along the lines of gender and apartheid spatial legacies. Tracing farmers’ engagements with government departments and traditional authorities (makgoši), in this article I examine how dwindling and increasingly inaccessible state funding, clientelist interventions and the monetisation of communal land stall both livelihoods and technopolitical aspirations. Foregrounding hydrological stillness and stalled assistance rather than flow, I show how lost momentum names the chronic slowing and diversion of material circulation and democratic possibility in post-apartheid South Africa.