There are clearly many competing theories of citizenship, for example, moral conceptions (drawing on Plato and Aristotle), where education is seen to play a key role in preparing citizens to actively participate in their political community (e.g. Etzioni, 1995, Delanty, 2003, Haydon, 2000). ‘Citizenship’ is also framed legally, in terms of rights of citizens in relation to the state (Held, 1993), and as nationality. Participatory conceptions, linked to democracy emphasise civic action, as can be seen in theories of civic republicanism. ‘Identity-based conceptions can be framed in ‘ethnocultural’ terms, where national identity is a central conception of citizenship (Brubaker, 1998; Miller, 1995), or framed in terms of ‘multicultural’ citizenship (Kymlicka, 1995). It is sometimes argued that we have entered a ‘postnational’ era, where in a globalised era of increased migration, and concomitantly, an emphasis on participation at the local level (‘glocalisation’), the notion of ‘national’ citizenship is both restrictive and obsolete. For example, Soysal (1998) argues that rights and responsibilities should be framed in terms of human rights based on international law. In addition, it is also argued that shifting to an international or transnational framework is of benefit to migrants and ethnic minorities. However, Joppke (1999) argues that extensions to the rights of migrants has occurred more significantly at the national rather than European or international level. In a 10-year cross-national research project of five countries in Europe (France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom) analysing political claims made in the public sphere, it was found that over 99% of claims made in the immigration and ethnic relations field were at the national or sub-national level, which the authors characterise as a ‘renationalisation’ rather than a trend toward postnational frameworks (Koopmans et al., 2005). Increasingly, policy discourses typically argue that active efforts must be made to construct a ‘common’ sense of citizenship in the face perceived internal division – be it devolution, increased social pluralism, immigration and increased ethnic and religious diversity or even civil conflict; such discourses are evident not only in longer-established Western democracies, but in the new democratic states of eastern and central Europe, as well as in countries of the Middle East (e.g. Israel, Lebanon) and Far East.
When a policy review of citizenship education in England was set up in 1997, the expected aims and outcomes were framed primarily in terms of addressing the perceived political apathy of young (QCA, 1998). This stands in contrast to how citizenship education has come to be framed a decade later, with the aims and outcomes of citizenship education linked to discourses on community cohesion, integration, ‘shared values’ and ‘Britishness’ (Kiwan, 2006; 2008). This can be, in part, explained in terms of the changing socio-political context, and concomitant shifts in policy.
In the original Crick Report, ‘Citizenship’ was conceptualised in terms of three ‘strands’ – social and moral responsibility, political literacy and community involvement, drawing on T. H. Marshall’s conceptualisation of citizenship as consisting of civil, political and social citizenship (Marshall and Bottomore, 1992). Three dominant models of citizenship are reflected in the policy and curriculum development of citizenship, - a ‘moral’, ‘legal’, and ‘participatory’ conception, with ‘identity-based’ conceptions of citizenship being underplayed (Kiwan, 2008). Citizenship education was presented primarily in terms of knowledge and skills of participation, based on cognitive engagement theory, which hypothesises that participation depends on access to information, thus giving education a central role (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2006). I have argued that it is important to understand motivation to participate, and that identity is a significant feature here (Kiwan, 2008). Citizenship in terms of nationality or national identity was considered to be something distinct and separate in the Crick Report, and hence explicitly avoided. Yet, five years after the statutory introduction of citizenship education into schools in England, the linking of citizenship and identity - in particular national identity, is evident in the terms of reference of the Diversity and Citizenship in the Curriculum review that Dr. Dina Kiwan co-authored with Sir Keith Ajegbo. The terms of reference requested the consideration of whether or not ‘modern British social and cultural history’ should be a fourth pillar of the Citizenship curriculum. The report recommendations proposed the addition of a fourth strand, ‘identity and diversity in the UK’ to address understanding that the UK is a ‘multinational’ state, issues of immigration, Commonwealth, and the legacy of Empire, the EU, and extending the franchise (Ajegbo, Kiwan and Sharma, 2007). However, an area that has been under-theorised and under-researched relates to the implications of the devolved education system in the UK, whilst at the same time promoting (differing) conceptions of citizenship (Andrews and Mycock, 2007). In addition, the predominant focus in both the theoretical and empirical literature has been on citizenship education in democratic and relatively peaceful contexts. Ben-Porath ‘s (2006) philosophical work on citizenship in the context of war, drawing on both the Israeli and US war-on-terror experiences takes us into new territory in this regard. The gendered constructions of citizenship, especially in relation to theorising citizenship in conflict situations also warrants further attention (Arnot and Dillabough, 2000; Ben-Porath, 2006; Joseph, 1999, 2000).
Theoretical understandings of citizenship are similarly reflected in citizenship tests (Etzioni, 2007). In the UK context, whilst citizenship and nationality were kept quite separate in the original Crick Report and subsequent citizenship education curriculum documentation, these concepts were explicitly brought together in the domain of naturalisation. A Home Office Advisory Group, set up by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and also chaired Sir Bernard Crick, (and of which Dr. Dina Kiwan was a member) was asked to develop proposals for language and citizenship education for immigrants applying for naturalisation to become British citizens (Home Office, 2003). Kiwan (2007) has argued that not only are the content of the ‘citizenship test’ and the language and citizenship courses strongly influenced by the citizenship education programme of study offered in English secondary schools, but also that the very nature of the ‘assessment’ itself reflects contemporary thinking in the domain of education with regard to optimal approaches to teaching, learning and assessment. The learning undertaken through courses or preparing for the citizenship test (‘journey’ to citizenship) were conceived of as learning ‘entitlements’, providing, in some cases, a first step towards a ‘lifelong learning’ journey, considered particularly important for more marginalised sections of immigrant communities. This form of assessment, with an emphasis on process in turn, has implications for how the acquisition of British citizenship is conceptualised, in relation to the broader debates on integration and diversity.
Research conducted as part of the ESRC programme on Devolution and Constitutional Change has shown that, in the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is strong support for devolution. Strengthening expressions of ‘English’ identity and declining attachments to notions of ‘British’ identity were noted, with overall attachments to notions of ‘British’ identity showing a decline across all regions of the UK, compared to a decade ago (Heath, 2005). It is unclear, however, whether distinctions were made between more nationalistic notions of Britishness, compared to more civically-framed notions of Britishness. In addition, it should be noted that such identities are not mutually exclusive with many expressing dual English / Welsh / Scottish and British identities (Curtice, 2005). Whilst it is difficult to make causal arguments - that devolution leads to weaker attachments to notions of state-level identity, it is argued that it may reflect a declining attachment to ‘Britishness’. What has been suggested, however, is that, what may be a significant factor is generational differences, with younger generations not holding the same level of attachment to notions of ‘Britishness’ compared to older generations, which had been shaped in part ‘by Empire and war’ (Heath, 2005). However, attitudes towards ‘Britishness’ must be distinguished from attitudes to democracy and participation as it has been shown that there are no statistical differences between the young and the old when it comes to attitudes towards to democracy and political participation (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2006). It is in this context that these seminars aim to interrogate the role played by citizenship education, and also the role of the new naturalisation requirements where policies are framed in terms of discourses of promoting national identity, ‘shared values’, community cohesion, and integration.