- Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
DIRK GEBHARDT
Pompeu Fabra University, Political and Social Sciences, Department Member
Urban citizenship is an old idea, with roots as far back as the city-states of the Greek Polis and medieval Europe. But after centuries in which nation-states have been the primary arbiters of identity and rights, urban citizenship—and... more
Urban citizenship is an old idea, with roots as far back as the city-states of the Greek Polis and medieval Europe. But after centuries in which nation-states have been the primary arbiters of identity and rights, urban citizenship—and the idea that the city is the preeminent source of attachment and belonging—is enjoying a revival.
This resurgence has been spurred by a number of factors, chief among which is the desire for a new narrative that inspires and gives meaning to policies to incorporate new and existing groups of immigrants. As the term “integration” is increasingly associated with negative public discourse or coercive national policies, cities have been hunting for an alternative framework to undergird a more inclusive approach. Many cities are further disillusioned by the limitations of integration policy frameworks in the context of the demographic face of contemporary cities. Since many urban areas are home to a large share of residents with an immigrant background, policymakers disagree over whom is the appropriate target of integration policies (newcomers, ethnic minorities, children of immigrants, etc.), policies that are aimed at all city residents are in vogue. A final factor is that cities are deprived of the luxury of deciding who is eligible for services, since they have day-to-day responsibility for protecting the vulnerable. Cities have become de facto guarantors of rights, even while national governments remain the gatekeepers.
Urban citizenship’s core dimensions—status, rights, and identity—can be observed to varying degree across many transatlantic cities. A number of cities have provided residents with a status (such as formal residency or a local identity card) that unlocks access to city services, although tensions have arisen in relation to national government. In one of the most prominent examples, the Spanish padrón (accorded to all city residents) used to be sufficient documentation for accessing healthcare services, but recent national legislation tightened the criteria for eligibility.
The rights dimension of urban citizenship manifests in a number of different ways, including citizen charters that catalogue the rights and duties residents, services that are available to all city residents (and in some cases policies to reduce obstacles to enjoying these services, such as non-discrimination policies), and programs to improve awareness of rights. In some cases, cities build bridges to ensure that rights and services available at national level can be taken up by local residents, as in the case of programs to help children apply for citizenship during their window of eligibility. In others, they play a compensatory role, for example by seeking the views of immigrant communities through councils because they are poorly represented by traditional methods of political and civic participation.
Finally, cities have capitalized on the sense of local belonging that many city residents (and in particular immigrant communities) feel through city branding strategies, and by counteracting negative public discourse. Barcelona’s anti-rumor campaign, enlists citizens and civil society in the process of neutralizing myths about immigrants.
While the urban citizenship philosophy unites disparate, fragmented policies and provides a compelling framework for addressing ethnic and cultural diversity, it comes with a number of risks. Without substantial commitments to granting all residents rights and status, urban citizenship can appear more like empty words. Moreover, urban citizenship can come up against contradictory national policies and discourse. In crafting an urban citizenship-inspired approach, local policymakers should play to their strengths: recognize residency as the basis of access to city- controlled services, look for opportunities to plug the gaps in national services wherever possible, and seek local ways to hear from diverse groups who are poorly represented in traditional institutions.
This resurgence has been spurred by a number of factors, chief among which is the desire for a new narrative that inspires and gives meaning to policies to incorporate new and existing groups of immigrants. As the term “integration” is increasingly associated with negative public discourse or coercive national policies, cities have been hunting for an alternative framework to undergird a more inclusive approach. Many cities are further disillusioned by the limitations of integration policy frameworks in the context of the demographic face of contemporary cities. Since many urban areas are home to a large share of residents with an immigrant background, policymakers disagree over whom is the appropriate target of integration policies (newcomers, ethnic minorities, children of immigrants, etc.), policies that are aimed at all city residents are in vogue. A final factor is that cities are deprived of the luxury of deciding who is eligible for services, since they have day-to-day responsibility for protecting the vulnerable. Cities have become de facto guarantors of rights, even while national governments remain the gatekeepers.
Urban citizenship’s core dimensions—status, rights, and identity—can be observed to varying degree across many transatlantic cities. A number of cities have provided residents with a status (such as formal residency or a local identity card) that unlocks access to city services, although tensions have arisen in relation to national government. In one of the most prominent examples, the Spanish padrón (accorded to all city residents) used to be sufficient documentation for accessing healthcare services, but recent national legislation tightened the criteria for eligibility.
The rights dimension of urban citizenship manifests in a number of different ways, including citizen charters that catalogue the rights and duties residents, services that are available to all city residents (and in some cases policies to reduce obstacles to enjoying these services, such as non-discrimination policies), and programs to improve awareness of rights. In some cases, cities build bridges to ensure that rights and services available at national level can be taken up by local residents, as in the case of programs to help children apply for citizenship during their window of eligibility. In others, they play a compensatory role, for example by seeking the views of immigrant communities through councils because they are poorly represented by traditional methods of political and civic participation.
Finally, cities have capitalized on the sense of local belonging that many city residents (and in particular immigrant communities) feel through city branding strategies, and by counteracting negative public discourse. Barcelona’s anti-rumor campaign, enlists citizens and civil society in the process of neutralizing myths about immigrants.
While the urban citizenship philosophy unites disparate, fragmented policies and provides a compelling framework for addressing ethnic and cultural diversity, it comes with a number of risks. Without substantial commitments to granting all residents rights and status, urban citizenship can appear more like empty words. Moreover, urban citizenship can come up against contradictory national policies and discourse. In crafting an urban citizenship-inspired approach, local policymakers should play to their strengths: recognize residency as the basis of access to city- controlled services, look for opportunities to plug the gaps in national services wherever possible, and seek local ways to hear from diverse groups who are poorly represented in traditional institutions.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Nachdem sich bereits soziologische Klassiker wie Weber, Velblen oder Simmel mit dem Lebensstil beschäftigt hatten, wird der Terminus Lebensstil irgendwann in den 1980er Jahren zu einem Grundbegriff der Auseinandersetzung mit sozialer... more
Nachdem sich bereits soziologische Klassiker wie Weber, Velblen oder Simmel mit dem Lebensstil beschäftigt hatten, wird der Terminus Lebensstil irgendwann in den 1980er Jahren zu einem Grundbegriff der Auseinandersetzung mit sozialer Ungleichheit in der Bundesrepublik (vgl. Garhammer 2000, Meyer 2001). Dies geschieht nicht zufällig zu einem Zeitpunkt, in dem sich der ehemals standardisierte fordistische Massenkonsum immer stärker ausdifferenziert, die Städte voller sichtbarer Subkulturen sind und der Begriff der Yuppies im Zusammenhang mit der Gentrifizierung der Innenstadt auftaucht.