Varieties of Citizenship and the Moral Foundations of Politics



Debates about citizenship tend to confuse more than they illuminate political discourse because they trade on two different conceptions whose relationship is not immediately apparent. Citizenship has legal meaning, which concerns an individual’s relationship to a particular government. However, citizenship can also invoke deeper moral claims regarding identity and the common ethical commitments that define a community. Various rights, obligations, and benefits can be attached to citizenship conceived both in juridical and moral terms. However, attending to the varieties of citizenship is difficult given the primacy of the modern state as a political unit. Upon examination, what conventional political debates illustrate – whether they concern economic distribution, cultural identity, or cosmopolitan travel – is that questions of citizenship ultimately concern the bounds of communities and the moral convictions that constitute them.


Citizenship Community Ethical convictions Liberal democracy Subsidiarity 


  1. Augustine, S. (1871). The city of God (D. Marcus, Trans.). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
  2. Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, Edmund. (2016). Select works of Edmund Burke. A New Imprint of the Payne Edition. Foreword and Biographical Note by Francis Canavan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999). Vol. 2. 3/15/2016 (Reflections on the Revolution in France).
  4. Garsten, B. (2009). Saving persuasion: A defense of rhetoric and judgment. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. George, R. P. (1993). Making men moral: Civil liberties and public morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. George, R. P. (2014). The clash of orthodoxies: Law, religion, and morality in crisis . Wilmington. Open Road MediaGoogle Scholar
  7. Glendon, M. A. (2008). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  8. Hegel, G. W. F. (1979). Hegel’s system of ethical life and first philosophy of spirit. Albany: SuNY Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hittinger, R. (2002). Social pluralism and subsidiarity in Catholic social doctrine. Annales theologici, 16, 385–408.Google Scholar
  10. Kymlicka, W. (1989). Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality. Ethics, 99(4), 883–905. Retrieved from
  11. Locke, J. (2010). A Letter concerning toleration and other writings, edited and with an Introduction by Mark Goldie. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  12. Macedo, S. (2009). Diversity and distrust: Civic education in a multicultural democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  14. MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality ? London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  15. Mussolini, Benito. (1935). The doctrine of fascism. Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.Google Scholar
  16. Neuhaus, R. J. (1986). The naked public square: Religion and democracy in America. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. O’Donovan, J. L. (2004a). “Nation, state, and civil society in the western biblical tradition,” in Bonds of imperfection: Christian politics, past and present. Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. O’Donovan, O. (2004b). Common objects of love: Moral reflection and the shaping of community. Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Sandel, M. J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge /New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taylor, C. (1977). Hegel. Cambridge /New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McDonough School of BusinessGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations