file · web viewemerging. in exploring struggles for rights by roma populations in rome and turin...
TRANSCRIPT
Acts, ambiguities, and the labour of contesting citizenship
Jonathan Darling (University of Manchester)
Citizenship is, as the editors of this special issue assert, intrinsically spatial. In its connections
to ‘the material and discursive dimensions of different geographical places and scales’
(Maestri and Hughes 2017), citizenship has long been central to political geography. From
debates over the relationship between territory and citizenship as a marker of belonging and
status (Painter and Philo 1995; Sassen 2006), to considerations of the everyday manifestation
of citizenship in various forms of social and political practice (Staeheli et al. 2012),
geography has retained a concern to explore the limits, boundaries, and possibilities of
citizenship. It is in the spirit of these discussions, that this special issue has brought together a
rich vein of work exploring the spatial contests, possibilities, and politics of citizenship. In
this afterword, I draw on the five papers collected together here, to discuss some of the
intersections between space and citizenship. I want to open by briefing touching on the
account of citizenship developed in this issue, centred around two common perspectives.
In their introduction to this issue, Maestri and Hughes (2017), argue that citizenship
represents a process of ‘marginalisation’, yet one that is ‘constantly open to renegotiation’.
As such, they highlight how citizenship is shaped by political struggles, suggesting both the
production of new forms of political subjectivity, and the governmental reproduction of
normative distinctions of citizen and non-citizen. This account of citizenship as a ‘Janus-
faced’ concept at once both inclusive and exclusive (Wiebe 2016), is the first reading of
citizenship I want to reflect upon here. For if we look to the multiple spaces and often
ambiguous claims made throughout this special issue, we see a more complex picture
1
emerging. In exploring struggles for rights by Roma populations in Rome and Turin (Maestri
2017; Canepari and Rosa 2017), and undocumented migrants in Brussels and Malmo
(Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017; Nordling et al 2017), these papers illustrate how a ‘Janus-
faced’ image masks both the complexity of each of these ‘faces’, and the interactions
between them. In each of these papers, forms of political contestation respond to, exceed, and
are often re-appropriated within, an exclusionary image of citizenship based on the normative
categories of the nation-state. And at the same time, these claims are always multiple. They
are tied to concerns around care, hospitality, empathy and support, as much as they are
singular demands for citizenship. Exploring these claims is therefore to reflect on the
complexities of citizenship and to unsettle this ‘Janus-faced’ image.
The second account of citizenship orientating this issue is in understanding citizenship
beyond the boundaries of the nation-state. The papers collected here illustrate Nyers’
(2015:32) claim that citizenship ‘has not been completely captured by the state, or by state
philosophy. It, too, escapes from border control’. Nyers (2015), argues that citizenship may
‘escape’ the dominance of the state through the emergence of forms of ‘migrant citizenship’
that are ‘generative of new modes of being in the world’ (ibid:29). These new modes of being
may themselves trouble a ‘Janus-faced’ account of citizenship, but they also rely upon varied
tactics and spaces for their production and performance. In the remainder of this afterword I
want to highlight four areas that illustrate the potentials, limitations, and tensions of thinking
citizenship in ways not immediately ‘captured by the state’ or by a ‘Janus-faced’ image of
inclusive exclusion. To begin, I explore two avenues through which citizenship may ‘escape’
the state.
Citizenship’s ‘escape’
2
On the one hand, citizenship has not been captured by the state due to a growing concern with
citizenship ‘from below’ (Nyers and Rygiel 2012), a framing of citizenship from ‘the
margins’ that attempts to either reframe dominant citizenship trends (Turner 2016), or refuse
the categories of citizenship altogether (McNevin 2012, 2013). We might see this vein of
work in Nordling et al’s (2017) paper, where an autonomy of migration approach is taken
forward by exploring how undocumented migrants in Malmo seek to both exceed the limits
of citizenship as a category of political status, whilst also strategically employing citizenship
as a social practice that enables migrants to gain respite from exclusionary forces. The
importance of such activism is in the ability to break down barriers of classification and
division between citizen and non-citizens, such that common claims to rights are articulated
between otherwise distinct groups (Nyers and Rygiel 2012). This question of enrolling others
into a political struggle is shown to be central to the claims made by undocumented migrants
in Brussels (Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017), Roma groups in Rome (Maestri 2017), and
immigration detainees in the UK (Hughes and Forman 2017). The papers in this issue thus
show how attempts to ‘escape’ are both facilitated and constrained by the spaces through
which they emerge – from the routing of migrants through certain channels and assumptions,
to the possibilities of social practice and presence seen in the informal dimensions of urban
life.
The second point through which citizenship has been argued to ‘escape’ the state, comes
from an identification of citizenship with spatial forms beyond the nation-state. The potential
for transnational and transversal forms of citizenship that express different relational
connectivity have contested the association of citizenship with the territorially bound state
(Sassen 2006). Yet perhaps the most readily discussed challenge comes from work on urban
3
citizenship that positions the city as both a context for struggles over citizenship, and a
political actor to whom, and for whom, claims are made (Isin 2012; Nyers 2011). We see
consideration of these urban dynamics of citizenship in this range of papers (Canepari and
Rosa 2017; Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017; Nordling et al. 2017). Notably, Canepari and
Rosa (2017) illustrate how, both historically and in contemporary Turin, social presence
provides opportunities for the development and expression of rights to the city based upon
‘local forms of anchorage for unsettled individuals’. In this context, they argue that ‘social
practice was what made a city-dweller, someone who was part of the city and has access to its
resources’ (Canepari and Rosa 2017), and this argument resonates with an emergent body of
work concerned with examining how the politics of urban presence may offer openings for
alternative forms of belonging (Bauder 2016; Darling 2017; Squire and Darling 2013).
Similarly, in examining the acts of solidarity that support undocumented migrants in Malmo,
Nordling et al. (2017) illustrate the role that urban environments play in offering
opportunities for activist organising, networking, and identification through claims to urban
identity and rights. In this way, the diversity, density, and political visibility often attached to
cities foster conditions for contesting citizenship (Uitermark and Nicholls 2014). Just as
important though, and illustrated by Depraetere and Oosterlynck’s (2017) account of the
closure of informal support services for refugees in Brussels, is the recognition that cities also
represent sites through which practices of everyday bordering are maintained. In this way, as
I have argued elsewhere (Darling 2017), cities are critical sites for the policing of dissent and,
as such, are often stages on which the risks of political visibility are amplified.
Taken together, this focus on exploring citizenship ‘from below’, and understanding
citizenship through a wider range of spatial and institutional forms, has pushed critical
discussions to expand the practices, sites, and subjects associated with contesting citizenship.
4
In taking forward these discussions, I now turn to consider how a concern with ‘acts of
citizenship’ may offer insights into citizenship ‘from below’ (Isin and Nielsen 2008).
Acts and interventions
The concept of ‘acts of citizenship’ has gained considerable attention in recent years, with a
range of work drawing on Isin’s (2008) theorisation of practices that rewrite established
‘scripts’ of citizenship among those formally excluded from such status (see, for example,
Aradau et al. 2010; Darling 2014a; Isin 2012). It is thus unsurprising to see this framing being
employed across the papers in this special issue.
The most explicit use of this literature comes in Hughes and Forman’s (2017) discussion of
how an appreciation of materiality may enliven work on acts of citizenship. Through their
account of how an array of materials are assembled in immigration removal centres to
produce music with detainees, and how such music is transported beyond the walls of the
detention centre through diverse circuits of materiality, Hughes and Forman force us to
consider the very nature of the ‘act’ in ‘acts of citizenship’. Foregrounding the role of
materiality in constituting acts of citizenship, their work opens the question of where an ‘act’
emerges from and how we might trace the politics of the ‘act’ as it resonates through different
personal, social, and affective relationships. In this vein, Hughes and Forman’s (2017)
discussion illustrates how the material-discursive assemblage of music can circulate through
multiple publics with effects and resonances that can never be fully predicted or tied back to
an intentional or wholly coherent ‘author’. An attention to the material constitution of the act,
does not prioritise particular subjects, spaces, or actors as the primary or rightful authors of
such acts. Instead, it is the combinatory capacity and distributed agency of materials brought
5
into contact that produce and reproduce acts in different contexts. The upshot of which is that
an act is an assembled socio-political effect of material-discursive relations. These are
relations that can be directed in varying ways, including governmental attempts to produce
certain conducts through material circulations (Darling 2014b), but they are never wholly
circumscribed or controlled.
This line of thought opens up some interesting questions. Most significant of these is in how
an act is recognised. Through denying any singular author to an act, Squire (2016) has
recently argued that acts can only be known by their effects, as acts ‘can be more or less
purposive and are conceptualised as such in terms of their political implications or effects,
rather than in terms of the choices, strategies or wilful actions of those involved’ (Squire
2016:12-13, original emphasis). In this sense, acts ‘do not in any sense rely on a particular
conception of what an actor is or does’ (ibid), but rather are recognised by the production of
new subjects. Acts are thus disruptive practices of subjectification, but unlike political
interventions, they actualise their disruptive potential and constitute new political subjects
(Squire 2016:14-15). Taking such thought forward suggests two possible paths for
discussions of citizenship.
One is to draw on a more expansive account of ‘acts’ than that often provided through
literature in this field. For example, Fortier (2016:1039) proposes a wider account of ‘acts of
citizenship’ as ‘both institutional and individual practices of making citizens or citizenship,
including practices that seek to redefine, decentre or even refuse citizenship. For even in
refusing it, citizenship is the object of the act’. This extends beyond the disruptive acts that
Isin and Nielsen (2008) refer to, and encompasses the wider ‘technologies of governmentality
deployed by states, corporation or other sites of disciplinary power that prescribe what it
6
means to be a good citizen’ (Fortier 2016:1040). This wider account of acts of citizenship,
opens analysis to a broader set of processes involved in constituting citizens, not solely ‘from
below’ or in ways that are inherently disruptive, but also in ways that shape and maintain
normative accounts of the ‘good’ citizen ‘worthy’ of inclusion and rights. It is these processes
of ‘making citizens’, through normative acts as well as disruptive ones, that continue to shape
everyday life for many citizens and non-citizens alike (Byrne 2014). The implication of this
argument for the papers in this issue, is to question how the disruptive acts of claims-making
and subjectification discussed, come into contact with technologies of governmentality that
themselves ‘make’ citizens and mould understandings of citizenship.
The second option is to follow Squire’s (2016) distinction of the act from the intervention,
and to consider in greater depth the political relation of the two. In a number of cases across
these papers, the forms of political contestation discussed does not become an ‘act’ when
interpreted through its effects. If the basis of the act is its ability to disrupt the political
present and to instantiate a new political subject, then this is witnessed only fleetingly in
these contributions. Depraetere and Oosterlynck’s (2017) account of undocumented migrants
in Brussels suggests a brief articulation of a new identification for those on the margins of the
city, but one all too quickly subsumed within the reassertion of normative categories of
citizenship. Similarly, Maestri’s (2017) work on the rights claims of the Roma, shows how
new forms of political subject may have arisen in response to austerity, but that these were
equally fragile and subject to co-option by technologies of governance that seek to ‘make
citizens’ in a particular image. This leads to two interpretive challenges. On the one hand, we
can assert that these are acts of citizenship in their articulation of an alternative account of
who has the right to have rights, and that looking to the effects of such acts illustrates as
much. Yet the question of temporality comes to the fore in doing so – for how long should we
7
trace the effects of such acts in order to know them as acts? Does it matter if these effects are
fleeting and temporary? On the other hand, we might argue that what we see are interventions
that have the potential to produce new subjects, but that fall short of the realisation of that
potential. This is not to dismiss the political significance of such interventions, but to add
nuance to an understanding of what might be articulated as an act of citizenship. Indeed, as
Squire (2016:15) argues, interventions may be significant in creating ‘multiple openings for
new subjects and scripts to emerge’, as the ‘development of resources, skills and networks by
people on the move…can be important in the formation of a political act. Focusing on the
effects of interventions…sheds light on the ambiguities and messiness of acts’ (ibid).
Exploring the politics of the intervention, might thus offer a way to consider the labour of
constituting acts themselves – in terms of the multiple people, skills, and materials that are
brought together in organising, campaigning, and claims making (Darling 2014a). It might
also offer insight into how acts of citizenship are always already positioned in relation to
other ways of ‘making citizens’, be that through technologies of governance or through
differently positioned acts of ‘violence, hospitality, hostility, indifference, love, friendship,
and so on’ (Isin 2008:19). It is to this issue of intertwined relations that I now turn.
Ambiguities and alliances
Ambiguity plays a central role in many of the papers collected together here, not least
because, as Maestri and Hughes (2017) argue, ambiguity is often at the core of citizenship.
The role of ambiguity in shaping understandings of struggles for citizenship comes to the fore
in a number of ways. On a spatial level, Nordling et al. (2017) highlight how in the city of
Malmo, spaces of social support for undocumented migrants might be understood as spaces
8
‘in between’ normative categories and claims to status and rights. These spaces are argued to
hold shifting and uncertain positions, and operate ‘in between’ assumptions of citizenship,
charity and identity in two ways. On the one hand, they are positioned between categories of
inclusion and exclusion, as they enable social space for migrants who have no formal right to
stay in the city, and the on the other, they are sites positioned between migrant and non-
migrant subjectivities, spaces shared and produced through relations across categories of
status. The connections forged here between differentially positioned individuals and groups,
help to form political campaigns, social support structures, and offer a context in which the
sorts of interventions noted above may be emergent. These are not spaces of clear cut
political activism or insurgency, but neither are they spaces only of care, hospitality, or
compassion. Rather, like interventions and acts, these spaces may become political, but often
in unpredictable and partial ways. Exploring the different political and moral logics behind
such spaces, once again adds depth to the image of citizenship as a ‘Janus-faced’ concept.
Beyond this spatial point, ambiguity is present in the strategic use of citizenship. In one such
instance, Canepari and Rosa (2017) show how claims to citizenship can be mobilised to
further other forms of political marginality. In their account of the informal settlement of
marginal parts of Turin by Roma groups, they suggest that urban authorities allowed these
claims to space so as to encourage landowners to negotiate with them over the future use, and
value, of such land. In this context, claims to a right to the city, articulated through practices
of occupation, are co-opted to support the interests and authority of the local state. Alongside
this co-option of claims to citizenship, we should also recognise that, as McNevin (2012)
argues, in some contexts citizenship is not sought as a goal for political struggles. Rather,
citizenship may offer a strategically useful staging post in seeking to challenge and reject the
basis on which rights are defined. This issue of what Cook (2010) terms the ‘advocates
9
dilemma’ in which marginal subjects appeal for rights whilst also critiquing and challenging
the basis on which such rights are assumed, is central to discussions of the ambiguous nature
of citizenship claims. This is evident in Nordling et al’s (2017) paper, where they suggest that
informal urban rights secured through social practice offer ‘room for manoeuvre to activists
(citizens as well as non-citizens) to focus on issues beyond everyday survival’. The ambiguity
of such political claims is not simply in what is sought, but also in how claims are used to
enable the development of other political strategies. Ambiguity is not a stable position, but
one that can be used temporarily to make space for other claims, and is, of course, open to
challenge and co-option as we have seen. In this way, the informal rights claimed across a
number of these papers might be argued to be minor interventions that give respite, but do not
necessarily alter a positon on the margins (Bagelman 2015). Yet, as Wilson (2014) argues of
tolerance, the gap that such respite may produce, whilst fragile, still holds the potential to be
transformative in opening opportunities for new political claims and strategies to emerge.
The contestation of citizenship may also demand the formation of multiple alliances. In this
vein, Maestri (2017) highlights how acts of citizenship by Roma are ‘supported through acts
of solidarity developed by actors who are not subject to the same marginalisation of the
Roma’. In articulating claims to the right to the city alongside urban squatting movements,
Roma groups are able to enact forms of solidarity based on a ‘shared socio-economic status
of being denied access to housing in times of crisis’ (ibid). Such forms of solidarity and
alliance building across difference are critical in examining how citizenship is contested, both
from those on the margins and through connections forged by shared experiences. The
importance of such strategies is that in a context of continued austerity, and rising
nationalism and populism across much of Europe, we are seeing the prioritisation of
citizenship narratives that focus on a competition for resources between groups, and that deny
10
forms of international and intersectional solidarity (Darling 2016; Featherstone 2012). As
such, the papers collected together here pose the question of how moments of solidarity
between citizen and non-citizen groups may be both facilitated and maintained.
Learning and labour
The final thread I want to draw from this issue, is in the role of learning in shaping the
politics of citizenship. Of course, there are established bodies of work on how citizenship is
learned through forms of citizenship education (Crick 1999), and on how citizens are ‘made’
through expectations of conduct, culture, and identity (Byrne 2014). But what I want to draw
out here is a less strictly institutional form of learning. Rather, it is notable across these
papers that whilst a range of spaces are produced, maintained, and co-opted in different ways,
in doing so a series of pedagogic practices are also enacted. In short, exploring how spaces of
citizenship are contested, and how cities in particular offer opportunities to assert claims to
rights beyond the nation-state, exposes how such environments are learned through everyday
practices and how that knowledge plays a part in the articulation of political claims
(McFarlane 2011). Such practices of learning are also about the labour of making connections
and return us again to a need to reflect on how the work of contesting citizenship is just this,
work. We might see this in two examples.
First, Canepari and Rosa (2017) highlight how the urban environment is learned by the Roma
in Turin. From the knowledge of the public water geography of the city required to have a
shower, to the recovery, sorting and selling of waste as a means to get by, the Roma are
shown to develop an adept understanding of the city based on where one can, and cannot,
gain access to water supplies, waste, and other resources. In this way, Canepari and Rosa
11
(2017) show not just how an intimate geography of the city is learned through doing, but how
this intimate knowledge of the city enables ‘Rome people [to] practice in the city far beyond
their marginal living spaces’. This offers a form of ‘mobile anchoring’ through which a group
that is otherwise placed on the margins, can establish forms of ‘presence and belonging in the
city’ that offer footholds for both survival and the politicisation of other rights claims. In this
way, learning the city is intimately tied to the informal networks of opportunity that have
been argued to make cities sites of contested citizenship (Bauder 2016; Uitermark and
Nicholls 2014).
Second, in the contexts of Brussels (Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017), and Malmo
(Nordling et al. 2017), these papers illustrate the significance of information sharing in the
politics of undocumented migration. In both of these cases, undocumented groups engage and
share information with each other, and with other groups of refugees, citizens, and in some
cases third sector and support organisations. Whilst of course, such knowledge is open to
control and co-option, it is nevertheless important to recognise the central role that sharing
knowledge of campaigning, local political opportunity structures, and the basics of survival in
new surroundings, may play in constituting the grounds for political interventions and acts. In
their paper, Nordling et al. (2017) refer to this as a ‘mobile commons’ of shared information,
knowledge and skills. This conceptualisation views the mobile commons as a ‘world of
knowledge, of information, of tricks for survival, of mutual care, of social relations, of
service exchange, of solidarity and sociability that can be shared, used and where people
contribute to sustain and expand it’ (Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2013:190). Crucially, this
notion of the mobile commons is one that prioritises learning, as a commons is always open
to new information, yet not one that attempts to define or restrict who is able to learn or to
contribute. In the account we see from Malmo, this knowledge is not divorced from the
12
politics of citizenship but rather is, as Nyers (2015:32) puts it, ‘immanent to…citizenship’.
The undocumented migrants that Nordling et al. (2017) worked with, point to shared
practices of learning, the tactical exchange of information, and the coordination of political
claims, as ways in which a ‘mobile commons’ is mobilised to support everyday survival in
the city and strategies for claiming the right to have rights.
Citizenships in flux
Furthering an understanding of the contested nature and spatial politics of citizenship requires
exploring all of these varied avenues of critical engagement. Crucially, as these papers
illustrate, exploring questions of urban contestation and belonging, acts and interventions,
and the materialities and labours of political struggles, are not mutually exclusive endeavours.
Rather, they are intertwined through the production of spaces that both facilitate, and are
changed by, claims to the right to have rights. In advancing such discussions there is a need
to also remain cognisant of two issues that endure with addressing citizenship ‘from below’.
The first is how such work, can account for, and engage with, acts and interventions that are
not merely ambiguous, but that are actively destructive of other ways of being. Consider here
the affective politics of hate, the saliency of desires to retain and protect privilege, and the
rejection of forms of solidarity that seek to extend concern to others. It is thus important to
recognise that political contestations of citizenship must also involve the insurgent claims and
acts of those who stake their account of citizenship precisely on the desire, and even the
presumed right, to deny the right to have rights to others. This presumption is a long-held
aspect of a normative vision of citizenship tied to the nation-state (Hage 1998), yet it is also
one that has often been viewed as under threat and in need of ever more repressive political
protection. In unpacking these contested spaces of citizenship, there is a need to keep in mind
13
those spaces formed around exclusionary acts of citizenship that form particular political
subjects.
Finally, and perhaps inevitably, there is scope and value in returning to the nation-state when
considering the contested spaces of citizenship and asking critically, what a view of
citizenship ‘from below’ may mean for the state? This is particularly important at present
because the status and experience of citizenship for many different groups is being remade.
From the changing relations to the state being produced through the Brexit process in the UK,
and its impacts on both EU nationals within the UK and UK nationals living in the EU,
through to the ongoing repression of mobility rights for a range of citizens across the world,
how citizenship is defined, and what implications it carries for the subjects it creates, is in
considerable flux. In many ways this has always been the case, citizenship is by definition a
mutable and contingent political category and process. Yet, the value of exploring how
spaces of contestation may challenge, confront, and remake understandings of citizenship
may be in illustrating not just how citizenship is being practiced at the margins, but in
reflecting on how the nature of citizenship is being continually revised and remade in relation
to those on the margins.
References
Aradau, C. Huysmans, J. and Squire, V. (2010) Acts of European citizenship: a political
sociology of mobility Journal of Common Market Studies 48(4): 945-965.
Bagelman, J. (2013) Sanctuary: a politics of ease? Alternatives 38(1): 49-62.
14
Bauder, H. (2016) Possibilities of urban belonging Antipode 48(2): 252-271.
Byrne, B. (2014) Making Citizens: Public Rituals and Personal Journeys to Citizenship
Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Canepari, E. and Rosa, E. (2017) Being part of the city: mobility, urban spaces and city
practices over time Citizenship Studies
Cook, M.L. (2010) The advocate’s dilemma: framing migrant rights in national settings
Studies in Social Justice 4(2): 145-164.
Crick, B. (1999) The presuppositions of citizenship education Journal of Philosophy of
Education 33(3): 337-352.
Darling, J. (2014a) Asylum and the post-political: domopolitics, depoliticisation and acts of
citizenship Antipode 46(1): 72-91.
Darling, J. (2014b) Another letter from the Home Office: reading the material politics of
asylum Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32: 484-500.
Darling, J. (2016) Asylum in austere times: instability, privatization and experimentation
within the UK asylum dispersal system Journal of Refugee Studies 29(4): 483-505.
15
Darling, J. (2017) Forced migration and the city: irregularity, informality, and the politics of
presence Progress in Human Geography 41(2): 178-198.
Depraetere, A. and Oosterlynck, S. (2017) “I finally found my place”: a political ethnography
of the Maximiliaan refugee camp in Brussels Citizenship Studies
Featherstone, D. (2012) Solidarity: Hidden Histories and Geographies of Internationalism
London, Zed Books.
Fortier, A-M. (2016) Afterword: acts of affective citizenship? Possibilities and limitations
Citizenship Studies 20(8): 1038-1044.
Hage, G. (1998) White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society
Annadale, Pluto Press.
Hughes, S. and Forman, P. (2017) A material politics of citizenship: the potential of
circulating materials from UK Immigration Removal Centres Citizenship Studies
Isin, E.F. (2008) Theorizing acts of citizenship in Isin, E.F. and Nielsen, G.M. (eds) Acts of
Citizenship London, Zed Books, 15-43.
Isin, E.F. (2012) Citizens without Frontiers Bloomsbury, London.
Isin, E.F. and Nielson, G. (2008) (eds) Acts of Citizenship London, Zed Books.
16
Maestri, G. (2017) Struggles and ambiguities over political subjectivities in the camp: Roma
camp dwellers between neoliberal and urban citizenship in Italy Citizenship Studies
Maestri, G. and Hughes, S. (2017) Contested spaces of citizenship: camps, borders and urban
encounters Citizenship Studies
McFarlane, C. (2011) Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage Oxford,
Wiley-Blackwell.
McNevin, A. (2012) Undocumented citizens? Shifting grounds of citizenship in Los Angeles
in Nyers, P. and Rygiel, K. (eds) Citizenship, Migrant Activism and the Politics of Movement
London, Routledge, 165-183.
McNevin, A. (2013) Ambivalence and citizenship: theorising the political claims of
unauthorised migrants Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41(2): 182-200.
Nordling et al. (2017) From citizenship to mobile commons: reflections on the local struggles
of undocumented migrants in the city of Malmö, Sweden Citizenship Studies
Nyers, P. (2011) No one is illegal between city and nation Studies in Social Justice 4(2): 127-
143.
Nyers, P. (2015) Migrant citizenships and autonomous mobilities Migration, Mobility, &
Displacement 1(1): 23-39.
17
Nyers, P. and Rygiel, K. (2012) Introduction: citizenship, migrant activism and the politics of
movement in Nyers, P. and Rygiel, K. (eds) Citizenship, Migrant Activism and the Politics of
Movement London, Routledge, 1-19.
Painter, J. and Philo, C. (1995) Spaces of citizenship: an introduction Political Geography
14(2): 107-120.
Papadopoulos, D. and Tsianos, V.S. (2013) After citizenship: autonomy of migration,
organisational ontology and mobile commons Citizenship Studies 17(2): 178-196.
Sassen, S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages
Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Squire, V. (2016) Unauthorised migration beyond structure/agency? Acts, interventions,
effects Politics online earlyview.
Squire, V. and Darling, J. (2013) The “minor” politics of rightful presence: justice and
relationality in City of Sanctuary International Political Sociology 7(1): 59-74.
Staeheli, L.A. Ehrkamp, P. Leitner, H. and Nagel, C.R. (2012) Dreaming the ordinary: daily
life and the complex geographies of citizenship Progress in Human Geography 36(5): 628-
644.
Turner, J. (2016) (En)gendering the political: citizenship from marginal spaces Citizenship
Studies 20(2): 141-155.
18
Uitermark, J. and Nicholls, W. (2014) From politicization to policing: the rise and decline of
new social movements in Amsterdam and Paris Antipode 46(4): 970-991.
Wiebe, S.M. (2016) Guardians of the environment in Canada’s Chemical Valley Citizenship
Studies 20(1): 18-33.
Wilson, H.F. (2014) The possibilities of tolerance: intercultural dialogue in a multicultural
Europe Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(5): 852-868.
19