Conclusion

D. Gosewinkel
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"D. Gosewinkel","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198846161.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The book comes to four main conclusions. Contrary to an influential theory (Rogers Brubaker), it is, first, not discursive idioms about the nation that primarily determine the inclusive or exclusive character of citizenship. Rather, it was changing politico-social constellations—economic, demographic, and foreign policy interests and conjunctions—that defined the political form and practice of citizenship. Second, contrary to a dominant narrative, the frequently alleged qualitative divide of legal culture from Western to Eastern Europe is called into question. Third, the book’s historical cross-section supports a critical review of the widespread theory of convergence between regimes of citizenship in Europe. It specifies, instead, the historical conditions for expectations of Europeanization through law and thus for European citizenship. Fourth, the history of citizenship in Europe since the nineteenth century cannot be told as an exclusively European one. The politics and colonial practices of affiliation in the European powers’ overseas and continental colonial empires remained in effect well into the postcolonial policies of citizenship and migration, thus also shaping the inheritance of a current policy of citizenship in Europe.","PeriodicalId":178730,"journal":{"name":"Struggles for Belonging","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Struggles for Belonging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846161.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The book comes to four main conclusions. Contrary to an influential theory (Rogers Brubaker), it is, first, not discursive idioms about the nation that primarily determine the inclusive or exclusive character of citizenship. Rather, it was changing politico-social constellations—economic, demographic, and foreign policy interests and conjunctions—that defined the political form and practice of citizenship. Second, contrary to a dominant narrative, the frequently alleged qualitative divide of legal culture from Western to Eastern Europe is called into question. Third, the book’s historical cross-section supports a critical review of the widespread theory of convergence between regimes of citizenship in Europe. It specifies, instead, the historical conditions for expectations of Europeanization through law and thus for European citizenship. Fourth, the history of citizenship in Europe since the nineteenth century cannot be told as an exclusively European one. The politics and colonial practices of affiliation in the European powers’ overseas and continental colonial empires remained in effect well into the postcolonial policies of citizenship and migration, thus also shaping the inheritance of a current policy of citizenship in Europe.
结论
这本书得出了四个主要结论。与一个有影响力的理论(罗杰斯·布鲁贝克)相反,首先,决定公民身份的包容性或排他性的不是关于国家的话语性成语。相反,它是不断变化的政治社会格局——经济、人口和外交政策利益和联系——定义了公民身份的政治形式和实践。其次,与主流叙述相反,经常被指称的西欧和东欧法律文化的质的差异受到了质疑。第三,本书的历史横截面支持了对欧洲公民制度之间广泛传播的趋同理论的批判性回顾。相反,它规定了通过法律实现欧洲化的历史条件,从而规定了欧洲公民的历史条件。第四,19世纪以来欧洲公民身份的历史不能仅仅作为欧洲的历史来讲述。欧洲列强海外和大陆殖民帝国的从属政治和殖民实践在公民和移民的后殖民政策中仍然有效,因此也形成了欧洲当前公民政策的继承。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信