Field relationalism versus process relationalism in citizenship studies

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article analyses the state-of-art literature in the field of citizenship studies based on relational approaches. It does so by differentiating between field relationalism (FR) and process relationalism (PR) and comparing, in this context, the framing of citizenship by three leading relationalist scholars in the field: Engin Isin, Margaret Somers and Gurminder Bhambra. In doing so, we focus first on the ways in which they envisage overcoming the analytical dualisms responsible for social exclusion and the hierarchies related to citizenship, and second on their normative assumptions concerning the emancipation of society. We demonstrate that the differences between the two metatheoretical assumptions have important implications for understanding each author’s research objects and methodology, as well as the normative assumptions present in their study of citizenship.