zenship: immigration policy. One strength which cannot



This chapter aids us to grasp how Britain,
according to James Hampshire (2005), has turned into a multi-racial society against
the wishes of its politicians and a large proportion of its people. Hampshire (2005)
delves into the politics of immigration in post-war Britain and brings to light
how unease about public health service and welfare scrounging impacts government
policy and influences changes made to the law. Hampshire (2005) puts forward
the argument that radical ideas are becoming more prominent in post-war deliberations
about immigration and says that the such deliberations have serious
consequences on our society. He demonstrates clearly in his argument how the
government claims to appeal to the notion of “belonging” (pp. 126) so it can validate
racialized policies put in place to slow down the immigration rates from
previously colonised countries such as Algeria and Morocco. As immigration has been a prominent topic of conversation
on the political agenda over the past decade, Hampshire gives an essential framework
to present-day debates by demonstrating how notions about race, demography and
belonging overlap to shape immigration policy. One
strength which cannot be overlooked in this text is Hampshire’s referencing to a
large wealth of contemporary archival material to back up this argument, his fascinating
analysis alters the way we consider citizenship. I Find it extremely potent how he incorporates
old case studies with recent ones to bridge between historical and contemporary
debates, overall, this create a well-rounded argument.

Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch
100% plagiarism free
Sources and citations are provided

Get essay help


In her introduction, Marilyn Friedman (2005) outlines the complexity of the term “citizenship”.
She states that it is hard to pinpoint exactly one definition to the word, as
she goes onto stating some widely used definitions such as, the term
citizenship can be a set of privileges, rights and responsibilities; however,
it can also be seen as a relationship between an individual and the state, this
shows us that political terminology is fluid, as one term can mean multiple
things. Although citizenship has been explored through many discipline, there
is hardly any exploration of the relationship between gender and citizenship. This comes
to me as a surprise, as we know that women’s global denial of citizenship has a
long history and is still ongoing to date. With reference to works of influential
scholars such as Young. I. M (1980), Jaguar A. M (2003), Martha Nussbaum (2002),
and Sandra Bartky (2001), Freidman takes a fresh cope in the way she addresses citizenship
as she discusses in depth the relevance of culture and politics in influencing women’s
experience of citizenship. At the heart of the argument in this text is the
conceptual problems and gimmicks which helps to influence the feminist pursuit to
give woman an adequate experience of citizenship and stop customs and
conditions which extenuates women’s citizenship in many parts of the world. One
prominent example of women’s citizenship being compromised due to traditions, is
in Saudi Arabia where women are deprived of mundane rights such as Driving. We
can see clearly that this is oppressive of women’s autonomy and citizenship.


The overarching topic in both readings is the politics of citizenship,
however, both authors take different focal points to their argument about the experience
of citizenship. Hampshire considered the legalities and policies surrounding
immigration while Freidman approaches as she thinks about citizenship through
gender and not as a stand-alone topic.















In his book, George Monbiot (2017) starts by describing our post-modern
society, which is characterised by extreme individualism, as toxic. Monbiot argues
that current political discourses are causing cultural amnesia as people draw
apart more and more everyday as a result of feeling they no longer have a
common purpose.  After having carries out
a great depth of psychological, sociological and political research, he believes
that the only way to fix the current global disengagement with politics is to
reinvent the political discourse, instead of campaigning harder and using propaganda
to gain votes on the current political agendas they should alter them, making
them more focused on belonging than anything else, he argues that this will engage
then entirety of the population. Monbiot states that this will “light a path to
a better world” (pp. 87) by creating what he calls “politics of belonging” (pp.
87). Further Monbiot suggests that we are in need of new institution through
which people can sculpt their own collective identities as this will combat the
prominent epidemic of alienation. An example which I think is potent in
demonstrating Monbiot’s theory is that of Brexit, our withdrawal from the European
union is creating a sense of separation between us and the rest of the world as
we no longer “belong” with a community we once played a huge part in. This has
created a sense of alienation between people as some of the motivations behind Brexit
campaigns were aimed at stopping immigration to the UK.





In this text, Mark Frezzo (2014) examines human
rights through a sociological lense, to delineate the socio-political circumstances
under which human rights norms and laws are interpreted and implemented. In this text Frezzo considers how
human right can either serve to “empower” (pp. 38) certain individuals and
communities within society depending on their social context, for example, the
geographical space which they live in and the time in history they lived. One strength about this reading is that it doesn’t limit the discourse
of extensive debates such as globalism and how that effects rights to current
contexts, instead it gives a broader outlook of historical background as well
as contemporary explanations of political and social circumstances under which
human rights norms and laws are attained. Further, the author puts forward the argument that
sociology gives us a new perspective on the way we analyse the roots of human
rights for example defines notions such as “rights effects, rights claims, rights
bundles, and rights conditions” in great detail (pp. 4-5)

Through a feminist and socio-legal outlooks, Jill Marshall
(2016) examines how our identities are protected through human rights law, however,
she goes on to analyses how human right laws can sometimes include and exclude particular
people because of the way they choose to identity. A prime example of such
phenomena is the LGBT+ community, they are sometimes not given adequate rights
and are not recognised as a legitimate part of society in certain parts of the
world such as south Asia. This book starts off by tracing back the origins of
identity and demonstrates the change of “the right to personal identity” (pp.
8) within the human rights structure. Marshall. J (2016) then delves into
contemporary as well as historic attempts to show what the essence of personal identity
is by drawing on concepts such as rationality to explain what it means to be a
human being. Further, this text analyses the possibility for universal
principles and culturally specific rights to contradict each other e.g.  Marshall argues that although we live in a post-modern
society where individuals “create their own identity” (pp. 143) people still
find themselves feeling restricted with how they choose to identity because there
is a general accord of what is considered to be acceptable in every society. With
the influence of feminist theory Marshall concludes by stating that “human rights
laws would be more potent if they were seen as a force to enable freedom and
respect amongst people” (pp. 468).

The prime difference between the two reading is that Jill’s text
takes a vast scope on the way society experiences human rights by drawing on
topics such as morality and autonomy, whereas Frezzo explores a more complex political framework
to explain how human rights derive from the combination of economic social and
political factors.