SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Citizenship as Common Identity and Relational Autonomy

Ortak Kimlik Olarak Vatandaşlık ve İlişkisel Otonomi

Özge ÇELİK
Pages
181–204
Publication Date
2014-07-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This article analyzes the procedural, substantive, and relational approaches to personal autonomy and argues that the relational approach contributes new insights into debates on the inclusive potential of the common identity dimension of citizenship, which has been challenged by identity and justice claims.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Personal autonomy and citizenship have recently separately received substantial scholarly attention, but the relationship between them is relatively unexplored.
📊
Key Findings & Data:First, personal autonomy conveys the capacity for self-rule that constitutes the ground for enjoying the rights and freedoms and assuming the duties associated with citizenship.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This article analyzes the procedural, substantive, and relational approaches to personal autonomy and argues that the relational approach contributes new insights into debates on the inclusive potential of the common identity dimension of citizenship, which has been challenged by identity and justice claims.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:kişisel otonomi · vatandaşlık · ilişkisel

Abstract

Personal autonomy and citizenship have recently separately received substantial scholarly attention, but the relationship between them is relatively unexplored. First, personal autonomy conveys the capacity for self-rule that constitutes the ground for enjoying the rights and freedoms and assuming the duties associated with citizenship. Second, different and sometimes overlapping feelings of belonging fostered by the legal, political, and identity dimensions of citizenship practically depend on the respect and recognition individuals receive for their personal autonomy. This article analyzes the procedural, substantive, and relational approaches to personal autonomy and argues that the relational approach contributes new insights into debates on the inclusive potential of the common identity dimension of citizenship, which has been challenged by identity and justice claims.

Özet

Kişisel otonomi ve vatandaşlık yakın dönemde önemli ölçüde araştırılmış olmakla beraber aralarındaki bağıntı yeterince incelenmemiştir. Birincisi, kişisel otonomi vatandaşlığa dair olan haklar ve özgürlüklerden yararlanmanın ve görevleri üstlenmenin zeminini oluşturan öz-yönetim kapasitesini ifade eder. İkincisi, vatandaşlığın yasal, siyasal ve kimlik boyutlarının beslediği farklı ve bazen örtüşen aidiyet hisleri pratik bakımdan bireylerin kişisel otonomilerinin gördüğü saygıya ve tanınmasına bağlıdır. Bu makalede usule ilişkin, esasa ilişkin ve ilişkisel kişisel otonomi yaklaşımları incelenmiş ve ilişkisel yaklaşımın kimlik ve adalet taleplerinin sorunsallaştırdığı vatandaşlığın ortak kimlik boyutunun içerici potansiyeli üzerine tartışmalara yeni anlayışlar katacağı öne sürülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELİK, Ö. (2014). Citizenship as Common Identity and Relational Autonomy. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 181–204. https://ajindex.com/articles/4778

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. BALIBAR, É. (1995) “Ambiguous Universality”, Differences, Vol. 7, No. 1, p.48-74.
  2. BARCLAY, L. (2000) “Autonomy and the Social Self”, Editors: MAC- KENZIE, C., and N. STOLJAR, Relational Autonomy: Feminist Pers- pectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 52-71.
  3. BENSON, P. (1990) “Feminist Second Thoughts about Free Agency”, Hypatia, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 47-64.
  4. BRISON, Susan J. (2000) “Relational Autonomy and Freedom of Expression”, Editors: MACKENZIE, C., and N. STOLJAR, Relati- onal Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 280-299.
  5. BRUBAKER, William R. (1989) Immigration and the Politics of Ci- tizenship in Europe and North America, University Press of America, Lanham. CARENS, Joseph H. (2000)
  6. Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness, Oxford Univer- sity Press,
  7. New York. CHRISTMAN, J. (1989) The Inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Au- tonomy, Oxford University Press,
  8. New York. CHRISTMAN, John (1991), “Autonomy and Personal History”, Ca- nadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 1-24.
  9. CHRISTMAN, J. (2002)
  10. Social and Political Philosophy, Routledge, New York. CONNOLLY, William E. (1991) IdentityDifference: Democratic Ne- gotiations of Political Paradox, University of Minnesota Press,
  11. Min- neapolis. DAGGER, R. (2002) “Republican Citizenship”, Editors: ISIN, E. F., and B. S. TURNER, Handbook of Citizenship Studies, Sage, London, p. 145-158.
  12. DELANTY, Gerard (1997), “Models of Citizenship: Defining Euro- pean Identity and Citizenship”, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 285-303.
  13. GAUSS, Gerald F. (2005) “The Place of Autonomy within Libera- lism”, Editors: CHRISTMAN, J., and J. ANDERSON, Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 272-306.
  14. HEYES, C. (2012) “Identity Politics”, Editor: ZALTA, E. N., The Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), http://plato. stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/identity-politics/. JOPPKE, C., and E. Morawska (2002) Toward Assimilation and Ci- tizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. KYMLICKA, W. (1989)
  15. Liberalism, Community, and Culture, Oxford University Press,
  16. New York. KYMLICKA, W. (2001)
  17. Politics in the Vernacular, Oxford University Press,
  18. New York. LEVEY, A. (2005) “Liberalism, Adaptive Preferences, and Gender Equality”, Hypatia, Vol. 20, No. 4, p. 127-143.