This chapter focuses on the politics of hurt and bad feeling within feminism: how hurt, injuries and experiences of violence bring people to feminism, how racism, sexism, injury and injustice generate agency and political transformation, but also how the hurt expressed by those who have been traumatised by sexism or racism is often heard as imposition. Discussing the figure of the too-easily-hurt student, the charges against Women’s Studies as anti-intellectual talk about hurt feelings, and feminism itself as politically impoverished (and damaging to the left) because of its concern with individual consciousness and suffering, as well as the figure of the melancholic migrant, the author highlights a tendency to underestimate the difficulty of giving and sustaining attention to forms of suffering. As a result, the desire to move beyond suffering in reconciliation and ‘get over it’ means that those who persist in being hurt become seen as killjoys and causes of general unhappiness. Instead, the author suggests, bad feelings should be seen as creative responses to histories that are unfinished
Don’t Ever Wipe Tears Without Gloves as a reparative fantasy
This chapter analyses Don’t Ever Wipe Tears Without Gloves (Torka aldrig tårar utan handskar), a trilogy of novels by Jonas Gardell (2012–13) and a three-part TV drama (2012) on the HIV/AIDS crisis in Stockholm in the 1980s, as an intense occasion of affective historiography. While enabling the gay community to revisit the trauma of HIV/AIDS, to mourn the victims and to communicate the injuries to the mainstream audience, the transmedial epic also engaged in a politics of nation. While issuing a fierce accusation of homophobia against past Swedish society, through processes of resignification and transference, the epic and its extensive media coverage reframed the HIV/AIDS-stricken bodies as objects of compassion, restoring the self-image of Sweden as a caring nation, a welfare state and folkhem, a people’s home. In a reparative and fantasmatic gesture, it concludes in a Christian dream of redemption for both queer subjects – celebration in life, turning of shame into life – and the nation, provided that ‘we all wipe each other’s tears without gloves’. Analysing the epic and its media framings, the chapter examines the terms by which gay history may be incorporated into a national narrative, and how vulnerability may become a resource for the nation-building.
Lesbian citizenship and filmmaking in Sweden in the 1970s
This chapter examines two rare lesbian film productions in Sweden in the 1970s, The Woman in Your Life is You (Lesbian Front, 1977) and Eva and Maria (Marie Falksten, Annalena Öhrström and Mary Eisikovits, 1983). The two films are unique cases illuminating the official shift from regarding homosexuality as a mental disorder to regarding homosexuals as a vulnerable group exposed to prejudice and discrimination in Sweden in the early 1980s. Both were funded by the state agency Socialstyrelsen [The National Board of Health and Welfare], the same agency in charge of the official classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in Sweden until 1979. Drawing from archival research and interviews, the chapter sheds light on the rhetorical twists and euphemisms through which lesbian filmmaking was inserted into the National Board of Health and Welfare’s budget and administered as an issue of birth control education. The notion of vulnerability, the chapter argues, played an instrumental and multifaceted role in the production of lesbian citizenship and audio-visual self-presentation at this moment in time.
Rainer Bauböck has offered a fascinating and wide-ranging analysis of a question that is often now referred to as "the democratic boundary problem". This chapter begins to discuss how a democracy might function, what decision rules it should use, and how it should be constituted. It addresses questions of jurisdiction first, and concludes that, for economic and other reasons, it makes sense to have a single state in the region covered by the state of Israel and the occupied territories. The chapter considers the composition of the citizen body who should govern it, as well as other questions concerning the institutional form that democracy should take in that area. It illustrates how one-state or the two-state solution makes a difference, whether the question is about jurisdiction or about inclusion in the demos.
Peter J. Spiro
In this chapter, the author interrogates Rainer Bauböck's stakeholder model as a matter of theory and highlights possibly unsustainable empirical assumptions behind it. The intergenerational qualities of citizenship are central to Bauböck's analysis. Bauböck understands that citizenship persists only where boundaries exist and where populations remain relatively sedentary. The author utilizes the archetypes of diaspora communities to critique his position on citizenship inside and outside the territory of the state. Diaspora communities may be disconnected from the political community of their state of residence even as they maintain a strong intergenerational connection qualifying as stakeholder citizenship in the homeland. Local territorial membership also supplies a useful vehicle for interrogating stakeholder citizenship. The incidence of instrumental citizenship will continue to grow, further undermining the empirical premises of stakeholder citizenship.
This conclusion presents some closing thoughts on the concepts discussed in this book. The book focuses on the principles that guide citizens of a democratic polity and their representatives when considering whose interests should count in their political decisions, whom to offer protection, and whom to include in their midst as citizens. The principles are meant to establish democratic legitimacy through inclusion in a world structured by political boundaries. The book proposes that all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS) each address a specific aspect of democratic inclusion, but that only ACS applies to membership issues. It considers the following three ideas: democracy as popular self-government, as government directly accountable to citizens, and as a method for making collectively binding decisions. The book aims to combine these ideas with the corresponding inclusion principles into a comprehensive conception of democratic inclusion for democratic politics.
In this chapter, the author explains how the all subjected principle is seen in terms of a purely protective neo-republicanism, which is distinguished from the democratic republican self-government of citizenship stakeholding. She re-examines the interpretation of the neo-republican non-domination account that Rainer Bauböck associates with the all subjected principle. The connection between non-domination and autonomy leads beyond domination to the kind of self-government among related individuals that Bauböck associates with his citizenship stakeholder account. The author argues that a modified version of the all subjected principle escapes a number of the criticisms levelled at it, and provides a clear basis for membership of the demos. Finally, she offers future continuing subjection as a more defensible basis for birthright citizenship while ensuring the continuity of the democratic political community.
Rainer Bauböck's work on popular sovereignty, citizenship and the demos problem is an important touchstone for contemporary political, and especially democratic, theory. In this chapter, the author aims to put some pressure on the relationship between populus and demos in Bauböck's account. It is an important strength of Bauböck's argument that his account articulates complementary relations of the all affected interests (AAI) principle, the all subjection to coercion (ASC) principle and the all citizenship stakeholders (ACS) principle. The author focuses on the authorial membership of the demos. He endorses Bauböck's proposal of ASC as the best principle, under contemporary political conditions, for determining access to national citizenship. The author also explains his incorporation of AAI, ASC and ACS into an account of democratic legitimacy.
Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson
Debates in political philosophy on democratic inclusion arose initially in response to the problem of what Michael Walzer called "metics". The case of the metics shows that citizenship is not ultimately about being affected by particular decisions or being subject to particular laws, but about membership in a self-governing society. In this chapter, the authors argue that these cases raise a fundamental challenge to the theories of democratic inclusion, not just about who is included, but also about what it means to be a citizen and how to characterize the underlying moral purposes of citizenship. They also argue that these cases reveal a deep tension within democratic theory between two models of citizenship: membership model and capacity contract. The membership model defines citizenship in terms of social membership and the capacity contract defines citizenship in terms of capacities for particular kinds of political agency.
A pluralist theory of citizenship
This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book argues that there is not a single principle of democratic inclusion but several principles, and that it is important to distinguish their different roles in relation to democratic boundaries. It considers the general "circumstances of democracy" that consist in normative background assumptions and general empirical conditions under which democratic self-government is both necessary and possible. The book discusses the principles of including all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). It contextualizes the principle of stakeholder inclusion, which provides the best answer to the question of democratic boundaries of membership, by applying it to polities of different types. The book distinguishes state, local and regional polities and also argues that they differ in their membership character.