IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxjlsj/v41y2021i2p565-583..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three Models of Political Membership: Delineating ‘The People in Question’†

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Green

Abstract

In her timely monograph, The People in Question, Jo Shaw provides a much-needed critical comparative review of the complex interactions between citizenship and constitutional law. I argue that, despite its emphasis upon citizenship’s essentially contested nature, Shaw’s latest work contains rich moral commitments and an important caution against uncritically eliding ‘full citizenship’ with ‘political membership’ more broadly construed. To establish these claims, I present a tripartite taxonomy of approaches to defining ‘the people’ based, respectively, upon the concepts of status, subjugation and duty. I claim that Shaw’s incisive analysis demonstrates perfectly why we should avoid placing undue reliance upon ‘status-based’ models of community membership and conclude by advancing an original, alternative and hybridised model of ‘the people in question’.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Green, 2021. "Three Models of Political Membership: Delineating ‘The People in Question’†," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 565-583.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:565-583.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqaa040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert E. Goodin & Gustaf Arrhenius, 2024. "Enfranchising all subjected: A reconstruction and problematization," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 23(2), pages 125-153, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:565-583.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ojls .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.