{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022126613398893668, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02489244007375538, 'mean_word_length': 5.458333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Citizenship under transformation

Citizenship is a much contested concept and has undergone numerous transformations in its long history. The classical concept of legal and political citizenship that became dominant with the rise of the nation states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been the subject of numerous critiques and discussions (Isin 2002; Joppke 2007). The formal legal concept of citizenship has been criticized on the background of the evolving welfare states in the after war period for not taking the impact of class society and social issues into account (Marshall 1992). In Western welfare states today citizenship both as a social and political concept continues to be a major topic of discussion, especially on the background of welfare reforms in which citizens are expected to participate on both the level of decision making and services. In such an individualized setting the balance of duties and rights are tightly connected to the citizen as a single person and to a lesser degree to citizens as partakers in collective processes, critics have stated. Recognition is seen on the level of individual services, but not necessarily on the aggregated level of welfare policies and strategies (Banting and Kymlicka 2006; Boltanski and Chiapello 2005; Pedersen 2011). Another important critique has been directed against the alleged neutrality of purely formal citizenship. Citizenship has, from the point of view of its critics, always been conflated with ideologies of origin, of ethnic or racial homogeneity and culture (Yuval-Davis and Werbner 1999). The roles of cultural and ethnical diversity (Taylor 1992) as well as of gender differences (Lister 1997), not only for the practices of citizenship, but consequently also for how to depict the concept as such, have thus been subject of discussions. Formal citizenship is a rather thin concept and most of the critique of formal citizenship is based upon the supposition that citizenship as practice always rests on more substantial cultural and normative dimensions. A variety of theories of cultural citizenship thus adds thick descriptions of practices and imaginaries to the otherwise thinner concept of legal-political citizenship. These approaches to cultural citizenship encompass all types of rights regarding sexual, cultural, ethnic or other group-related specificities. But the cultural notion of citizenship concentrates not exclusively upon the execution of rights, it rather adds dimensions such as identity, cultural differences and the struggle for recognition to the concept of citizenship. Many scholars have pointed out that modern citizenship is comprised by new divides like gender, sexuality, race or religious beliefs (Lister 1997; Young 1989). How collective and individual identities are balanced with regard to multicultural and post-colonial societies poses new challenges for the conceptualization of citizenship (Benhabib 2002; Kymlicka 1996). Other current approaches that focus on alternative concepts of citizenship, such as postnational (Soysal 1994), flexible (Ong 1999), or cosmopolitan (Chandler 2003; Linklater 1998) citizenship manifest Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory Vol. 12, No. 3, December 2011, 249–253