Nation after empire: The political logic and intellectual limits of citizenship and immigration controversies in France and Britain, 1981-1989

When and whether immigrants can become citizens, or gain acceptance as members of the societies in which they settle, is a matter of intensifying political controversy in many countries. Yet, our understanding of citizenship and the theoretical stakes of current controversies is woefully inadequate. This project examines the shortcomings of existing approaches to comparing national citizenship controversies, and presents a new theoretical framework for understanding competing conceptions of citizenship. This framework is then used to compare recent French and British controversies about Muslims, often from their former colonies, becoming full-fledged national citizens.;Comparisons of ideas of citizenship commonly rely on a theoretical dichotomy between civic and ethnic. Rooted in comparative historical work contrasting "Eastern" and "Western" nationalism, this dichotomy is ill-suited for comparing ideas of citizenship within most advanced industrial democracies. Drawing on "ordinary language" methods and insights, this project identifies five different kinds of membership and ideas of citizenship. While each of these ideas has a place in our understanding of citizenship, each suggests a different approach to treating demands that immigrants become full members of the polities in which they reside.;The new five-fold typology developed is then used to analyze and compare key French and British political controversies of the 1980s. The changing terms of French citizenship debate during these years are examined, with particular emphasis on the Nationality Commission's promotion of a centrist, "republican" compromise, and on the tensions within it that contributed to fueling the Islamic headscarves affair. The debate about turning Muslims into citizens that developed in Britain during the Rushdie affair is then analyzed, and the ideas of citizenship defended in Britain compared to those advanced in France. Racially exclusionary ideas surfaced in both countries, but the notion that prospective citizens had to adopt the manners and customs of the majority was much less important in Britain. Immigrants' other leading approved routes or claims to belonging in Britain were believing in liberal political principles or obeying British law; in France, they were supporting republican ideals or participating in collective social activities (e.g., working or attending public schools).