Responsibilities

Despite the supposedly reciprocal nature of rights and responsibilities between state and citizen, naturalisation measures tended to focus on the latter. This is a reflection of a wider move towards neoliberal citizenship characterised by

individual responsibility (van Houdt et al., 2011). The latest edition of the Life in the UK handbook talks of the “responsibilities and privileges of being a British citizen” (Home Office, 2013a, p.3), with little mention of rights. Both the official and dignitary citizenship ceremony speeches also emphasised the responsibilities of British citizenship:

You have made a pledge to respect British law, observe British values and fulfil your duties and obligations as a British citizen.

(Official speech)

One of the prime purposes of the ceremony today is to remind all participants of the responsibilities that flow from becoming a British citizen.

(Dignitary speech, Leeds)

The main message from both the national script and the dignitary’s speech was the importance of adhering to the obligations of British citizenship. Both served to remind the audience of their citizenly duties, suggesting that while they are already expected to know of these, this needed reinforcing. This singles immigrants out as a group that are assumed less likely to adhere to these responsibilities, particularly given the lack of ‘reminders’ delivered to the British-born population. However, some officials did take a softer approach to the model of citizenship based on individualised responsibility which was fed to them by national government,

attempting to balance this with narratives on opportunities and rights. Multi-scalar axes of power influence the everyday enactment of citizenship policy (Nelson, 2004). In this case, local autonomy played a role in mediating the disciplinary state, at the same time promoting alternative versions of citizenship (cf. Creed, 2004,

Verkaaik, 2010). This highlights the contested nature of citizenship, which is constructed by agents operating at different levels. Whilst rights and

responsibilities are one of the founding principles of citizenship, the nature of these is subject to divergent interpretations. As will become apparent, they are part of a constant process of negotiation, with dominant visions shifting with wider societal changes.

The duty-driven version of citizenship promoted in official discourse throughout the naturalisation process appeared to be effectively transmitted to new citizens. Responsibilities tended to be the most salient aspect of the overall message presented by the citizenship ceremonies and the Life in the UK guide to be taken away by participants, as exemplified by Nehanda and Yolanda:

It’s for them to know how the country is run and also to know what they should do and what they should not do, I’m sure that is the main

purpose.

(Nehanda, family migrant, Zimbabwe)

They [the dignitary] said about you know like being a citizen here. And yeah we’ve been given the paper and everything what you should be like, you be a good citizen of England, and then you need to be uh like to be happy here and enjoy the life here and just to be a good citizen and follow all the laws and you know the obligations of you know and everything for the Queen, for the country.

(Yolanda, economic migrant, Philippines)

Both participants picked up on the emphasis of naturalisation measures on obeying laws and fulfilling obligations. While Nehanda considered this the main purpose of the Life in the UK test, Yolanda’s recollection of the dignitary’s speech in the

citizenship ceremony included more positive elements of being happy and enjoying life, alluding to the celebratory nature of the occasion. It is argued that the festivity of rituals can detract from the seriousness of the message being presented (Blehr,

1999). Nonetheless, Yolanda primarily associated being a “good citizen” with responsibilities, investing this with considerable significance. The national symbolism present in the ceremony, including material objects and the words sworn in the oath, led Yolanda to associate these civic duties with nationalism (cf. Ager and Strang, 2008), reflected in the fact that she believed they were carried out “for the Queen, for the country”. ‘For Queen and country’ is a phrase that is more commonly used as a motivation for soldiers going to war, suggesting that the ultimate sacrifice is made on behalf of the nation. This ties modern citizenship to traditional notions of patriotism, questioning the ability of the vision being

presented to fully accept a diverse range of transnational subjects with allegiances elsewhere.

Responsibilities were generally conceptualised in terms of contribution, obedience and loyalty, reflecting a mixture of communitarian and republican values. Migrant narratives have conveyed belonging as based on contribution, highlighting the role of participation in feeling part of society (Levesley, 2008, Sveinsson, 2010).

Research has found that belonging is enhanced by a sense of civic duty and support for the political order (Heath and Roberts, 2008). This was the rationale behind many citizenship reforms in New Labour’s 2002 White Paper, which states that an awareness of the importance of citizenship rights and responsibilities will increase a sense of belonging. However, some studies have concluded that citizenship does not necessarily create integration and belonging (Hagelund and Reegård, 2011, Stewart and Mulvey, 2011). Belonging is a ‘thicker’ concept, not based purely on identifications and formal status (Crowley, 1999). ‘Citizenship acts’ may be carried out even by those who are not officially recognised as citizens, challenging the power of the state to define citizenship (Marston and Staeheli, 1994, Isin and Nielsen, 2008).

State agents and new citizens talked of contributing to the economy, the labour market, the community and the democratic process as key responsibilities. This suggests that citizenship is imbued with economic, social and political value, with new citizens expected to contribute towards all three. Obedience tended to be

framed in terms of obeying the law. Although having a clear criminal record is a requirement of naturalisation, participants seemed to consider this as even more important now they had been granted their citizenship. As Abbas and Kess articulated:

Every day you go commit big crime, they’re going to take it back from you. That mean you lose everything, that’s why I’m saying. Everything they tell there agree with that, I have to respect it.

(Abbas, refugee, Liberia)

I’d say it is important that you feel something. Because that feeling is good. So it makes you, it makes pressure on you. What kind of pressure? It’s good pressure, like to obey with the stick with the people, with the law, to be part of country.

(Kess, refugee, Ethiopia)

Despite having become a British citizen, Abbas nonetheless highlighted a politics of fear that was still present in his life. This stemmed from his previously insecure asylum status. State control was implicit in his regulation of behaviour to ensure that his citizenship status would not be removed, feeling that he had to agree with everything that was said in the ceremony. This demonstrates a mode of

governmentality whereby individuals are trained to police themselves (Huxley, 2008), which in this case is predicated on being an obedient citizen. Kess also alluded to the idea of self-governance when she talked of the “good pressure” that is exerted in the citizenship ceremonies, which encourages new citizens to conform to societal rules and norms. This was brought about by the emotions that were experienced within the ceremony, showing how feelings can be channelled in rituals to create subjectification (Damsholt, 2008). Security is thus to some extent part of migrancy even after the attribution of citizenship, with the state harnessing fears of insecurity to coerce new citizens to behave in the appropriate manner. Although other migrants expressed similar sentiments to Abbas and Kess, the fact that they were refugees added resonance to their narratives. Previously subject to

the highest level of surveillance, the state still had the ultimate power to remove their citizenship, effectively rendering them stateless. Thus it is perhaps not surprising that responsibilities were seen as paramount, even becoming part of exercising rights, as the next section explores.