Urban Citizenship and National Membership: Contradictory or Complementary?

This paper delineates urban political community from a statist logic of political community and membership, presenting three main arguments: Firstly, it asserts that cities differ fundamentally from states as political communities, characterized by the being together of strangers. This unique dynamic shapes community and membership, with urban political community defined by the proximity principle and membership grounded in indifference. Secondly, it argues that urban political communities are not mere segments of national communities, but distinct entities with different constitutive conditions. This understanding challenges traditional boundaries of citizenship both vertically, toward formal citizenship boundaries, and horizontally, toward territorial boundaries of political community. Thirdly, the paper advocates for cautious formalization of urban citizenship, recognizing the dynamic nature of cities in contesting boundaries and promoting democratic inclusion while highlighting that formalizing urban citizenship is ultimately boundary affirming: It maintains the boundaries drawn around cities by the state.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Political Theory
Published
2026-01-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917251398804
Primary Topic
Urban Planning and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Urban Citizenship and National Membership: Contradictory or Complementary?

Verena Frick
Political Theory
Urban Planning and Governance
article

Urban Citizenship and National Membership: Contradictory or Complementary?

Verena Frick
article en

Abstract

This paper delineates urban political community from a statist logic of political community and membership, presenting three main arguments: Firstly, it asserts that cities differ fundamentally from states as political communities, characterized by the being together of strangers. This unique dynamic shapes community and membership, with urban political community defined by the proximity principle and membership grounded in indifference. Secondly, it argues that urban political communities are not mere segments of national communities, but distinct entities with different constitutive conditions. This understanding challenges traditional boundaries of citizenship both vertically, toward formal citizenship boundaries, and horizontally, toward territorial boundaries of political community. Thirdly, the paper advocates for cautious formalization of urban citizenship, recognizing the dynamic nature of cities in contesting boundaries and promoting democratic inclusion while highlighting that formalizing urban citizenship is ultimately boundary affirming: It maintains the boundaries drawn around cities by the state.

Political TheoryVol. 54(1)
University of Würzburg (DE)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Urban Planning and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Urban Citizenship and National Membership: Contradictory or Complementary? — Verena Frick · Political Theory (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS