1. Several of our authors have discussed the social and individual significance of citizenship, especially in its relationship to non-citizens (whether foreign nationals, immigrants, or refugees and other stateless people). Choose any two of the following authors and explain their analyses of the tensions between citizens and non-citizens: Gordon, Arendt, Brown, or Honig. Then choose your own real-world example (e.g., the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border, refugees from the Syrian civil war or the Russia-Ukraine war, climate refugees, etc.) to assess your chosen authors’ analyses: in what way(s) would your authors analyze the in/justice in your example? Do you have any critical additions or revisions for your authors in light of your example (e.g., do you find your authors helpful in analyzing your example, would you add anything to your authors’ analyses, do you have any critiques of their approaches, etc.)?
2. Another common theme among our authors has been the affective or “imaginary” nature of citizenship, patriotism, or loyalty to a national identity, either in its “positive” register (e.g., fellowship among others in our society) or its “negative” form (e.g., xenophobia). Choose any two of the following authors and explain how they would address or analyze the relationship between these two “positive” and “negative” ways of expressing national identity: Brown, Honig, Mendieta, Appiah. In short, how would your authors describe the relationship between the sense of “us” that constitutes national identity and the seemingly necessary “others” who are excluded from that identity? In the end, do you agree with either (or neither) of your authors in their prognosis for resolving this “us versus them” disposition in national identity? (You may find it useful to include a discussion of some real-world example that illustrates the situation described by your authors.)
2a. Alternatively, choose any one of the authors listed above and place their ideas in dialogue with one of the current situations discussed in the last couple weeks of the course, i.e., climate loss and damage and the COVID pandemic: how might they address the problems or inequities arising in either case?
3. Both of our topics for the end of the course – climate loss and damage and the COVID pandemic – are, by definition, global issues. Choose one of these situations and one of the following authors that address the tensions between matters of a global or transnational nature on the one hand and national interests or loyalty on the other: Gordon, Brown, Honig, Appiah. How would your author address the problems posed by global or transnational issues in reference to climate loss and damage or the COVID pandemic? Do you have any critical additions or revisions to your author’s analysis in light of the current realities of climate change and the pandemic (e.g., do you find your authors helpful in analyzing your example, would you add anything to your authors’ analyses, do you have any critiques of their approaches, etc.)?
3a. Alternatively, choose two of the authors listed above and put them in (a metaphorical) dialogue: would they converge or diverge in their analyses of the tensions between “local” (e.g., national) or “our” interests on the one hand and global interests on the other?
