Roy Martin

The significance of Engin F. Isin’s theory of ‘acts of citizenship’ lies not only in its popularity amongst social scientists but, principally, in its engagement with a political anthropology of citizenship. In a collaborative spirit and committed to a political anthropology of citizenship, we critically engage with Isin’s theory, demonstrating how it builds on various normative difficulties that should be acknowledged by anyone using it as methodology, especially for those engaged in anthropologizing the field of citizenship studies. Our examination begins by showing how the theory draws from theoretical works belonging to the causalist school of the philosophy of action, which allows us to untangle the tacit didascaly through which Isin values the introduction of the concept of ‘act’ into our language(s) of citizenship. By tackling its underlying normative bias, we make clear the fundamental element of Isin’s argument: the refusal to reduce citizenship to mere unpurposive processes. Yet, it is unclear, we argue, how citizenship can effectively be captured through purposive processes by investigating ‘acts of citizenship’. Finally, we demonstrate how anthropology allows us to critically address the reductionism at play in the normative distinction between ‘active’ and ‘activist’ citizenship, constituting the very core of Isin’s theory.