<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Transnational Nationalisms Reflections on Nationalism and Territory in Globalization

Riva Kastoryano

► To cite this version:

Riva Kastoryano. Transnational Nationalisms Reflections on Nationalism and Territory in Globalization. Nations and Nationalism, 2025, 10 p. 10.1111/nana.13125. hal-05116465

HAL Id: hal-05116465

https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-05116465v1

Submitted on 17 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

# Transnational Nationalisms Reflections on Nationalism and Territory in Globalization

Riva Kastoryano

Sciences Po – CERI, Paris, France

**Correspondence:** Riva Kastoryano (riva.kastoryano@sciencespo.fr)

**Received:** 19 September 2024 | **Revised:** 6 March 2025 | **Accepted:** 14 April 2025

## ABSTRACT

Transnational practices redefine nationalism: a nonterritorial sense of belonging for groups and extraterritorial sovereignty for states. Territory is at the core of the analysis in both cases. For groups and communities' transnationalism leads to a new imagined community guided by an “imagined geography” that is not territorial. For states, transnationalism reflects the extraterritoriality of belonging for their citizens “abroad” and sovereignty. It amounts to keeping therefore the nation linked with its citizenship or, conversely, citizenship linked with its nation but in either case deterritorialized or extraterritorial with regard to national communities. In both cases, transnationalism leads to a confrontation of two senses of “peoplehood”, based on nation-state nationalism on the one hand and based on a communal identity transformed and reinforced by transnational solidarity unbounded on the other hand. The main question addressed in this paper is how transnational dynamics affect the relationship between territory and nationalism. Transnational nationalism expressed by groups and communities increases polarization in national societies unified around one political community; states' transnationalism aims to reframe national identities within and without territorially bounded nations. After an overview of various relationships between nationalism and territory and their evolution in time and historical circumstances, this article will explore the two approaches of transnational nationalisms: nonterritorial transnational nationalism of groups and communities and extraterritorial transnational nationalism of states. Based on the experience of postcolonial migration in Europe, from Muslim societies in the large majority, this article will analyse the effect of transnational dynamics on the polarization of territorial national societies and groups by questioning the relationship between territory and the nation, between citizenship and belonging. But the main question is how transnational nationalisms give new strength to the national question and becomes a stake of legitimacy in the international system.

Issues related to minorities and majorities have gone through changes of paradigms questioning the relevance of the nation-states as a recipient of culture and identity, where citizenship, territory and belonging are all related. At the core of the debate is globalization that is characterized not only by the mobility of capital and labour across borders but also by the intensification of migration flows, increasing porosity of borders and the fluidity of social relations. While normative theories focus on questions like integration of minorities and/or migrants into the national community territorially bounded, experiences show increasing solidarities beyond borders, qualified as transnational. Transnationalism has become a “potentially useful concept

for understanding contemporary immigration to the advanced industrial nations” (Kivisto, 2003:6). Integration is then reconsidered as “here and there.” The evolution redefines social relations, questions nationhood and reinterprets the sense of belonging. Transnationalism is considered then as “central to understanding how people can become multiple citizens with multiple identities and how individual, communities and states operate within this fluid global context” (Bloch, 2017:1509).

Transnationalism affects the boundaries between majority and minority and their representation. It thus contributes to the polarization in democratic western societies, opposing

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). Nations and Nationalism published by Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
ethno-religious communal identities to national communities. Political liberalism privileging ethnic pluralism encourages cultural activities through migrants' activism where identities are organized and redefined. I argue that multiculturalism and "identity politics" applied in Western democracies since the 1980s are the key factors for the emergence of transnational communities that are communities formed by individuals and/or groups, settled in different national societies, sharing some common references—national, ethnic, religious and linguistic—common experiences and defining common interest beyond boundaries. Such communities develop a power relationship with states grounded on their mobility, on their ability to move from one network to another according to their interest and claimed identity. Their mobilization questions the majority's representation of nation and nationalism diffused by national institutions, public discourses and party politics.

The polarization created by transnational practices is a source of paradox. The mobilization beyond borders of transnational actors is, on the one hand, the result of a historical evolution a priori linked to what has become a global market, to the emergence of a so-called global space and the rising influence of supra-national institutions. Supranational institutions, by diffusing norms and values known as universal, such as Human Rights, fights against discrimination and any kind of exclusion, promote at the same time the formation of such communities by redefining solidarities that cross borders. The dynamics generates new narratives on participation, citizenship and belonging, reinforcing at the same time identification to a "communal" identity, producing a sense of "peoplehood" that is distinct from a territorially bounded nationhood.

Transnationalism creates a political space of action not only for individuals and groups but also for states. Whatever the ideology of integration and policies to achieve it, states are confronted today with the transnational action of activists who bypass national policies—of both the country of origin and of settlement—pushed to develop new strategies of integration that are “here” and “there” too, that is, on their own territory. The objective is to reframe national identities by including transnational dynamics and protecting territorially bounded national communities from populist discourses that are a source of polarization in Western democracies.

For the state of origin, transnationalism is qualified as “diaspora politics.” It has become a way to extend their power in order to maintain the attachment and loyalty of “citizens abroad.” Its objective is to reinforce a sense of “peoplehood” as expressed by the official state nationalism among “citizens abroad.” This comes to redefine the terms of citizenship—simple or dual—and relate a civic understanding of citizenship and belonging to national territories. The paradox here emerges when the country of origin develops a sense of belonging that “ethicizes” the nationhood and challenges countries of settlement strategies of integration. As for states of settlement, transnationalism relates the question from border control to integration, and vice-versa, with the same perspective to reterritorialize a sense of belonging, associated with legal citizenship in the country of settlement.

In both cases, nationalism is redefined through transnational practices: a nonterritorial sense of belonging for groups and an

extraterritorial sovereignty for states. Territory is at the core of the analysis in both cases. For groups and communities, transnationalism leads to a new “imagined community” guided by an “imagined geography” that is not territorial. For states of origin, transnationalism reflects the extraterritoriality of citizenship as a means of maintaining the loyalty of the citizens on both their territory of origin “abroad.” It amounts to keeping, therefore, the nation linked with its citizenship or, conversely, citizenship linked with its nation but in either case deterritorialized or extraterritorial with regard to the country of origin. In both cases, transnationalism leads to a confrontation of two senses of “peoplehood”, based on nation-state nationalism on the one hand and based on a communal identity reinforced with transnational solidarity beyond states as a nonterritorial unbounded nationalism on the other hand. For states of settlement, transnationalism has become a challenge to control flows, integration, and participation beyond borders. At stake is their sovereignty within and without their territory.

The main question addressed in this paper is how transnational dynamics affect the relationship between territory and nationalism. Transnational nationalism expressed by groups and communities increases polarization in national societies unified around one political community; states' transnationalism leads to cooperation on border control and integration “here and there.” Such a tendency is considered as a response to the question of security related to immigration and integration both associated to transnational actions. Can states' transnationalism contribute to depolarize societies by redefining territoriality and repromoting a sense of belonging that is neither national nor ethnic or states' cooperation among states remains a source of suspicion and increases polarization in both sides?

After an overview of various relationships between nationalism and territory and their evolution in time and historical circumstances, this article will explore the following two approaches of transnational nationalisms: nonterritorial transnational nationalism of groups and communities and extraterritorial transnational nationalism of states.

* How transnationalism creates new dynamics in generating actors, which through their discourses and actions aim at drawing the nonterritorial boundaries of such transnational communities? These dynamics flow from the reality of the nation-state and territory of the country of origin as well as the country of settlement by defining its own sense of unity and belonging.

* How states' transnationalism that becomes extraterritorial by acting beyond its national borders competes with transnational forces in globalization? To what extent do these dynamics reconnect citizenship and belonging and reterritorialize them?

Based on the experience of postcolonial migration in Europe, it will try to analyse the effect of transnational dynamics on the polarization of territorial national societies by questioning the relationship between territory and the nation-state; between citizenship and belonging. But the main question is how transnational nationalisms give new strength to the national question and become a stake of legitimacy in the international system.
# 1 | Nationalism and Territory

In spite of their variety, theories of nationalism are based on membership in a historical cultural community institutionalized by the state on a given territory.¹ Views differ as to how this membership is expressed and how it relates to the creation of nation-states in 19th century Europe. Its conceptualization, however, remains vague and is applied to a variety of phenomenon. Some authors, such as A.D. Smith, emphasize a primordia list approach when they highlight the ethnic origins of nationalism (1986). W. Connor, in his concept of “ethnonationalism,” also sees an ethnic basis in the definition of a nation, but he is referring to minority nationalisms, particularly regional ones, expressed in reaction to an attempt to achieve a culturally homogenous blend in various nation-states (1994). Other theories of nationalism pertain to the political agenda for self-determination of a people sharing the same myths of origin, the same language and the same ideology. From this standpoint, the state is its only source of legitimacy (Breuilly 1982).

E. Kedourie, for instance, does not reject the idea of a primordial attachment that he expresses in terms of “need,” but he strives to define the legitimate criteria by which a people can create a state (1993). According to Gellner, the phenomenon is part of the modernization process, with the passage from an agrarian society to an urban society and the emergence of an elite mobilizes to create a nation, that Weber qualifies as the only community born of modernity (1983). On the whole, the institutionalization of nationalism is the result of social movements of resistance that seek autonomy, self-determination, freedom or decolonization or even territorial expansion, movements that all boil down to a struggle for territory (Pogge 1999). These different approaches and definitions of nationalism are summarized by Triandafyllidou with the typology of ethnic and civic nationalism—where ethnic understanding essentializes the nation and the civic understanding of the nation “privileges territorial and civic elements, notably a mass public culture, a territory and a single economy, a set of common rights and duties among its members” (Trandafyllidou 2022: 204).

Such definitions of nationalism consider all nations as being territorially bounded and linked to a state. The emergence of ethno-religious communities within nation-states and the shared loyalties of their members becomes a source of dissociation between state and nation and has led to different interpretations of nationalism. A “portable” nationality, to use B. Anderson’s expression (1998a): the resulting transnationality is behind a new “imagined community” (Anderson 1983) that goes against the unified community brought together around the same territorialized political project. This new community is imagined on the basis of a religion or an ethnicity that encompasses linguistic and national differences and breaks away from the territorialized nationalist project to assert itself beyond national borders, without geographical limits, as a deterritorialized nation in search of an inclusive (and exclusive) centre, around an identity or an experience constructed out of immigration, dispersion and a minority situation that aims to achieve legitimacy and recognition not only from states but also from supranational or international institutions. This quest generates “a permanent tension been the idea of the state as a source of absolute power and the reality of the state as something limited

both from beyond.” (Breuilly,1982:52). These tensions crystallize around the issue of minority nationalisms, be they national, territorial, ethnic or religious. A form of nationalism arises when they mobilize beyond national borders, and this phenomenon reinforces the interdependency between internal political developments and the involvement of transnational actors in the international political system.

In the early 20th century, the phenomenon gave rise to the concept of “diaspora nationalism” that E. Gellner qualifies as “historical fact” and considers as a subspecies of nationalism. According to Gellner, this concerns a group in a minority situation due to its religion or its language and is consequently excluded from the state’s version of nationalism. This group is made up of urban, educated “foreigners” who have no political power but who have economic clout that they use, moreover, to serve nationalist purposes. E. Gellner sees diaspora nationalism as the result of a social transformation, a cultural renaissance and a desire of this minority to acquire a territory (Gellner, 1983: 88–110).

According to B. Anderson, the development of capitalism generated a new type of nationalism that he calls “long-distance nationalism” (1998b). He stresses the development of emigration, the evolution of means of communication, the new industrial civilization and the ensuing social and geographical mobility that have raised consciousnesses and led to an identity-based withdrawal fueling nationalist claims to the effect that repressed ethnic identities should take the form of ethnicity-based nation-states (Anderson 1998b).

In their own definition of a similar concept, N. Glick-Schiller and G. Eugen Fouron suggest that “long-distance nationalism” is reconfiguring the way many people understand the relationship between populations and the states that claim to represent them.” According to these authors, the political agenda associated with this type of nationalism relates to “the vision of the nation as extending beyond the territorial boundaries of the state frequently springs from the life experiences of migrants of different classes, whose lives stretch across borders to connect homeland and new land.” (2001). This is reminiscent of the projects of reconstruction of nation-states elaborated in exile that B. Anderson also mentions.

The distinctions between these types of “nationalism” function as a typology, with all the limits that such an approach involves, that is, a static vision frozen in time and space or does not reveal contemporary experiences with regard to state-minority relations. Diasporas nationalism reflects a conception of the nation spread but unified from the start around a single ideal, drawing on symbols of the same past and projecting itself into the future with the same myths. Long-distance nationalism is the result of a mobilization of an ethno-national group in exile, gaining legitimacy in the international system in order to put pressure on their states “from outside” or on the international community with the objective to create a territorial state. At the end of empires, old minorities become new states like at the end of the Ottoman Empire when old Millets—ethno-religious-linguistic communities—turned into nation-states. Also, new “diasporas” emerge because of change of national borders, like more recently at the collapse of the Soviet Union, when national
minorities dispersed in numerous states of Europe and the East (M. Mandelbaum 2000).

Some minority nationalism expressed by territorial minorities' combines their claims for cultural rights in the country of immigration as well as in the country of origin. Such is the case of the Kurds, for example. Emigrated from Turkey for the most part, just like economic migrants (although many more of them have political refugee status), they have been categorized as “stateless population” by the European Parliament.² Their mobilization finds legitimacy among supranational institutions and in countries of settlement. The fight for territorial self-determination in the 1970s has put them in a “separatist” perspective, and irredentist movements with regard to Turkey, but their demand for cultural autonomy as an immigrant “Kurdish community” with its own language, culture and history was intended to distinguish it from the “Turkish community,” particularly in Germany, and give them access to the same resources. Their demand developed also from the standpoint of a dual minority status: minority within the minority in Germany and minority within the borders of the Turkish state. Having more political resources abroad than in Turkey, they have brought their demands before the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament, to then turn to Ankara to obtain recognition as a “minority,” with its cultural autonomy and its official representation, thus requiring Turkey to restructure its institutions, even redefine the terms of its nationalism (Kastoryano, 2011).

Transnational nationalism differs from minority, diaspora and long-distance nationalisms. Contrary to diasporas in which dispersion precedes the state, the transnational communities are constituted of migrants belonging to nation-states (of origin), independents, sovereigns and the territorially bounded. This is the migrants' country of origin. Like with diasporas, transnational communities maintain a link with the country of origin by perpetuating its culture and language (national and sometimes regional) and eventually returning there. In both cases, it involves a nationalism that develops and is expressed outside of and beyond the borders. But transnational nationalism borrows an opposite path to that of diaspora nationalism. Nationalism, reproduced and diffused by the migrants' states of origin, is reinterpreted and re-appropriated in the case of immigration or a minority situation and return to redefine the content of nationalism of the country of origin. The process leads to a redefinition of state-minority relations or nationalism as new expressions of belonging, and a political engagement reflects the nationalization of communitarian sentiments guided by an “imagined geography”, leading to a transnational nationalism, nonterritorial, that differentiates itself from the country of origin as well as from the country of settlement but develops its own understanding of unity.

## 2 | Transnational Nationalism—Nonterritorial

Transnational nation refers to a political community that is not territorially bounded. Its formation is based on the identification of individuals to a real and imagined whole on the basis of multiple attachments (national, territorial, religious and linguistic) and also on the basis of common experiences (colonization, exile

or emigration) with reference to a nonterritorial “us” as a nation that takes hold in what are known as transnational “social fields” (Faist 2000, Bash, L., and Als. 1994).

The question of nonterritoriality arose in the early 20th century with the Austro-Hungarian Marxist theorists Karl Renner and Otto Bauer. Karl Renner suggested personal autonomy against plans for territorialization of the nation. For Otto Bauer, national autonomy founded on the principle of territoriality was undoubtedly a means of delimiting national spheres of power and of abolishing national struggles for power (1987: 338). Combining the nation as a “community of fate” defined by Bauer and the “national-cultural autonomy” defended by Brenner, their theories of nationalism as “nonterritorial national autonomy” refer to communities that “are based on the individual consent to belong” without any territorial claim. (Nimmi 2009: 296–298). Their model of nationhood was developed in the context of the Habsburg Empire and advocated transformation of the existing empire into a democratic multinational federation of nationalities” by considering the nation not as a territorial corporation but as an association of persons” (Bauer cited by Davis Smith 2014: 18). R. Baubock poses a normative question concerning the possibility of imagining “a cultural autonomy as an alternative to territorial arrangements” and defends the idea according to which cultural liberty is meant to correspond to a nonterritorial base, even though the territorial base of self-determination of peoples cannot possibly be ignored (2001). Such a question does not consider the diversity of groups demanding cultural rights.

Nonterritorial transnational nationalism, I argue, is the outcome of multiculturalism (Kastoryano 2007, 2018, 2025). Cultural, ethnic and religious communities where identities are redefined and re-appropriated in order to get legitimacy and recognition before states and national institutions rely increasingly on transnational solidarities expressing common identification, a sense of belonging to a constructed unity beyond nation-states. This translates the nationalization of community sentiment (whatever its content may be) or the communitarianization of transnational solidarity accompanied by new forms of subjectivity and becomes a way to put pressure on states from outside.

In the European context, multiculturalism and recognition refer to the postcolonial and economic migration, from Muslim countries in their large majority, sharing the same experience of “being Muslim in Europe.” Obviously, Muslims in Europe are diverse in origin, language, nationality, ethnicity and even denomination (Sunnites, Shiites or Alawites). Loyalties to the state of origin, therefore to national identities of home countries, characterize social and ethnic relations among Muslim populations in Europe and limit their identity boundaries. Within the national groups, sects, brotherhood and regional allegiances and political ideologies provide identity repertoires for community organizations specialized in language teaching, folklore or religion. Even if Islam appears fragmented from within by national identities, it represents a unifying force among Muslim immigrants so far as collective interests are concerned. Such organizations, subject to immigration policies and to legislation concerning social activities of migrants in host countries, have proliferated since the 1980s in all European countries within the framework of politics of difference recognition and equal citizenship as applied multiculturalism.
The European space introduces a supranational normativity that promotes and gives legitimacy to transnational organization and mobilization and “unifies” this internal diversity around norms and values founded on human rights, fight against racism or any other form of social, political and cultural exclusion. The same diversity is unified also around a common identity element such as religion, Islam, the religion of the majority of postcolonial immigration in Europe. Religion has always been the origin of the most elaborate and institutionalized transnational networks, a multi-ethnic, multinational community. Religion has always been an important bond that maintain ties in dispersed communities. Religious groups in Europe have been stimulated by secularization to organize themselves in pressure groups and take action in the domain of international relations, as demonstrated in treatises governing minorities from the 1648 treaties of Westphalia until the 1878 Berlin Conference, partially resumed by the Leagues of Nations in the issue of World War I (Jackson Preece J., 1998). Religion perceived as a permanent difference becomes a way to extend home country's culture to a diasporic space (Lahiri, 2019). According to Mirna Safi, “transnationalism's ethno-racial mechanisms relate to both, the sense of ethnicity developed within a migrant community and the degree to which negative attitudes and discrimination practices in the host society target specific origins” (2018: 869). The targeted “origins”, a paradox of politics of recognition for equal citizenship and Islamophobia, have generated new expressions of belonging and a political engagement that reflect a transnational political community.

The territorial boundaries of such a political community are not disputed; on the contrary, their nonterritorial boundaries follow formal and/or informal networks that transcend the territorial limits of states and nations, thus creating a new form of territorialization—invisible and unbounded. A new form of political community based on new narratives, symbols, images and objects becomes a source of identification. Its personal autonomy dominates and manifests itself through the network of individuals' relationships. Via a number of precise actions and rhetoric, they try both to construct identity boundaries transcending those of the states and to create a nonterritorial political unity within which individual actions become the basis for a nonterritorial form of ethno-religious autonomy. The process does not imply cultural autonomy on a territorial basis but a recognition within the framework of state structures, serving as the basis of equality for the differences that arise in the public space of Western democracies, as proclaimed by multiculturalist theories. According to Kymlicka, such a nonterritorial political community can be a short-term strategy (2008). It appears, nevertheless, to be a strategy for recognition rooted in globalization where states and minority relations are brought beyond national borders.

The racial, cultural, ethno-religious diversity that characterizes the internal diversity of transnational nationalism is unified around a “minority awareness” (Joppke 2017) that looks for solidarity beyond nation-states. Within national context, demands for recognition take on a racial or ethnic, even a religious, character, depending on the interactions with the community's states of residence and are based on political forces outside the state territory. The terms of this recognition vary from one state to another according to the definition that each gives to minorities and

how the latter express their demands for equal rights. Studies, in the United States, have developed other concepts such as that of “pan-ethnicity.” According to its author, Y. L. Espiritu, this concept underlines “the generalization of solidarity among ethnic sub-groups.” (Espiritu 1992). He is referring in particular to the Asian population established in the United States, a population that is internally diverse in terms of nationality, language and even religion. Pan-ethnic identity would thus by definition be a multiple identity, in which groups of various origins blend into a particular group with the aim of building a political unity that draws its legitimacy in its institutions and its self-determination on the basis of “race.”

Having Spanish language in common, but of different nationalities, migrants from Latin America have defined a Latino identity in reaction to so-called ethnic policies and also according to their own cultural and political motivations, that is, resistance to assimilation, affective ties with the country of origin and a new conception of “political community” that ties together several spaces (Jones-Correa 1998). Other times, other “races,” but the issue remains the same. Like Black nationalism, analysed as an innovative policy developing new paradigms to understand the history of racial and ethnic relations in the United States (Robinson 2002), pan-ethnicity is hailed by its author to be the future of ethnicity, in which the group's internal diversity would be bound together by identity-based and institutional links, thus giving rise to new dynamics (Jones-Correa 1998).

In Europe, Islam, the common denominator for the majority of the postcolonial immigrant population, leads to similar interpretations, that is, an encompassing identity that transcends national, linguistic and ethnic, even religious (the brotherhood's) and political differences. Pan-Islam, pan-religiosity or *umma*—a worldwide Muslim community—reinterpreted in such a way as to reframe all the internal diversity into an “imagined global community” (Kastoryano 2016) that loses its religious content and instead defines itself as a cultural nation, giving rise to a form of nationalism defined more as a cultural nationalism than an ideological or state nationalism. (Gans 2003: chapter 1). This nationalism would be based on a sense of belonging to culture that sees itself as “uprooted,” which is redefined it in a new environment. It defines itself as a movement seeking a “new centre” unterritorialized and denationalized in relation to countries of origin, in order to “recentre” itself according to identities that are claimed for recognition and representation in the countries of immigration promoted by identity politics applied in Western democracies. Its adaptation or resistance as well as its radicalization lend it a new scope and a new content in which nationalities, ethnicities and religion are blended, thereby cultivating a culture presenting itself as “different” from the environment and developing unifying discourses about the experience of “being Muslim in Europe.”

Such a community is sustained by the desire to belong to a “people” through a process of nominal appropriation of its actions and discourses, a sense of participation in its “destiny.” With regard to Muslims as minorities in Europe, the anthropologist Pnina Werbner, taking the case of Pakistani in Britain, points out that they have for a half-century settled in Britain, and citizens of their new state have worked to build a diaspora linking the two countries through transfers of money, goods and ideas
(2002). At the same time, redefining their original identity as Muslim has led them to “invent a Muslim diaspora”—concerned with the situation of minority Muslims living outside the lands of Islam, and in places such as Palestine, Chechnya, Bosnia, Iraq, and Kashmir—and to develop “a sense of co-responsibility” with regard to the plight of their coreligionists.

Debates over current issues involving Muslims lead to a trans-
national solidarity, such as the Rushdie affair in Great Britain
and the headscarf issues in France that started in 1989 as an
ongoing debate that has become juridical, political and ideolog-
ical. On an international level, the spiraling of violence in the
Middle East, 9/11, 2001 attacks in New York, the war in Iraq in
2003, as many international events that have contributed to pro-
ducing heroes and victims in turn among the young, influenc-
ing their way of dress, their speech and their action as a sort of
deterritorialized revenge that is nevertheless localized in urban
areas in the countries of settlement. Violence also allows a form
of territorialized and ethicized collective expression to develop,
recentring the diversity of the delocalized population around
new subjectivities nourished by unifying discourses that seek to
redefine solidarities and build a coherent whole.

Not only a minority situation but international contexts have re-
inforced such transnational nations where solidarity “involves
an *affective* element.” Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the main
source of identification with causes “agitating the world” both
at the local, transnational and global levels, generated a global
public spaces where ethno-national solidarities confront trans-
national global moral solidarities. The ongoing war has rallied
not only religious associations but also secular ones, as well
as other political groups that have been won over to the cause.
This opens up to the “universal” of the Palestinian cause that
lends greater legitimacy to the “identity-based recentralization.”
Such a “recentralization process” is expressed both on an ev-
eryday basis and in long-term political goals; it is developed in
different domains and territories—real or symbolic—trying to
re-establish social relations and a common identification. It is
a more abstract identification to a nonterritorial “moral commu-
nity” (Williams 2007). These references produce an identity that
is not linked to the immediate space but becomes the premises
of a transnational solidarity based on moral values expressed in
terms of “universal solidarity” (Gould 2007: 152). From a nor-
mative analysis of the concept of transnational solidarity, Calvin
Gould defines solidarity “as one of overlapping solidarity net-
works, that engages “the idea of justice, of global justice, in an
important way” (Gould 2007: 148).

But in what way is this entity a “transnational nation”? Is a rheto-
ric that seeks to create an entity enough to generate transnational
nationalism? Obviously, this entity is not built upon common
“ancestors” or on a quest for national self-determination. It is
therefore neither ethnic nor civic nationalism. It is also difficult
to talk about collective organized action with a view to building
a nation-state, thus of nationalism (Hechter 2001). Membership
is determined neither by blood nor by soil; it is not based on the
civic principles that unite individuals that claim membership in
this nation on the same territory. What is more, the references
are, first of all, the product of the nation-states of origin, and
linguistic, national and ethnic attachments take precedence
over this solely religious identification, even if the latter is not

excluded from the first three. Such developments show signs of
a pre-Westphalian (1648) conceptions territory that is moving
from sovereign territorial states to a new geography based on
religious divisions, even though allegiances seem to be fleeting,
temporary and opportunistic.

What then makes this entity a nation and its expression a nation-
alism? According to Gellner, nationalism is the product of major
transformations. He refers in particular to the Emancipation
that dissolved the old, isolated communities and united them
around a political community (1985). Today, the transformation
is taking place not through “grouping” but on the contrary by
the dissociation of communities from the political community
by the delinking of citizenship (territorialized rights) and na-
tionalities that are expressed beyond state borders. Such trans-
formations replace territory with space.

Such a definition of transnational nationalism fits within the
global space, which does not *reflect* but *produces* an identity and
generates a mode of participation beyond borders, as can be seen
in the involvement of actors in strengthening transnational soli-
darities. Accusing states of their deficiencies in human rights or
citizenship rights as the basis of democratic equality, the actors
seek to channel the loyalty of individuals from a territorialized
political community toward a nonterritorialized political com-
munity, thus redefining the terms of membership and allegiance
to a global nation sustained by the rhetoric of unity diffused by
social media, assuming that “the national values of the past are
not supposed to be national values of the future” (Jacob, F. and
C. Schapkow, 2021:3).

3 | States' Transnational Nationalism—
Extraterritorial

Transnational nationalism that questions territoriality of be-
longing and citizenship appears also in states' actions beyond
borders. States, political organizations characterized by their
sovereignty within their borders, where territory and citizen-
ship are combined, are challenged by the increasing impor-
tance of transnational solidarities expressed beyond national
borders of both, countries of origin and countries of settlement.
Confronted with global identification created by transnational
solidarities with a religious component, states transform their
singular power and sovereignty within and without territories.
They thus aim to maintain the value of citizenship and national-
ity while expanding their influence beyond their own territories.
As pointed out by Lacroix, "in order to control the transnational
society the state should take its forms adopt its codes and its spa-
tial configurations" (2024:37).

States' extraterritorial actions have been studied through “the
management of migration flows” (Lacroix 2024) or by its ex-
ternalization of visa politics. Christian Lequesne in his recent
work points out the extension of the French welfare state to the
countries of settlement of the French diaspora as a way to main-
tain ties between expatriates the state and its diaspora (2024).
Is this due to a “French exception”, to the effect of colonial past
or to the fact that France is not a “country of emigration”? Or is
this the case of western countries where welfare state is more
developed then countries of emigration from poor countries?
The question of extraterritoriality has been discussed also in the European union, for example, where citizenship of the Union by giving right to free circulation and participation beyond borders brings an extraterritorial character into a play regarding member states.

States' transnational nationalism reflects an extension of states' official nationalism that becomes extraterritorial. States' transnational nationalism takes into account the transformative effects of transnationalism. For the state of origin, this is perceived as the effect of diaspora mobilization pushing states of origin to redefine their official nationalism. For the state of settlement, “globalized identities” that challenge their power of integration become a source of suspicion, nourishing fears and feelings of insecurity related to immigration and to the presence of immigrants. The competition of both states with such transnational forces beyond their own territories leads to a confrontation of political polarization on both sides beyond territories. The process is expressed by sending countries as “diaspora politics” that ethnicizes “diasporic identities” and by populist discourses and the increasing influence of nationalist parties in the countries of settlement that have become transnational as well.

The transformative effects of transnationalism are also perceived in the expression of the official nationalism of sending countries. Transnational actors have internalized the democratic norms of Western societies and those diffused by the European supranational institutions and redefine an identity in relation to local national and global politics. Participation in voluntary association, based on identity, mobilization for equal rights and the fight against discrimination have all become a source of political socialization in the country of settlement. Based on their experience, they become important agents of political change in their country of origin, challenging the official state nationalism. Identities redefined and claimed in the countries of settlement return to the national territory of the country of origin with the same demands for recognition and representation as in the country of settlement (Kastoryano 2013). These transfers redefine the country's nationalism with new content, thereby involving the state in this same process of the formation of a transnational nationalism in its efforts to face these new demands of its dispersed population. These aspects, taken together, contribute to the evolution of a nationalism that becomes “transnational.”

But at the same time states of origin are in “search of their own people” (Delano and Gamlen 2014: 45). A peoplehood expressed in terms of national identity leads states to a transnational nationalism through by promoting a “diasporic identity” promoted by “diaspora politics”, established by states of origin. This comes to ethicized national identity abroad, with national narratives “building blocks” (Harris M. and M. Tudor, 2023: 10) and redefines identity boundaries of diasporas. Transnationalism of the state of origin is necessarily tantamount to dual and multiple citizenships in that it relates at least two spaces for social, cultural, economic and political participation. This is reflected in changes in citizenship laws or the granting of a special status with dual citizenship, which becomes a way to institutionalize immigrants' involvement both in the countries of origin and of settlement. The legality of the citizenship of the country of settlement is combined with an extraterritorial belonging to the

country of origin that seeks its foundation in a “common nationality.” The objective is to depict the ideal of a national community as a “united community”, to empower loyal émigrés, to protect “their diaspora allies against the threat of harmful diaspora” (Arkiliç 2024). The goal is to influence their image in the international stage as a “unified national community abroad.” In general, transnational nationalism encouraged by states has become an important element of their foreign policy, with the same tendency to reunify the fragmented nationhood developed abroad.

Most of the states of origin, known as countries of emigration, have created specific ministries in charge of their “citizens abroad.” They all intervene in the countries of settlement through economic, cultural and political means. The objective is that their citizens abroad maintain a sense of nationhood—deterritorialized—as an extension of states' official nationalism. Their action varies from protecting their image in the international arena to protecting their citizens abroad from narratives and policies on exclusion and discrimination in increasingly polarized countries of settlement. In general, diaspora politics aims at bringing citizens abroad “back” to a territorial sense of belonging.

About “being Muslim in Europe” as a basis for a transnational nationalism developed above, two countries, Turkey and Morocco, where national and religious identities are combined, have both created specific ministries in charge of their “citizens abroad” (Bruce 2018). Their objective is to bring their citizens abroad “back” to national identity that is to “a national Islam” as opposition to “globalized Islam” (Roy 2004). For Morocco, for example, events like terrorist attacks in Madrid in March 2003, where five out of seven terrorists were Moroccans, and the assassination of Van Gogh by a Moroccan young man in Amsterdam the same year shook state authorities. Such actions have been interpreted as the result of the difficulties for the young generations to integrate into different European countries. Therefore, all initiative coming from Morocco had the objective to insure the integration of their migrants in their countries of settlement, in order to avoid the attraction of the young generation to radicalization spread through internet. At stake is the image of Morocco in the international public opinion. Their action is therefore extraterritorial—external to national territory; therefore, the objective of Morocco is to reterritorialize national/traditional Islam in the country of settlement as an extension of the Morocco's nationalism.

Türkiye has also created, in 2010, a direction related to the Prime minister for Turkish citizens abroad. The officially secular state has thus explicitly introduced religion as an element of national identification and has institutionalized it under the auspices of the consular network abroad (Kastoryano 2013). This development contributes to redefining Turkish nationalism outside and inside its borders. At the same time Türkiye's aspiration in the Middle east and the Muslim World, as “regional power and beyond” leads its president to develop a rhetoric for the protection of all Muslims in “minority” situation in Europe, justified by fight against exclusion and “islamophobia.” The Turkish President is linking this way a nationalistic perspective of Islam, a deterritorialized Turkish Islam and a nonterritorial global Islam that coexist in the fight against discrimination.
Some other states focus on the economic integration of its citizens abroad in their country of settlement as a way to institutionalize their attachment to the country of origin through remittances and mobilization from abroad for the economic interest of the country as the case of Tunisia (Dufoix et al. 2010). Waldinger enumerates states' action to maintain their “diaspora” through voting abroad, legalizing lobbying, promoting hometown associations and for some like Mexico printing id documents abroad (Waldinger, 2015). Such activities come as an addition to states' traditional acting through consular networks and other official institutions and organizations to propagate official nationalism (Levitt and de la Dehesa 2003). Through diaspora, politics states of origin attribute a role of intermediary to political actors of immigrant background, such as elected officials in the country of settlement, or entrepreneurs. These actors provide ties between public and private spaces, as well as economic, social, cultural and political agendas through the various family, commercial and organizational networks in both country of settlement and in the country of origin. They become “private ambassadors”, in charge of rebuilding a link between statehood, nationhood and peoplehood that are deterritorialized, with regard to the country of origin. They contribute to the development of a new diplomacy (Dikici 2021). Many cases show processes established by different countries like China, India, Brazil and Mexico (Dufoix et al. 2010). The concept of “diaspora diplomacy” is used to express the difference between traditional diplomacy from the role of informal networks. Ayça Arkiliç refers to the concept of “diaspora diplomacy” according to which the young generations become “active political players, as new forces complementing and enhancing states’ official endeavours” (2022).

States of settlement develop transnational nationalism as well. Immigration on the one hand and the European Union's supranational power on the other hand have nevertheless led extreme right parties to construct networks on a common ideology, common narratives and common understanding of a nation on a transnational level based, as “global white identity” (Daniels 2009) just as transnational nationalism based on religion. Electoral successes of the radical right, populist parties in many European countries, members of the European Union and beyond, are shaped by the “politization of immigration closely related to their core nativist concerns” (Hutter and Kriesi 2022: 345). It is reflected in party politics, developing anxiety and fears along with discourses rejecting immigration as a whole and promoting nationalist, exclusivist feelings. They both use the same space—European and global—and the same tools—internet—to diffuse ideas and ideologies and promote identifications. (Caiani and Kröll 2015: 332). Not only immigration but also the European Union as a transnational space by definition and supranational institutions that promoted solidarity networks beyond borders are all important elements that nourish their campaign and mobilize fears. The European space, the global space, has thus become a space of confrontation of all transnational nationalisms, a confrontation of polarization of all nations and nationalisms and of diasporas, which is transnational nationalism expressed in terms of globalized identities and transnationalized extreme right parties using exclusivist nationalist identities. European extreme right and or populist discourses use the same European space to reinforce their political power on their own land, transferring the question of immigration and

integration into a question of security (Aguilar 2024), while they reject European Union supremacy over national one.

But at the same time states of settlement cooperate with states of origin to develop joint strategies of integration. After the attacks of 9/11, 2001, in New York, both states have changed their transnational strategies of integration. From the states' perspectives, transnational means cooperation in the domain of security translated by the border controls, common politics of immigration and visa politics. States behave as transnational actors in permanent interaction within a global deterritorialized space or encountering cultural and political specificities of national associations with multinational activities. States' transnational nationalism makes of the question of integration also a transnational issues: to have their “citizens abroad” integrated “here and there.” It becomes for states a way to integrate into the process of globalization by transnationalizing their politics of integration and influence that combine national—territorial references—and globalized identities. What is at stake is the integration of both states and that of transnational communities into a global space.

Transnationalism thus introduces a new relationship to states that is characterized by “mutual dependence”, to use J.A. Armstrong's expression, mutual dependence between a liberal, pluralistic state and the “mobilized diaspora.” Whereas diasporas occupied a significant place, especially in international trade, in premodern states, “mobilized diasporas” today find themselves, according to Armstrong, in a position of “international negotiation” of political decisions (Armstrong 1976). The increased interdependence between scattered populations and both states of origin and of residence, and even beyond, is part of a global and complex system of interactions and is subjected to internal and external negotiation processes.

Transnational nationalism, a product of liberal states, leads to negotiations between transnational actors and states beyond borders (Kastoryano, 2009). From the actors' standpoint, such a nationalism becomes a means to wield pressure, even political clout; from the states' standpoint, governments must negotiate the means to include in their political strategy identity-based expressions born of their relations with minority populations and “reterritorialize” their action or else develop their own “deteriorialized” power strategies to maintain the link of individual citizens of states despite nationalist expressions that surpass them. For states, this boils down to their acting themselves as transnational actors in constant interaction in a deterritorialized global space where cultural and political specificities of national societies intersect with multinational activities. This becomes the state's process of integrating the globalization process. This involves the states behaving as transnational actors in permanent interaction within a global deterritorialized space or encountering cultural and political specificities of national associations with multinational activities. It entails a mode of integration on behalf of the states in the process of globalization.

## 4 | To Conclude

Transnationalism gives shape to present-day nationalism that differs from the highly territorialized nationalisms of the 19th
and 20th centuries. Transnational communities are constructed around shared references and bring to the fore a feeling of belonging to a “deterritorialized nation” with identity claims that are nourished by new expressions of nationalism. Together, this leads to a redefinition of the link between territory, nation and political space, challenging the nation-state and its culturally and territorially defined political structure.

The expression of this form of nationalism does not exclude the states. The extension of state power as it is practiced in relationship to transnational communities causes new power struggles to emerge between states and such communities. The latter draw their power from their mobility, their capacity to switch from one network of influence to the other and the normativity of international and supranational institutions (NGOs and European institutions) to exert pressure on states. States react to maintain control over populations on the move, as well as within their borders.

States' actions become another source of paradox of transnational nationalism with regard to the polarization of western societies. On the one hand, it challenges the concepts of nation and nationalism as a territorial and static understanding of belonging; the normative outcome would be to develop a narrative and fight against polarization. But in reality, the intervention of the countries of origin in the political participation of their “citizens abroad” and in their integration in the national societies of settlement becomes a source of mistrust with regard to the country of origin. A “diasporic identity” promoted by the country of origin goes against the relationship citizenship-nationhood-identities defended by populist discourses and reinforces the polarization in the country of settlement.

Transnational nationalisms—of groups and states—compete both for global power. Doing so, they reinforce each other along the lines of global networks as well as within bounded territorial nations. They both re-install an ethno-religious-national identity to groups and to nations. They both redefine “peoplehood” inside and outside territorially bounded nations. Diaspora politics applied by states of origin aim to redefine the territorial official nationalism according to the identity construction along the lines of transnational nationalism characterized by its internal heterogeneity—re-organized and expressed in the fight against discrimination as well as a common identity based on common experiences in a minority situation within national societies. At the same time, diaspora politics and states' transnational nationalism return to the territorially bounded nationhood based on the most salient aspect of identity recentralization—of transnational nationalism. This dynamic and development deepen the minority and majority gaps within national societies and fuel territorially bounded nationalisms and increase polarization on both sides.

The objective of both states is to reterritorialize globalized identities. For states of origin, this comes to renationalize and reterritorialize “globalized Islam”, and for states of settlement, it is to redefine the terms of citizenship and promote civic integration into the society and political community. The normative expectation from their cooperation is to establish reciprocal trust between states and their communities, both transnationalized. At stake is the fight against polarization on several levels: against globalized identities by issuing the value of citizenship, in terms

of civic integration and participation here and there; against polarized exclusivist populist parties; and to prevent their electoral success.

On the whole, transnationalism raises more questions than it answers. How can a group integrate into the international system as an autonomous, nonterritorial nation? What configuration of the international legal system is adapted to this evolution of human society? But the most important question raised by such an evolution is that of the nature of conflicts and wars that such nations engender, as well as the reactions of states in the protection of their own territorial community that is the nation. How to re-establish civic senses of nationhood when extraterritorial wars and conflicts have an effect on national territories and lead to the confrontation of two types of nationalism: territorial and nonterritorial, which leads to a greater polarization? What can be states' strategies regarding the deterritorialized identities of their citizens, how to establish trust among actors competing all for globalization while each is developing their own polarized narratives?

## Endnotes

## References

Aguilar, A. 2024. "Securing the State Through Integration Comparing French and British Approaches to Crime and Radicalization Prevention, 1965–2023." PhD - Sciences Po. Paris.

Anderson, B. 1983. *Imagined Communities Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism*. Verso.

Anderson, B. 1998a. "Mapping the Nation." In *Mapping the Nation*, edited by G. Balakrishnan. Verso.

Anderson, B. 1998b. "Long-Distance Nationalism." In *Specters of Comparisons. Nationalism in Southeastern Asia and the World*, 58–74. Verso.

Arkilic, A. 2022. *Diaspora Diplomacy. The Turkish Emigration to Europe*. Manchester U. Press.

Armstrong, J. A. 1976. "Mobilized and Proletarian Diaspora." *American Political Science Review* LXX, no. 2: 393–408.

Baubock, R. 2001. "Multinational Federalism: Territorial and Non-Territorial, Nationalism, Liberalism and Pluralism." Paris, CERI-Sciences-Po, February 5-6, 2001.

Bauer, O. 1987. *La Question Des Nationalités et la Social-Démocratie, Tome 2. Montréal*. Guérin Littérature.

Breuilly, J. 1982. *Nationalism and the State*. University of Chicago Press.

Bruce, B. 2018. "Transnational Religious Governance as Diaspora Politics: Reporting the Moroccan Religious Field Abroad." *Journal of Middle East and North African Migration Studies* 5: 36–74.

Caiani, M., and P. Kröll. 2015. "The Transnationalization of the Extreme Right and the Use of Internet." *International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice* 39, no. 4: 331–351.

<footnote n="1">¹There is no room here to mention all the literature on and theories of nationalism. We will confine ourselves to referring to the debates regarding the bases for nationalist sentiments, their role in building nation-states or in mobilization along these lines.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²The Kurds (identifiable solely by self-definition) make up approximately 30% of the Turkish immigrant population, spread proportionally throughout various European countries.</footnote>
Connor, W. 1994. "Ethnonationalism." In *The Quest for Understanding*, vol. 1994, 67-89. Princeton University Press.

Daniels, J. 2009. *Cyber Racism, White Supremacy Online and the New Attack on Civil Rights*. Rowman and Littlefield Publisher Cited by Caiani M. and P. Kröll, (2015), The Transnationalization of the Extreme Right and the Use of Internet, in *International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice*, 39(4), pp. 331-351.

Delano, A., and A. Gamlen. 2014. "Comparing and Theorizing State Diaspora Relations." *Political Geography* 41: 43-53.

Dikici, E. 2021. "Governance of Religious Diversity in Western Europe." *Ethnicities* 21, no. 1: 235-246.

Dufoix, S., C. Guerassimoff, and A. de Tinguy. 2010. *Loin des Yeux, Près du Cœur. Les États et Leurs Expatriés*. Presses de Sciences Po.

Espiritu, Y. L. 1992. *Asian American Pan-Ethnicity. Bridging Institutions and Identities*. Temple University Press.

Gans, C. 2003. *The Limits of Nationalism*. Cambridge University Press chap.1.

Gellner, E. 1985. *Nation and Nationalism*. Cornell University Press.

Glick-Schiller, N., and G. E. Fouron. 2001. *George Woke up Laughing. Long-Distance Nationalism and the Search for Home*. Duke University Press 2001 (especially Chapter 2).

Gould, C. 2007. "Transnational Solidarities." *Journal of Social Philosophy* 38, no. 1 spring 2007: 148-164.

Hechter, M. 2001. *Containing Nationalism*, 18-19. Oxford University Press.

Hutter, S., and H. Kriesi. 2022. "Politicizing Immigration in Times of Crisis." *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies* 48, no. 2: 341-365.

Jones-Correa, M. 1998. *Between Two Nations, the Political Predicament of Latinos in New York City*. Cornell University Press.

Joppke, C. 2017. *Is Multiculturalism Dead? Polity Press*.

Kastoryano, R. 2007. "Transnational Nationalism. Redefining Nation and Territory." In *Identities, Affiliations and Allegiances*, edited by S. Behabib and I. Shapiro, 159-181. Cambridge University Press.

Kastoryano, R. 2013. ""Turks Abroad" Redefining Turkish Nationalism." In *How Immigrants Impact Their Homeland*, edited by S. Eckstein and A. Najam, 138-156. Duke University Press.

Kastoryano, R. 2016. "States and Communities Competing for Global Power." *Philosophy and Social Criticism* 42, no. 4-5: 386-396.

Kastoryano, R. 2018. "Transnational Politics of Integration and an "Imagined Global Diaspora"." In *Diversity and Contestations Over Nationalisms in Europe and Canada*, edited by J. E. Fossum, R. Kastoryano, and B. Siim, 63-89. Palgrave.

Kastoryano, R. 2025. "Transnational Challenges to Multiculturalism." In *Research Handbook on Multiculturalism*, edited by G. B. Levey, 345-362. Edward Elgar.

Kedouri, E. 1993. *Nationalism*. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

Kymlicka, W. 2008. "National-Cultural Autonomy and International Minority Rights Norms." In *Cultural Autonomy in Contemporary Europe*, edited by D. J. Smith and K. Cordell, 43-57. Routledge Cited by Smith, D.J., (2014) Minority Territorial and Non-Territorial Autonomy in Europe: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Challenges, in Kantor Zoltan (ed.) *Autonomies in Europe*. Solution and Challenges, p. 22.

Lacroix, T. 2024. *The Transnational State. Governing Migratory Circulations*. Palgrave.

Lequesne, C. 2024. *Le Diplomate et les Français de L'Étranger*. Presses de Sciences Po.

Mandelbaum, M. 2000. In *The New European Diasporas: National Minorities and Conflict in Eastern Europe*, edited by M. Mandelbaum. Cambridge University Press.

Nimni, E. 2009. "Nationalism, Ethnicity and Self-Determination: A Paradigm Shift?" *Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism* 9, no. 2: 319-332.

Pogge, T. W. 1999. "The Bounds of Nationalism." In *Rethinking Nationalism*, edited by J. Couture, K. Nielsen, and M. Seymour. University of Calgary Press.

Robinson, D. E. 2002. *Black Nationalism in American Politics and Thought*. Cambridge University Press.

Roy, O. 2004. "Globalized Islam." Hurst.

Smith, D. J. 2014. "Minority Territoiral and non-Territorial Autonomy in Europe: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Challenges." In *Autonomies in Europe. Solution and Challenges*, edited by Z. Kantor. L'Harmattan.

Trandafyllidou, A. 2022. "Nationalism." In *Contested Concepts in Migration Studies*, edited by R. Zapata Barrero, D. Jacobs, and R. Kastoryano. Routledge.

Werbner, P. 2002. "The Place Which Is Diaspora: Citizenship, Religion and Gender in the Making of Chaordic Transnationalism." *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies* 28, no. 1: 119-133.

Williams, M. S. 2007. "Non-Territorial Boundaries of Citizenship." In *Identities, Affiliations and Allegiances, in new York*, edited by S. Benhabib, I. Shapiro, and D. Petranovic, 226-257. Cambridge U. Press.