ABSTRACT
In 1992, gay rights activists “were begging Bill Clinton about-literallyabout whether he was going to say the word ‘gay’ in his convention speech. Even say it.” They had “to threaten a walkout to get it in.”1 By the time Barack Obama ran for office in 2008, he promised broader rights for gays and lesbians and signed legislation making violence against persons based on sexuality a hate crime. But the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that keeps gays from military recognition, along with a host of benefits that come with legally recognized marriage, were still sticking points. Much had changed in the years that passed between the two administrations. Thinking about citizenship in terms of inclusion and exclusion, we might say that gays and lesbians are better included (have greater input) in the political process but are still excluded from equal rights and recognition in institutions such as the military and marriage. In this case, citizenship is about who gets what, where citizens are measured by their ability to influence the political process and their eligibility for various government programs and aid. Another way to understand inclusion and exclusion, however, is to re-
think the place of individuals and groups in the policy process. Rather than assume citizens stand on either side of the process-on the left, where they make their voice heard like the activists who urged Clinton to say “gay,” or on the right, where they are (in)eligible for various government programs and aid like openly serving in the military-we suggest locating citizens within the process. Americans find themselves within governing when they are called on to carry out various government policies. The state or federal government might call upon citizens to temporarily assume public roles, as when citizens are called upon to serve in the military or as jurors, prosecution witnesses, or even rescue personnel. The government also calls upon citizens in their personal lives, such as parents who research schools, apply for admission, and provide transportation when they use education vouchers to send their child to school, or homeowners who navigate complex federal, state, and local policies that provide incentives to buy property in a particular location or at a particular time. In addition, Americans are within governing when the government relies
on their status to accomplish particular goals, such as companies defined as “employers” that provide subsidized healthcare to individuals defined as “employees.” A lens of governance examines the non-governmental actors that the state enlists to accomplish its objectives, illuminating an additional relationship between state and citizens. Through this lens, we can see how doing the work of government shapes the civic membership of citizens. From the thinnest theoretical account of citizenship to its fuller forms,
citizens are most often measured by their ability to provide input into the political process and by their eligibility for its outputs as beneficiaries of government programs. For example, liberal citizenship includes the positive rights of political participation and the negative freedoms from unnecessary state intervention, but little else.2 The broader accounts of multicultural citizenship, republican (participatory) citizenship, difference citizenship, and gender-inclusive citizenship, all expand the definitions and expectations for participation or else for the demands and requirements of equality in government policies.3 T.H. Marshall’s three forms of citizenship-civil, political, and social-are similarly defined by participation and eligibility.4
