Author’s Note: I wrote this paper just yesterday for a Cities and Citizenship class at the University of Washington. Through Anna Secor’s readings and teachings in this class, it is interesting to know that the concept of “citizenship” within the “city” is much more complex (and complicated) than I really prefer to think about it. However, like most things, I am more intelligent (at least I think so) with this knowledge. My understanding of the city as contested urban space has expanded. And my overall insight about the human race and its relationship to others is strengthened and enlightened.
The citizenship ideal is built around the notion that where you stand, so you belong, a sort of this land is your land utopian idea. This idea is referred to as utopian because psychology, geography, and policy refuse to support such a theory leaving it to the entertainment of the mind instead. The real concept of citizenship is much more complex and continues to bring lengthy debate from the left and the right, republicans and democrats, the rich and the poor, the professional and the resident.
However the many perspectives, this discussion will focus on citizenship as a political strategy in which “citizens” publicly appeal to society claiming identity and belonging through discourse and action. The question raised in this discussion is whether or not society returns the persons’ claim thus granting social identity and belonging and if society, as an institution, also appeals to persons’ in granting political ownership. In other words, this city may belong to me, but do I also belong to this city? Following Anna Secor’s notion of spatial stories, this discussion will explore the tactics and strategies of peoples in claiming political belonging and social identity in a quest for citizenship.













