liberal citizenship: ambiguities and inconsistencies25 in a manner that is largely unmediated and uninhibited by other identities, ties or affiliations. Now, most definitions of citizenship will outline a legal relation between a subject and a political society, the attributes of which reflect the self-definition of the particular state order. We are often told that for the Greek democrats living in Athens under Pericles, the citystate was the only appropriate space for the fullest human development and flourishing. In what is considered by many to be one of the first treatises on citizenship, Aristotle stated: Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either above humanity or below it; he is the ‘Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one’, whom Homer denounces—the outcast who is a lover of war; he may be compared to an unprotected piece in the game of draughts (Aristotle 2008, 1253a, 1–10). Here there is no citizen-subject that exists prior to the city-state, and “­anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self- sufficient, is no part of a city-state – he is either a beast or a god” (Aristotle 2008, 1253a, 14–15). But the dynamic at play is not ­one-sided. The city-state does not simply create viable subjects. Instead, and especially as recent constructivist literature has revealed, the citizen-­ subject and the city-state have a mutual relationship of creation, and “each is a coterminous effect of the other” (McAfee 2000, 3). As a set of processes for the provision of privileges, protection and responsibilities, citizenship rights are typically the result of struggles between the citizen-subjects and identity-specific collectives and the state at the social and political level. For the most part, such demands for recognition and inclusion are often linked to the contributions of the claimant(s) to the social good and the welfare of the state. Thus, cultural, ethnic, religious and racial divisions within a society are key ingredients in moulding its model of citizenship and its particular set of practices. And given that citizenship does not necessarily evolve to include all individuals and collectives, the achievement and provision of group-based rights of citizenship can thereby fuel existing social, political and cultural fragmentation (Ben-Porat and Turner 2011, 7). With this, citizenship often becomes divided and hierarchical. Guy Ben-Porat and Bryan S. Turner explain that: Where existing hierarchies and divisions are challenged, citizenship becomes a site of negotiation, contest and contention where, on the one hand, duties and obligations are defined and, on the other hand, demands