16 Noncitizenism edifice of universal principles of justice and human rights upon an underlying structure that arbitrarily narrows, and must so-narrow, the scope of who can be considered eligible to enjoy it. In more recent restatements of what he comes to call ‘insider theory’, Cole explains that liberal theory, by its very definition, is an insider theory, as it is constructed by its insiders who, perhaps unwittingly, define noncitizens out of consideration.20 Women, disabled persons, ethnic, and other marginalised groups, Cole observes, can be incorporated as the scope of insidership is expanded. But being a noncitizen is not of the same sort as being a woman for example. Women can be defined into or out of citizenships as scope is either widened or narrowed. With noncitizens, the situation is different. Cole argues that noncitizens are excluded by definition. This book presents an alternative way to respond to this problem that Cole identifies. Liberal theory constructs the noncitizen – and necessarily so. But this book tries to show a way in which to recognise the noncitizen qua noncitizen within contemporary liberal political thought. A common criticism of liberal thought is that it hides its epistemic location. By claiming universalism and a distanced rationality, it can give the appearance of being impartial.21 As Cole identifies, liberal theory, like any theoretical position, is produced by located beings. And those beings speak from a particular position within the power structure of the State and the wider political systems. If those scholars writing the core texts of liberal theory experience the world primarily as citizens, and are unfamiliar with the experience of activated noncitizenship, then it stands to reason that the theory that arises as a result overlooks noncitizenship. This does not mean that citizen theorists cannot develop a noncitizenist approach to liberal theory, but it will need especial care, and can benefit from input from individuals relating to States in a variety of ways. One way in which to begin to avoid these pitfalls is to ensure as many and as diverse contributors as possible are involved in all stages of the formation of theory. This is borne out by experience with feminism, for example. A sudden flowering of feminist work in liberal political theory occurred in the 1970s, at the time when many women were suddenly part of the academy.22 And, as I argue in Chapter 10, this also gave rise to an enriching of theory more widely. 20 Phillip Cole (2017) ‘Insider Theory and the Construction of Statelessness’, in Tendayi Bloom, Katherine Tonkiss and Phillip Cole (eds) (2017) Understanding Statelessness, Routledge; Phillip Cole (2015) ‘At the Borders of Political Theory: Carens and the Ethics of Immigration’, Euro pean Journal of Political Theory. 21 The problem in this can be seen symbolically if we consider the Mercator Map for example. Produced in the sixteenth century, it puts Europe in the centre and makes it proportionally larger than other continents. This projection is still commonly used today and in its apparent valueless descriptive quality, it can skew perceptions of the world. This is something which other projections, like the Peters Project, for example, is trying to redress. 22 Charles Mills (2015) ‘Race and Global Justice’, in Barbara Buckinx, Jonathan Trejo-Mathys and Timothy Waligore (ed.) (2015) Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual, Historical and Institutional Perspectives, Routledge.