Noncitizenism 21 Consider the experience of urban Maoris as presented by Manuhuia Barcham. Barcham observes how a pervasive enforcement of the assumption of binarity makes it difficult to characterise the realities of many urban Maoris.32 He observes that for official recognition within the New Zealand State, individuals need to be classified as either Maori or not Maori, and to be either New Zealanders or not New Zealanders. The truth, Barcham explains, is more complex. I understand him as saying that for intersecting and complicated reasons, the same individuals are both Maori and at odds with being Maori, New Zealanders and at odds with being New Zealanders. The rigid terminology born of, and reinforcing, an uncompromising theoretical structure, forces such individuals artificially to choose boxes in which to insert themselves – or for others to choose those boxes on their behalves. The assumption of binarity in individual relationships with States is challenged by such individuals’ experienced reality. Given all this, why not just invent a totally new word without the baggage of ‘noncitizenship’? I have considered doing so. However, this would depart unnecessarily from existing discourse. In practice, discussion around ‘noncitizenship’ often seems to engage in more than negation, even when not explicitly acknowledged or when conflated with the negation discourse. Although still etymologically constructed from ‘citizenship’, the unhyphenated ‘noncitizenship’ allows the relationship to be examined on its own terms and without deference.33 Consider the etymological vs the ontological relationship between ‘man’ and ‘woman’. A further concern with this terminological discussion is that it speaks to anglophone discourse and seeks to address a theoretical oversight arising within this particular linguistic context. That is true. And indeed, any terminological question will be rooted in the linguistic framework within which that terminology is used and developed. This book is written in English and is located largely within the anglophone tradition. However, the assumed and forced deference of hyphenated non-citizenship to citizenship does not only occur in English. Chapter 4 revisits how the broader dehumanisation of noncitizens, using the language of ‘lack’, is found across several linguistic traditions. For now, though, it is enough to drop the hyphen, and to build a theorisation that departs from the usual deference to citizenship. A special relationship Noncitizenship as presented here is a special relationship and the obligations it generates in States are special obligations. They derive from the way in which 32 Manuhuia Barcham (2000) ‘(De)Constructing the Politics of Indigeneity’, pp. 137–151 in Ivison, Patton and Sanders (eds) (2000) Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge University Press; see also his 2013 talk, which gives a much more personal account of his perspective in this area, Manuhuia Barcham (2013) ‘What Do You Mean the Culture is Different Here?!?’, talk at Ignite Seattle, November 20 2013. I discuss this further for example in Chapters 5 and 10. 33 For example, see Katherine Tonkiss and Tendayi Bloom (2015) ‘Theorising Noncitizenship: Concepts, Debates and Challenges’, pp. 837–852 in Citizenship Studies 19(8).