The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Proximity by design? Affective citizenship and the management of unease
Abstract
‘Community cohesion’ is the preferred framework for managing ‘race relations’ and ‘conflict’ in contemporary Britain. Initially adopted in government policy following civil disturbances in the summer of 2001, ‘community cohesion’ combined visions of shared belonging with strategies of managing diversity. More recent versions still place a strong emphasis on ideas of shared belonging but these are combined with strategies of managing migration and identity which are deployed in view of securing local communities against threats posed by extremism, deprivation, diversity and feelings of ‘white unease’. This article examines how the community cohesion agenda relies on strategies of governance that seek to design particular kinds of human behaviours such as ‘mixing’ and ‘meaningful interaction’, in view of ‘delivering’ cohesion in the community. I analyse the cohesion agenda as a form of governance that operates through mechanisms of subjectivation. However, instead of privileging the responsible, discerning, rational, autonomous ‘free subject’, I argue that community cohesion is a form of ‘governing through affect’ that draws on and targets the affective subject for certain strategies and regulations aimed at designing people's behaviours and attitudes in the public domain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,789
Inventing our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood
Rose, N. (1996) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752179 · Cited by 2,809
Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule
Stoler, A. L. (2020) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520927742 · Cited by 2,211
The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex and Citizenship
Berlant, L. (1997) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9780822398639 · Cited by 2,086
Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease
Bigo, D. (2002) · Alternatives: Global, Local, Political · doi:10.1177/03043754020270s105 · Cited by 2,068
Mouffe, C. (2005) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,899
Aguiar, G. G. (2002) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/s0362-3319(02)00190-8 · Cited by 1,386
Foundational Fictions: The National Romances of Latin America
Sommer, D. (1991) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520913868 · Cited by 1,091
Carnal knowledge and imperial power: race and the intimate in colonial rule
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4761 · Cited by 939
Is kinship always already heterosexual?
BUTLER, J. (2002) · differences · doi:10.1215/10407391-13-1-14 · Cited by 715
Cited by
Longman, C., De Graeve, K., & Brouckaert, T. (2013) · Citizenship Studies · doi:10.1080/13621025.2013.791540 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Fortier, A.-M.
- Venue
- Citizenship Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-30
- ISSN
- 1362-1025 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3593
- OpenAlex
- W2154909065
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 41.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proximity by design? Affective citizenship and the management of unease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13621020903466258
- The paper
- Fortier, A.-M. (2010). Proximity by design? Affective citizenship and the management of unease. Citizenship Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020903466258
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.