With appropriate lags for rethinking, research, writing and publication, international events impinge strongly on the work of social scientists and social historians. The recent popularity of democratization, globalization, international institutions, ethnicity, nationalism, citizenship and identity as research themes stems largely from world affairs: civilianization of major authoritarian regimes in Latin America; dismantling of apartheid in South Africa; collapse of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia; ethnic struggles and nationalist claims in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa; extension of the European Union; rise of East Asian economic powers. Just as African decolonization spurred an enormous literature on modernization and political development, the explosion of claims to political independence on the basis of ethnic distinctness is fomenting a new literature on nationalism.

In the heat of the battle for parliamentary reform William Cobbett preached to the working people of England in his inimitable blustery dictums. “[I]f you labour honestly,” he counselled, “you have a right to have, in exchange for your labour, a sufficiency out of the produce of the earth, to maintain yourself and your family as well; and, if you are unable to labour, or if you cannot obtain labour, you have a right to maintenance out of the produce of the land […]”. For honest working men this was part of the legacy of constitutional Britain, which bequeathed to them not only sustenance but, “The greatest right […] of every man, the right of rights, […] the right of having a share in the making of the laws, to which the good of the whole makes it his duty to submit”. Nonetheless, he warned, such rights could not legitimately negate the toiling lot that was the laborer's fate: “Remember that poverty is decreed by the very nature of man […]. It is necessary to the existence of mankind, that a very large proportion of every people should live by manual labour […]”.

Prophecies of doom for both working-class party and labor unions have gained popularity in the Western industrial democracies over the last two decades. The “old” Siamese twins, working-class party and labor unions, have a century-long history of their combined struggle to achieve political and industrial citizenship rights for the working class. Both forms of interest representation are seen as facing new challenges if not a crisis due to internal and external changes of both long-term and recent nature. However, despite these prophecies political parties and union movemehts have been differently affected and have responded in dissimilar ways across Western Europe. The Siamese twins, party and unions, as social institutions, their embeddedness in the social structure, and their linkages, were molded at an earlier time with long-term consequences. Hence, we cannot grasp today's political unionism, party-union relations and organized labor's capacity for change, if we do not understand the social and political conditions under which the organization of labor interests became institutionalized. An understanding of the origins and causes of union diversity helps us to view the variations in union responses to current challenges.

With the “forward march of labor halted”, and labor movements everywhere in retreat, T.H. Marshall's state-based emphasis on social welfare as “social right” has reminded those interested in reform that appeals to membership in a national community, the essence of citizenship, have served to rally groups to successful struggles for reform. Those aspects of Marshall's ideas, best summarized in his classic 1949 address, “Citizenship and Social Class”, with the greatest resonance for modern social theorists revolve around the relationship between citizenship, rights and markets. For Marshall, “the universal status of citizenship” was a plane of equality such that “all who possess the status (of citizenship) are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed”. Rights were embodied in a common culture and enforced by state power. Marshall believed that, gradually, one particular kind of rights, “social rights”, would come to limit the power of the market. While markets would continue to exist and to generate social inequality, government redistribution would increasingly expand the plane of equality to include the most important aspects of material and cultural life. The distinctive feature of these social rights according to Marshall is that they were not exemptions, privileges or paternalistic solicitude for those excluded from what he labels the “national community”, but social rights were benefits given to members of the community to encourage and facilitate their continued participation.

In August 1992 Brazil was swept by a series of protest demonstrations to demand the impeachment on corruption charges of the country's first elected president in thirty years. The principal protagonists of the rallies were high school and college students who turned out in massive numbers for exuberant, hastily organized marches that closed down the principal avenues of Brazil's major cities. The rallies joined heterogeneous sectors of young people, many with no prior experience of political activism, who became known as the caras pintadas (painted faces) for the improvised, carnavelesque gesture of painting their faces with the colors of the Brazilian flag. In the words of Lindberg Farias, president of the National Union of Students (UNE), “Our faces were diverse. From those wearing Che Guevara T-shirts to the frequenters of shopping centers. Student researchers on scholarships, together with heavy metal fans and skateboarders”.

While scholarly discussions of citizenship, social movements and racial identity-formation have generally remained distinct, these social institutions and processes are intimately connected. Official policies of exclusion from citizenship according to race have drawn boundaries solidifying subordinated racial identity, which then forms the basis for collective action in response to shifting state policies. Forms of domination are thus two-edged; exclusion of officially specified groups has the unintended consequence of defining, legitimating and provoking group identity and mobilization, forging struggles for inclusion between state agents and emerging political actors. This dynamic has generally been overlooked by those theorists of social movements, who have focused on relative deprivation, resource mobilization and responses to political opportunities, without explaining the related process of identity formation.

After the collapse of the long-standing Tokugawa regime (1603–1867), Japan under the Meiji emperor (1867–1912) rapidly implemented the process of modern nation-building by effectively utilizing the venerable institution of the emperor (Tennō) as its new national symbol. Following the imperial restoration, the Meiji government abolished the socioeconomic and political privileges of the samurai class, namely its exclusive right to bear arms, hold office and receive hereditary stipends. By 1900, Japan had already equipped itself with a modern Constitution that defined citizens' rights and obligations, a parliamentary system, an updated judicial system, universal education, a restructured national and local bureaucracy, national standing army, private ownership of land, and a nation-wide taxation system. None of these institutions had existed prior to 1868. All of the developmental innovations listed above were instituted within little more than a quarter century after the collapse of their predecessor's political structures. Before the Meiji restoration, Japanese society had been governed exclusively by its hereditary samurai elites for two and a half centuries. It was only during the early Meiji period – a little more than two decades or so – that the concept of kokumin (usually translated as “citizen”, more literally “country-person”) entered the popular vocabulary for the first time in Japanese history. The complex social and political dynamics of this initial period of development for Japanese citizenship rights is the primary object of my inquiry.

In April 1793, France was waging war both inside and outside its borders. Over the previous year, the French government had taken up arms against Austria, Sardinia, Prussia, Great Britain, Holland and Spain. In its first seizure of new territory since the Revolution began in 1789, it had recently annexed the previously Austrian region we now call Belgium. Revolutionaries had dissolved the French monarchy in September 1792, then guillotined former king Louis XVI in January 1793. If France spawned violence in victory, it redoubled domestic bloodshed in defeat; a major French loss to Austrian forces at Neerwinden on 18 March 1793, followed by the defection of General Dumouriez, precipitated both a call for expanded military recruitment and a great struggle for control of the revolutionary state. April saw the formation of the Committee of Public Safety, fearsome instrument of organizational combat. France's domestic battle was to culminate in a Jacobin seizure of power.