Institutions and public opinion are invested in intimacy, which is also at the core of individ- ual and collective choices, actions, grievances, and claims that can be taking shape as forms of inclusive performative citizenship. What this means is that citizenship is both a “practice: it is more what individuals do than what individuals have” (Odasso 2021, 76), and a “rela- tionship, inflected by identity, social positioning, cultural assumptions, institutional practices, and a sense of belonging” (Yuval Davis and Werbner 1999, 4). This web of relationships and practices can be further explored by employing an intersectional lens as both a methodological and analytical tool that helps to further clarify intimate citizenship,which Plummer himself considered a “loose term” (1995, 151).
Here I argue that an intersectional intimate citizenship project should disentangle the con- trasting, yet somehow conflicting, social mechanisms that coalesce around identity positioning, power relations, and “domains of powers – structural, disciplinary, cultural and interpersonal” (Collins and Bilge 2016, 200). To empirically explore what an array of intersectional projects and related methods concerning intimate citizenship consist of this chapter proposes a reflex- ion at the crossroads of migration, politics of belonging, and regimes1 of intersection. Firstly, I identify important transversal issues and methodologies that marked scholarship on intimate citizenship and lay the groundwork for remaking an intersectional intimate citizenship’s project. Secondly, yet little explored through the prism of intimate citizenship, I posit that migration is an illuminating domain for understanding the manifold intersections of domains of powers drawn by the interplay of borders and social boundaries. Public discourse around the migration apparatus and the subsequent social representations outline the specific matrix of inequalities and domination that impact, expose, and reshape (some) the geography of intima- cies on the way to gain full national membership and belongingness. Thanks to empirical case studies concerning binational heterosexual unions2 and the manifold discourses surrounding them, I propose empirical scenes that help to capture the micro, meso, and macro levels of an “intersectional regime perspective” (i.e., securitization, economization, humanitarianism of migration) along with more investigated lines of oppression (Amelina and Horvath 2020), whichconcern the public intimate life of “Others” and their beloved ones in every day. The conclusion suggests avenues for future research and advocates for reinforcing the dialogue with civil society.