The idea of citizenship has played a prominent role in recent political debate. But how is common citizenship possible in societies that seem increasingly prone to cultural fragmentation along ethnic and other lines? The paper distinguishes three conceptions of citizenship – liberal, libertarian and republican – and asks how far each is able to respond to cultural pluralism. The liberal conception, exemplified by Rawls, interprets citizenship in terms of a set of principles that everyone has reason to accept; but Rawls fails to show why everyone should give political priority to the citizen perspective as he defines it. The libertarian conception views the citizen as a rational consumer who through contract and choice can gain access to a range of public goods. This caters to pluralism, but at the cost of eroding the idea of citizenship as a common status enjoyed by all members of society. The republican conception sees the citizen as someone who plays an active role in shaping his or her society through public discussion. Contrary to the claims of critics such as I. M. Young, this does not require the imposition of norms of impartiality and publicity which exclude certain cultural groups. This conception offers the best prospect of developing a political consensus to which all groups can subscribe.