Citizenship as an Inclusive Concept - Essay Example

HOW FAR DOES T.H. MARSHALL’S VIEW OF CITIZENSHIP AS AN INCLUSIVE CONCEPT APPLY TO CITIZENSHIP IN CONTEMPORARY BRITAIN? INTRODUCTION: Accordingto Bulmer; Rees (1996: p.xii), T.H. Marshall’s book Citizenship and Social Class (1950) is the only work of post-war British Sociology, that with its boldness of perspective and conceptualization, can be included with classical texts denoting the origins of modern sociology. Definition of citizenship: The sociologist Thomas Humphrey Marshall (1893-1981) stated that, “Citizenship is a status bestowed upon those who are full members of a community. All those who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which that status is endowed” (Dwyer, 2004: p.1965). His major thesis was that the basic equalities that we all share as ‘citizens’ in modern western industrialized democracies have the effect of reducing or ameliorating basic inequalities. In T.H. Marshall’s view, citizenship should mean an enhancement in the concrete substance of civil life, a general reduction of risk and insecurity, an equalisation between the more and less fortunate people in all areas and at all levels (p.1965). The main purpose of citizenship according to T.H. Marshall is to achieve a fuller measure of equality, an enrichment of the various aspects of which the status is made, and an increase in the number of those on whom the status of citizenship is bestowed. Equalisation is not so much between classes as between individuals within a population which is now taken as one class. Equality of status is considered to be more important than equality of income (Dwyer, 2004: p.1965). The rights of citizenship: Dwyer (2004: p.1965) states that T.H. Marshall had delineated three rights, as integral to citizenship: civil (legal), political and social: The civil element is composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom – liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid contracts, and the right to justice. The political element is the right to participate in the exercise of political power, which includes universal suffrage, which is the right to vote without restrictions such as property qualifications, and the right to hold public office. The social element is the whole range from the right to basic economic welfare and security, to the right to share in the full in the social heritage, and to live a civilized life according to the standards prevailing in society (Dwyer, 2004: p.1965). The duties of citizenship: Corresponding to the rights are the duties of citizenship: paying taxes and insurance contributions, education and military service, living the life of a good citizen, working to promote the welfare of the community, etc. DISCUSSION: It is necessary to review and evaluate the significance of citizenship in contemporary Britain, and to discover to what extent there is inclusion of women, immigrants, youth, ethnic minorities, based on T.H. Marshall’s view of citizenship as an inclusive concept. Inclusion and exclusion: According to Grant (2003: p.15), a narrow legal definition of citizenship means the formal membership of and recognition and protection of an individual by a state. This legal definition does not apply to everyone who resides within the state. Indeed, one current controversy is regarding the growing number of people who live in: for example, the United Kingdom and are denied legal citizenship. So-called ‘aliens’ are not granted the same rights to live, work and vote within the state as are British citizens. A succession of nationality and asylum laws since the 1960s have restricted rights of legal citizenship, due to the United Kingdom’s post-Imperial heritage of immigration, unemployment and racialism. In this concern, the idea of citizenship excludes as much as it includes, and this concept goes back several centuries. Ancient history of citizenship form the roots for the present-day concept of citizenship: In ancient Athenian democracy, citizenship was granted only to some adult males and not to resident foreigners, women, slaves or children (Grant, 2003: pp.15-16). In the Athenian city-state of the 5th century B.C., the political decision makers in return had a duty to the state, to undertake military service, attend festivals and act as jurors in the courts. Similarly, in the United Kingdom today, an individual who is on the voting register, may be called up for compulsory jury service as a civic responsibility. The concept of citizenship implies both rights and duties today, as it did in ancient times. In ancient Greece, the formal concept of citizenship granted both the right to participate in political decision making within the community and imposed some obligation of duty, such as: to hold public office if chosen. (The Latin root of the word for citizen: civis is derived from the verb ‘to summon’: cieo). The right of political participation was also seen as a duty. In the present-day context, it is seen that an individual’s demand for freedom or privacy implies their duty to respect others’ freedom or privacy equally. Welfare rights imply the obligation of being taxed to pay for them. Voting is regarded not only as a right, but also as a legal and civic obligation by some countries today, like Belgium and Australia (Grant, 2003: p.16). Republicanism followed by the individualism of liberal ideas: Civic republicanism: As stated by Faulks (1998: p.18), the theories of civic republicanism are seen to be critical of liberal conceptions of citizenship. From the ancient times of Greek polis and in particular the political ideas of Aristotle, the concept was revived during the fifteenth century Renaissance by figures such as Machiavelli, and again two centuries later by Rousseau. More recently, the concept has been the theoretical starting point of the communitarian critique of liberal individualism, associated with such people as MacIntyre (1981). Unlike liberalism, the republican tradition starts with the assumption that human beings are indivisible from community, that is, they are only truly human in a social context. The only path to the good life is through communal political life. Individualism in the abstract liberal sense, tends to develop only when for some reason communities break down (Glaser, 1995: 27) as quoted in Faulks (1998: p.18). Whilst the liberal citizen seeks protection from the state, the republican citizen seeks to serve it. The problem with liberal citizenship is that it generates a weak sense of obligation towards the political community and other individuals (p.19). Social liberalism: T.H. Marshall’s work represents the final stage of the development of social liberalism as a concept based on classical liberal thought. Whether Marshall’s theory of citizenship manages to overcome the problems of liberal theory identified above, has been studied (p.31). The development of social liberalism from the end of the nineteenth century onwards, was directly related to the dramatic social changes which were re-shaping Britain’s economy and society. One of the primary criticisms of liberal theories of citizenship, is that they have conceived of citizenship in a way that fails to address the relationship between citizenship and the political economy of Britain in a satisfactory fashion. T.H. Marshall failed to explore the relationship between social change, capitalism and citizenship, and therefore fails to generate a convincing theory of citizenship grounded in the structural inequalities of British society (Faulks1998: 98). Liberalism treats the individual abstractly, and its conception of social order is founded upon a problematic and contradictory relationship between the state, the market and the individual (pp.175-176). The wealth-producing market is seen to be superior to the potentially oppressive and discriminatory nature of political decision making. The promise of liberal citizenship is that it will produce security for all citizens whilst maintaining their autonomy, freedom and individuality. The liberal state is conceived as the best framework for a rational society, and the market as the best guarantee of prosperity for all citizens. The market is coercive and does not allow all individuals to compete on equal terms. In liberal societies like Britain the market and its related state form is structured in a way which discriminates against certain groups such as ethnic minorities, women and the working class. An important criterion for the development of liberalism in Britain has been its imperial past (Faulks, 1998: p.185). The origins of democracy: According to Held; Thompson (1989: p.16), Anthony Giddens takes issue with aspects of Marshall’s analysis on several grounds. By doing so he tries to provide an alternative account of the substantive problems, conflict areas and struggles of democracy. Giddens argues that the origins of democracy have to be understood in relation to the expansion of state power, from the late sixteenth century. This led to the progressive reliance of the state on new relations with its subjects – relations based on consent rather than force. In Gidden’s view, citizenship was a very fragile and contested affair. Citizenship rights have been obtained only through social struggle. The authors Held; Thompson (1989: p.17) feel that there are categories of rights which neither Marshall nor Gideon have examined, where social movements which are not class-based have sought to reform power centres according to their own interests and objectives. An important example is ‘reproductive right’ at the centre of the women’s movement. Citizenship is formed and moulded based on complex patterns of national and international relations and processes which neither Marshall nor Gideon have grasped, according to Held; Thompson (1989: p.17). The author stresses that the idea of citizenship and the theory of democracy have to be rethought in relation to substantial changes in political, social and economic life, which derives from among other things: the dynamics of the world economy, the rapid growth of transnational links, and major changes to the nature of international law. Sociological usage of the term ‘citizenship’: According to Turner; Hamilton (1994: pp.1-2), radical critics of citizenship often argue that citizenship functions not as an integrated secular religion, but as a political means of suppressing protest and opposition. Therefore, the sociological study of the functions of citizenship, has as a consequence, been tied to the debate about reformism. That is: can the inequalities of the market place be reinforced by legal and political change within a capitalist system of property. Critics object that public provision of entitlements and benefits to weaker sections like the poor, is now done through neutral mechanisms, which does not require direct commitment to strangers in the public arena. Citizenship, in fact, encourages cynical indifference to the frail, the marginalised and the weak, because through the mechanism of taxation, our obligations to the poor are distributed through the remote and neutral mechanism of the state. There is indifference to those in need because, the critics say, the welfare state which is a public agency looks after the needs of children over a particular age, thus absolving fathers of all responsibility, similarly single women are also helped by the welfare state. These sections of society continue to live in poverty as consequences of a misguided welfare system. It is argued that public welfare paradoxically produces private indifference. Turner; Hamilton (1994: p.2) state that the functions of social citizenship are closely connected with the nature and functions of social welfare in capitalist societies. For weak sections like women, immigrants and ethnic minorities, the status of citizenship is denied, and the concept of ‘exclusion’ is the result. Mann (1987) as quoted in Turner; Hamilton (1994: p.2) is of the view that citizenship is a specific example of a ruling class strategy in which the welfare system functions to integrate the urban working class into the emerging industrial capitalist societies of Europe in the modern period. There are certain critical functions of citizenship in the emergence of modern democracies, and the nature and functions of citizenship varies according to the different socio- political systems. One of the historical or causal origin of citizenship is that it is the outcome of the decline of feudal and slave societies and therefore directly related to the emergence of the modern industrial capitalist society. In more sociological terms, citizenship is both a constituent of modernity and an effect of the processes of modernisation. All the changes which have undermined traditional society: urbanisation, secularisation, industrialisation and the modernisation of culture, have resulted in the concept of citizenship, as a modern institution (Turner; Hamilton, 1994: p.2). T.H. Marshall argued that the concept and reality of citizenship are among the great driving forces of the modern era (Held; Thompson, 1989: p.163). Political reform in each of the three domains of the rights of citizens: civil, political and social, can modify the worst aspects of economic inequality, and can therefore make the modern capitalist system and the liberal polity more equal. Marshall’s thesis is that the successful development of citizenship rights has contained or abated the excess of class inequality stemming from the capitalist market system. That is, the expansion of citizenship has remoulded the class system. Social citizenship and welfare: Dwyer (2004: p.1991) states that according to T.H. Marshall (1949), the founding of the welfare state in the late 1940s, brought about the establishment of social citizenship centered around the universal right of citizens to an extensive set of state-guaranteed social and economic provisions. It was Marshall’s assertion that social citizenship would ensure the inclusion and full participation of even the poorest members of society. When assessing both the levels and causes of inequality within a society, the dynamics of social exclusions or divisions based on class, gender, race, disability, and age are taken into account, in relation to social citizenship (Dwyer, 2004: p.1991). Social citizenship is the main concept of citizenship, and rights to welfare continue to be regarded by many as the most important aspect of ‘effective citizenship’. Janes; Braham (2002: p.211) state that critics of Marshall would argue that in Britain the liberal framework that underpinned post-war welfare, assumed the social and political dominance of a white middle class. As a result, Marshall’s model of social citizenship has not been responsive to the social aspirations of minority ethnic groups, especially those communities that we recruited in the 1950s and the 1960s from the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent to serve Britain’s economy. Citizenship and social class: In T.H. Marshall’s essay Welfare and Citizenship (1964), published in Janes; Braham (2002: p.234), societies in which citizenship is a developing institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against which achievement can be measured and towards which aspiration can be directed. Development of the concept of citizenship will result in increasing equality, and in increasing the number of those on whom the status of citizenship is bestowed. On the other hand, social class is a system of inequality. Like citizenship, social class also can be based on a set of ideals, beliefs and values. Therefore the impact of citizenship on social class takes the form of a conflict between opposing principles. Citizenship has been a developing institution in England since the seventeenth century. Its growth coincides with the rise of capitalism, which is a system not of equality but of inequality. In the twentieth century, citizenship and the capitalist class system have been at war (p.234). There is one broad difference between two different types of class. In the first type, class is based on a hierarchy of status, and the difference between one class and another is expressed in terms of legal rights and of established customs which have the essential binding character of law. In its extreme form, such a system divides a society into a number of distinct, hereditary human species: patricians, plebeians, serfs, slaves and so forth. Class is an institution in its own right, and the whole structure has the quality of a plan. It is endowed with purpose and meaning and accepted as a natural order (p.234). There are no common standards or common rights between citizenship and class system. The rights with which the general status of citizenship was invested were extracted from the hierarchical status system of social class, robbing it of its essential substance. The equality implicit in the concept of citizenship, even though limited in content legitimate the persisting inequalities of social class. National justice and a law common to all must eventually destroy class justice, and personal freedom as a universal birthright must drive out serfdom (p.235). Citizenship is incompatible with medieval feudalism, is clear. It is true that class still functions. Social inequality is regarded as necessary and purposeful. It provides the incentive to effort and designs the distribution of power. Political citizenship: Max Weber (1978) and Otto Hintze (1987) as quoted in Turner; Hamilton (1994: p.2) state that political citizenship has a number of preconditions such as the collapse of feudal estates, the development of the money economy, the emergence of autonomous cities in medieval society, the rationalization of the legal system (particularly in continental Europe) and the emergence of certain norms and values which are universalistic. According to Walby (1997: p.13), the development for policies for gender equity and welfare policies that affect women’s capacity to combine work and family life, depends significantly on the effective representation of women’s interests in political decision making, a process which requires their actual political inclusion. Acquisition of political citzenship is not yet a practical reality for all women, and whether women are able to acquire the full range of citizenship rights, is still not certain. The changing role of women: Until 1882, although women contributed economically to the family’s wage, and played a significant role in many capacities, women in Britain had fewer rights in law than men (Home Office, 2005: p.44). Her earnings and personal property that she brought to the marriage, automatically belonged to her husband. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, an increasing number of women campaigned for greater rights, especially the right to vote, which they were given in 1928. Women were discriminated against at the workplace and for college admissions. During the 1960s and 1970s, increasing pressure from women for equal rights, resulted in laws being passed in their favour. A feminist theory of citizenship: the article addresses citizenship’s exclusionary power in relation to both nation-state outsiders and insiders. With regard to the former, a feminist theory and politics of citizenship follows an internationalist agenda. With regard to the latter, it offers the concept of a differentiated universalism which lies at the heart of citizenship with the demands of a politics of difference. Also taken into consideration are citizenship’s exclusionary tensions which have served to exclude women and minority groups from full citizenship, both from within and from without the nation state (Lister, 1997: p.28). According to Canning (2006: p.16), probing the boundaries of belonging, the entitlements and exclusions, that are inherent in citizenship, feminist scholars have differentiated between citizenship as legal status and as lived practice, and have emphasized the fact that not only formal citizens, but also those excluded from citizenship rights, take up languages of citizenship in order to stake claims upon states. Women in Britain today: Women in Britain today make up 51% of the population and 45% of the workforce. Girls, as a whole leave school today with better qualifications than boys, and now there are more women than men at University. Employment opportunities for women now are much greater than they were in the past. There is strong evidence that attitudes are changing and that women are doing a much wider range of work than before (Home Office, 2005: p.44). Youth: In Britain, the government has been taking various steps to include young people and to give them greater civic involvement. These developments linked citizenship education to increasing social inclusion and lifelong learning leaving local government and the youth service no alternative but to acquire ‘citizenship’ programmes (Jeffs, 2005: Encyclopedia of Informal Education). CONCLUSION: In this paper, a discussion is presented about all the aspects of British citizenship, its development from early origins, its relationship to social class, the inclusion and exclusion parts of the concept, and many other related components, using as a benchmark, T.H. Marshall’s work Citizenship and Social Class (1950). It has been observed that great steps forward have been taken in the development of citizenship to include all strata of society to form a homogenous whole. Even so, some sections of society continue to be sidelined and excluded, for instance immigrants, ethnic minorities and to some extent women also who have not acquired all rights of equality with men. T.H. Marshall wrote about the three rights and related duties of all citizens. In Britain today there is more emphasis on obligations and duties rather than on entitlements and rights. REFERENCES Bulmer, Martin; Rees, Anthony M. (1996). Citizenship Today: The Contemporary Relevance of T.H. Marshall. London, Routledge. Canning, Kathleen. (2006). Gender History in Practice: Historical Perspectives on Bodies, Class and Citizenship. New York: Cornell University Press. Dwyer, Peter. (2004). Understanding Social Citizenship: Themes and Perspectives for Policy and Practice. Great Britain: The Policy Press. Faulks, Keith. (1998). Citizenship in Modern Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Grant, Moyra. (2003). Key Ideas in Politics. United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes. Home Office. (2005). Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship. United Kingdom: The Stationery Office Publisher. Held, David; Thompson, Brookshire. (1989). Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and His Critics. Cambridge University Press. Janes, Linda; Braham, Peter. (2002). Social Differences and Divisions. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. Jeffs, Tony. (2005). “Citizenship, Youth Work and Democratic Renewal”. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Web site: www.infed.org/association/citizenship_youth_work_democratic_renewal Lister, Ruth; “Citizenship: Towards a Feminist Synthesis”. (Yuval-Davis, Nira, Ed) (1997). Citizenship: Feminist Review 57. United Kingdom: Routledge. Turner, Bryan Stanley; Hamilton, Peter. (1994). Citizenship: Critical Concepts. London: Routledge. Walby, Sylvia. (1997). Gender Transformations. London, Routledge. Read More