T.H. Marshalls Theory of Citizenship

T.H. marshalls system of CitizenshipCritically discuss T. H. marshalls theory of citizenship as adumbrate in Citizenship and fond Class (1949/1992).At the sum of the study of citizenship in modern Britain is the pioneering work of T.H. Marshall (Faulks, 1998). T.H. Marshall proposed an extremely influential theory in regards to citizenship (Dwyer, 2010). Through his analysis of citizenship, Marshall has to be declare as identifying an original theoretical stand point from which to understand a genial phenomenon (Held and Thompson, 1989). Few British Social Scientists other than Marshall have forthwith considered the concept of citizenship and made it their central focus in their work (Lister, 2010). Therefore, it has been Marshalls contribution that has been considered a starting point for further research into the theater of citizenship offices (Held and Thompson, 1989). Furthermore, as Roche (1992) has identified, Marshalls writings stimulate a central text which he ha s labelled the Dominant paradigm within citizenship theory in Britain (Faulks, 1998).When critiquing the work of Marshall it is important to recognise how defining citizenship is integral to understanding the concepts expressed in his work and others to date. Marshall defined citizenship as full favorable rank of a confed periodtion (Marshall, 1963 72). Marshall then clarified that full citizenship status involved membership of a national community (Dwyer, 2010). Marshalls importation was that each individual considered a citizen could, therefore, expect certain rights of entitlement from the state and in return would be expected to uphold certain standards or duties within the community to be considered a citizen. As the definition of citizenship has developed over the years so has the concepts of which it encompasses. As such, when critiquing Marshalls work it is important to acknowledge the era during which the theories considered were proposed as noned by Dwyer (2010). The circumstances during the time of this essay were substantially different to those of modern society within Britain. Marshalls work was considered interest the Second World War and the implantment of the stigmatize war welfare settlement (Dwyer, 2010). Consequently, this has led to critical discussion of Marshalls theories regarding citizenship and its value by a number of academics to date (Alcock, 1989 Delanty, 2000 Dwyer, 2010 and Lister, 2010).Marshall considers each aspect by analysing each address historically to the development for rights. Marshall outlined three interlinked elements of rights that took the form of cultivated, governmental and fond rights (Lister, 2010). The concept of civil rights in Britain came to prominence during the eighteenth century and includedthe rights necessary for individual granting immunity, liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude valid contractors, and the right to justice(M arshall, 1963 74).Discussion of political rights followed during the nineteenth century, which included, the right to vote and stand for political office (Marshall, 1949/1992). The last-place element of rights was concluded with the possession of social rights to fully categorise somebody as a citizen. The concept of social rights developed primarily in the post Second World War period. Marshalls definition of social rights has undergone much scrutiny due to his ambiguous theoretical perspective. Powell (2002) and Dwyer (2010) in particular mark on this lack of clarity, He is clear that there is no overarching universal principle that emphatically defines what citizenship grants or requires(Dwyer, 201039).As Marshall (1949/92) highlights on several occasions, civil citizenship rights are entirely of the conditions of a free trade economy, including a free labour market. Conversely, Marshall appears to be rather aware of the contradictions within the various strands of citizenship , although the aspects see to interlink it would seem they do not always agree. Potential contradictions among social and civil citizenship, Marshall openly discussed in terms of the conflict between citizenship and class (Bagguley, 2013).As Turner (1993) indicates, Marshalls analysis of capitalism versus democracy contained a number of ambiguities, but as a whole, Marshall powerfully argued that the welfare state would limit the negative impact of class differences on individual life-chances. Ultimately this would enhance the individuals commitment to the system. Additionally, the era of which social rights were development may affect how some individuals may interpret them (Lister, 2010).The development of civil freedoms was a crucial step in the undoing of the hierarchical gross limitations of status or duty to an individuals social superiors (Lister, 2010). Civil freedoms were also a necessary foundation for the later development of the second guinea pig of rights noteworth y by Marshall as political rights.Marshall acknowledges four major aims to his essay. Firstly, he examines whether citizenship is compatible with the class structure in a capitalistic society such as Britain. Although he states this is possible, individuals such as Faulks, (1998) feel he is cautious in stating this. The tension between citizenship and capitalism arises out of the occurrence that citizenship highlights equating, while capitalism presumes inequality (Dwyer, 2010). For Marshall, the compatibility of citizenship with capitalism was due to social rights by civilising the impact of the market (Faulks, 1998). Marshall identifies the increase of incomes, the growth of savings and the success of jalopy production as enabling society to redistribute wealth and social power (Lister, 2010). Developments such as the progressive tax system and the use of heavy aid are shown to reduce the influence of class, effectively, creating social justice via social rights (Held and Th ompson, 1989). As his second consideration, rightfully, Marshall argues that citizenship in Britain cannot be fully achieved without altering market operations of the time (Faulks, 1998). Thirdly, Marshall identifies the shift to rights away from responsibilities and the effect of this, and he considered this to be the most important aspect of citizenship in modern Britain (Somers, 2004). Finally, Marshall attempts to establish the limits of social equality and determine just how far the struggle for social justice could realistically go (Tilly, 1996). Marshall contended an image of an ideal citizenship and thereby, a last towards which aspirations can be directed. T.H. Marshalls approach to social citizenship has been regarded as a democratic socialist view. As Delanty (2002) recognised, social democracy and Marshalls egalitarian liberalism had several aspects in common. Other influential thinkers such as Richard Titmuss shared a similar passion within the social democratic usan ce (Dwyer, 2010). Dwyer (2010) and Alcock and Oakley (2001) have identified the approaches of Titmuss and Marshall, who share several resemblances. Each writer showed a considerable importance to universal unrestricted welfare rights. Furthermore, both Marshall and Titmuss, outlined the identification and consideration of the class struggle which is notably identified as an important aspect of the development of social citizenship. Marshall and Titmuss also suggest that the development of British industrial capitalism is of greater significance for the emergence of social rights (Dwyer, 2010). Additionally, the two writers shared the same optimism about the motivations that underpin human nature. Titmuss and Marshall both assumed that citizens would mostly behave in a responsible manner and look to enhance their own lives, and the lives of fellow members of their national community, rather than abuse all benefits that social rights may bring for individual gain (Alcock and Oakley, 2001)As Dwyer (2010), rightfully states, personal interpretation is ultimately what pins down the decision about whether or not the work of T.H. Marshall can be seen as social democratic. Key themes that are central to Social Democracy have been identified as the advancement of equality, freedom, social integration and universal rights to welfare (Held and Thompson, 1989 Turner, 1993). Arguably Marshalls (1949/92) endorsement of these beliefs identifies him as a social democrat of sorts, even if perhaps he moved away from this position in later life. Delanty (2000) refers to Marshalls views as a socially democratic left wing liberal approach to citizenship.Marshalls Citizenship theory, although seen as pioneering, has been the forefront of many critiques (Dwyer, 2010). As Tilly (1996) states, Marxist critics of Marshalls work on citizenship are widely known, describing the analysis Marshall has given as superficial as it does not highlight, a citizens right to control economic pro duction, which has been argued as a necessity for continual shared affluence (Somers, 1994). Furthermore, feminist perspectives as stated by Lister (2008) states Marshalls theory as organism extremely confined in being solely on men, while not acknowledging, the social rights of women. (Held and Thompson 1989). Therefore, Marshalls Theory reflects that of only the working class white male perspective (Lister, 2003). His contention that in England all pile were free and had civil rights can be seen as fabricated, as at the time only men had legal freedom or the capability to exercise political or civil rights (Lister, 2008). Additionally, Marshall does not discuss other aspects of society including second class citizens and gender and racial hierarches (Tilly, 1996). Although Marshall did not discuss the issues associated with second class citizenry, he acknowledged that citizenship itself plays a part in social inequality (Marshall, 1942/92). As once noted earlier it is important to understand the circumstances during the time of this essay were substantially different to those of modern society within Britain (Dwyer, 2010) Furthermore, Neo-liberal perspectives and free market ideology asserts that the non-involvement of the state from economic protection is the foundation of a society with strength and goodness (Held and Thompson, 1989). Consequently they are entirely opposed to the social rights proposed by Marshall (Turner, 1993). Neo-liberals instead suggest that welfare programs such as some of the social responsibilities discussed by Marshall to help the poor in effectively utilising their civil and political rights, have promoted passivity among the poor without improving life chances and have created a culture of welfare dependency (Held and Thompson, 1989 Roche, 1992).Citizenship, or the equality of rights it generates, becomes an integrative process counteracting the tendencies towards social division and conflict generated by the economic system. For Marshall, inequality was not an issue within itself. His focus was to find an acceptable balance between the forces for inequality and those for equality (Lewis 1998). Marshall distinguished between areas of the welfare state where greater degrees of inequality where acceptable and those where this was not the case, as the contrasts between the health service system and legal aid highlight (Marshall, 1949/92). Furthermore, this illustrated that for Marshall, citizenship constructs an affinity between rights and duties. However, this balance is not distributed equally among all who might make the claim to citizenship (Lewis, 1998).To conclude, while considering whether citizenship is compatible with the class structure in a capitalist society such as Britain, Marshall seems cautious in stating that this is possible (Faulks, 1998). Marshall provided an evolutionary view of citizenship, developing with various stages and levels to reach its final embodiment in the principles of B ritish welfare politics (Turner, 1993). The extent of rights and duties that citizenship entails is open to on-going debate and has been challenged over time. Nonetheless, Marshall seems positive about the enrichment of citizenship at the time of writing (Dwyer, 2010). Initially, Marshall put the relationship between the citizen, the state and the social welfare at the centre of his analysis. Marshall achieved this by his lead of comprising citizenship into three interlinking aspects. Marshall viewed civil, political and social rights as a result of an evolutionary process, with each element overlapping (Turner, 1993). Marshalls citizenship is a status rendered to people who can claim full citizenship of a community. Although, as noted by Lewis (1998) Marshall did not clearly state a criteria to which people may acquire such membership. Furthermore, there is a long and ongoing debate as to whether Marshall intended his historical analysis to be see as a general theory of citizensh ip or whether the essay was just a commentary on the developments of citizenship within England (Faulks, 1998).Bibliography.Alcock, P. (1989). Why Citizenship and New Welfare Rights passing play new Hope for Welfare in Britain, Critical Social constitution, Vol 19, no 2, pp 32-43Alcock, P. and Oakley, A. (2001). Introduction, in P.Alcock, H Glennerster, A. Oakley and A. Sinfield (eds) Welfare and Wellbeing Richard Titmusss contribution to social policy, Bristol The Policy Press, pp1-9Bagguley, P. (2013) Industrial citizenship a re-conceptualisation and case study of the UK, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 33 no 5/6, pp.265 279Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship in a Global era Society Culture and Politics, Buckingham Open University PressDwyer, P. (2010). Understanding Social Citizenship Themes and perspectives for policy and practice. 2nd ed. Great Britain The Policy Press.Faulks, K (1998). Citizenship in Modern Britain. Edinburgh Edinburgh University Pres s.Held, D. and Thompson, J. (1989). Social Theory of Modern Societies Anthony Giddens and His Critics. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Lewis, G. (1998). Citizenship. In Hughes, G. Imagining Welfare Futures. London Routledge Ltd. pp 103-50.Lister, R (2003). Citizenship Feminist Perspectives. 2nd ed. New York New York University Press. 2003.Lister, R (2010). Understanding Theories and Concepts in Social Policy. Great Britain The Policy Press.Marshall, T.H. (1949/92) Citizenship and social class, in T.H. Marshall and T.Bottomore, Citizenship and social class, London Pluto PressMarshall, T.H. and Bottomore, T. (1992) Citizenship and social class, London Pluto PressPowell, M. (2002) The Hidden History of Social Citizenship, Citizenship Studies, Vol 6, no 3, pp 229-45Somers, M. R. (1994), Rights, Relationality, and Membership Rethinking the Making and Meaning of Citizenship. Law Social Inquiry, 19 63114.Tilly, C (1996). Citizenship, Identity and Social History. International Review of Social History, 40, pp 1-17.Turner, B (1993). Citizenship and Social Theory. London Sage Publications Ltd.Student Exam number Y82850301