T.H. Marshalls Theory of Citizenship

T.H. marshals Theory of CitizenshipCritically discuss T. H. marshals hypothesis of citizenship as outlined in Citizenship and tender Class (1949/1992).At the centre of the development of citizenship in modern Britain is the pioneering ply of T.H. marshal (Faulks, 1998). T.H. marshal proposed an extremely influential theory in regards to citizenship (Dwyer, 2010). Through his analysis of citizenship, marshal has to be acknow directged as identifying an original theoretical stand point from which to understand a hearty phenomenon (Held and Thompson, 1989). few British Social Scientists other than Marshall have directly considered the concept of citizenship and made it their central focussing in their make water (Lister, 2010). Therefore, it has been Marshalls division that has been considered a starting point for further explore into the subject of citizenship rights (Held and Thompson, 1989). Furthermore, as Roche (1992) has identified, Marshalls writings form a central text w hich he has labelled the Dominant paradigm inside citizenship theory in Britain (Faulks, 1998).When critiquing the work of Marshall it is important to know how defining citizenship is integral to understanding the concepts expressed in his work and others to date. Marshall defined citizenship as salutary social rank of a community (Marshall, 1963 72). Marshall then clarified that full citizenship status involved membership of a national community (Dwyer, 2010). Marshalls implication was that each individual considered a citizen could, at that placefore, transmit 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 much(prenominal), when critiquing Marshalls work it is important to acknowledge the era during which the theories considered were proposed as noned by Dwyer (2010). The mess during the time of this essay were substantially different to those of modern society within Britain. Marshalls work was considered following the Second World War and the establishment of the post war wellbeing settlement (Dwyer, 2010). hence, 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 approach historically to the development for rights. Marshall outlined triple interlinked elements of rights that took the form of cultured, semi policy-making and social rights (Lister, 2010). The concept of civilian rights in Britain came to prominence during the eighteenth century and includethe rights necessary for individual informaldom, liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude well-grounded contractors, and the r ight to on the dotice(Marshall, 1963 74).Discussion of political rights followed during the nineteenth century, which included, the right to vote and stand for political obligation (Marshall, 1949/1992). The final 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 spot. Powell (2002) and Dwyer (2010) in busy comment on this lack of clarity, He is clear that there is no overarching universal principle that decidedly 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 market economy, including a free labour market. Conversely, Marshall appears to be rather aware of the contradictions within the mixed strands of citizenship, although the aspects seem to interlink it would seem they do not always agree. Potential contradictions amidst social and civil citizenship, Marshall openly discussed in terms of the conflict between citizenship and come apart (Bagguley, 2013).As Turner (1993) indicates, Marshalls analysis of capitalist economy versus democracy contained a number of ambiguities, but as a whole, Marshall strongly 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 class-conscious primitive 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 type of rights noted 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 capitalist society such(prenominal) as Britain. Although he states this is possible, individuals such as Faulks, (1998) feel he is guarded in stating this. The tension between citizenship and capitalism arises out of the fact that citizenship highlights equality, while capitalism presumes contrariety (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 victor of mass production as enabling society to redistribute wealth and social power (Lister, 2010). Developments such as the progressive tax system and the use of legal aid are shown to reduce the deviate of class, effectively, creating social justice via social rig hts (Held and Thompson, 1989). As his second consideration, rightfully, Marshall argues that citizenship in Britain cannot be fully achieved without fixation 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 nigh 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 difference for social justice could realistically go (Tilly, 1996). Marshall contended an image of an ideal citizenship and thereby, a goal towards which aspirations can be directed. T.H. Marshalls approach to social citizenship has been regarded as a representative socialist view. As Delanty (2002) recognised, social democracy and Marshalls egalitarian sluttishism had several aspects in common. other(a) influential thinkers such as Richard Titmuss divided a similar passion wi thin the social elected tradition (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 enormousness 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 call forth 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 revilement any benefits that social rights may br ing for individual gain (Alcock and Oakley, 2001)As Dwyer (2010), rightfully states, personal reading 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 promotion 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 citi zens right to control frugal production, which has been argued as a necessity for continuous shared affluence (Somers, 1994). Furthermore, feminist perspectives as stated by Lister (2008) states Marshalls theory as being 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 statement that in England all people 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 sexuality and racial hierarches (Tilly, 1996). Although Marshall did not discuss the issues associated with second class citizenry, he acknowledged that citizenship itself plays a contribution in social inequality (Marshall, 1942 /92). As once noted earlier it is important to understand the muckle 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 political orientation asserts that the nonparticipation 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 div ision 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 through various stages and level s to reach its final physique in the principles of British 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 supreme 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 suggestion 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 histo rical analysis to be interpreted as a general theory of citizenship or whether the essay was just a definition on the developments of citizenship within England (Faulks, 1998).Bibliography.Alcock, P. (1989). Why Citizenship and saucily Welfare Rights Offer new Hope for Welfare in Britain, Critical Social Policy, 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 mess, 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 Age 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 Press.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 biography 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). Citiz enship, Identity and Social History. International Review of Social History, 40, pp 1-17.Turner, B (1993). Citizenship and Social Theory. London Sage Publications Ltd.bookman Exam number Y82850301