APathshata @QScreeren Introduction T. H. Marshall Citizenship is a status conferred upon an individual by virtue of his or her being full member of a community. In his study called Citizenship and Social Class (1950), one of the purposes of Marshall is to trace the historical evolution of the institution of citizenship in England since the latter part of the seventeenth century till the end of nineteenth century.Qaete bun, Introduction He concedes that the development of citizenship can be traced through the evolution of three elements, namely civil rights, political rights and social rights.Gl Jathshala MHRO OTST ee Introduction enth century, followed i the extension of political — a development held by Marshall, to be one of crucial importance in the nineteenth century, irrespective of the fact that universal adult franchise was not recognized in England till 1918.GQeseret inno, Introduction Tights- were sought to be revived with the development of public elementary education, but took a concrete shape only by the twentieth century.OReiseier iim Introduction social class. The stratification of society on different axes, based on a variety values and beliefs leads to emergence of social classes, which essentially signifies a system of inequality.é jathshala MHRD. Introduction ns clash of two contradictory forces. The historical period of evolution of citizen: in England coincides with the rise of capitalism, which is a system rooted in inequality between different social classes.a Jathshala Introduction \ 6.0 0-6. | dwells upon the im as to how these two oppositional principles. prospered alongside each other during this time. He looks at the reasons which made possible these two conflicting sets of values to not only grow and exist simultaneously, but also to act as allies in this historical process of fruition.fel ed inne, Introduction question assumes more importance since the the antagonism between citizenship and capitalism has sharpened.ie Civil Rights According to Marshall, the principle of equality has been core to the institution of citizenship since its inception. The historical evolution of citizenship coincided, as said before, with that of a capitalist system. QooveSQuster Civil Rights ) However, both the systems did not come into conflict with each other, that is, the gradual extension of equal citizenship rights to individuals in society did not clash with the inequalities engendered by capitalist 7 system.Gove ke This is because, as Marshall explains, the historical phase of development of citizenship rights was initiated by growth of civil rights that were central to the competitive market economy within capitalism.Cam gem. Civil Rights Civil rights ensured basic set of freedoms to an individual to enable him to live a life of his choice without any external interference. Part of the individual freedoms, was the essential right to engage in economic activities as a free, independent agent.Civil Rights The civil rights that unfolded during the early period, therefore proved to be crucial for a system of capitalism to grow. For example, one important civil right mentionable here is the freedom of an individual to enter into any contract of his choice.Qasr Civil Rights 1 One essential feature of capitalism is the modern contract between free and equal economic agents. Therefore, the initial phase of evolution of institution of citizenship as a system of equality provided a basis for an unequal system of capitalism to grow.Civil Rights 2 In this way, the growth of civil rights aided the development of a free market economy. The dominance of civil rights during the early phase of development of capitalism also helped to make its structural inequalities invisible.£ & Civil Rights f= The focus of civil rights was on enabling man as a rational agent, to pursue his interests and goals in life freely, and independent from any interference. Marshall says that freedom to pursue goals in life, does not imply any guarantee that those goals will be achieved.Civil Rights For example, inability of certain individuals to access education renders their right to freedom of speech ineffective, because in lack of education, they might not have something worthwhile to say, or make themselves even heard. Likewise, property right may lack any real substance for a poor man, as compared to a rich man.OReiseier = Civil Rights ) | | Therefore, systemic inequality within capitalism, disabled individuals from exercising their basic freedoms, and hence there was a need for positive intervention to make certain individuals enjoy their basic rights. Positive intervention or discrimination, like measures of economic welfare, was essentially social rights which had declined completely in mid- | nineteenth century.Birr, & Civil Rights However, gradual development of citizenship did ensure that the society moved progressively towards the egalitarian policies of the twentieth century. ||Gl jathshala MHRD, +O oSwTaT ee | Political Rights C ) | The political rights of the citizens were an outcome | | of growing national consciousness, strengthened | | by the institution of citizenship. Citizenship was | C based on the idea of membership of a community- ( ) | a community of free and equal men, protected by | | acommon law. |Gi athshala MHRD, FQ TSeieT ee Political Rights based on unity of free men, strengthened the feeling of patriotic nationalism. National | consciousness implied heightened public opinion —_ | ») | This common heritage of a progressive civilization | | concerning national life, and this necessitated | | gradual extension of political rights to all social | : classes in society.Gi athshala MHRD, OTST a Political Rights non (nin | As Marshall says, political rights were no longer restricted to the elite sections of society; rather, . they were gradually handed down to lower classes. Political rights in a democratic set-up like | | | public meetings, associations, campaigns, ( ) | newspapers etc. were made available to all social | + classes alike.Gi athshala MHAD, eQTSwTeT ee | Political Rights fo a ae rat ee ( ) { Marshall dwells upon the question whether I | extension of political rights challenged social I C ) * inequality inherent in the capitalist system. He i | says that the political rights failed to have any C | substantial effect on the hierarchy of class | | structure because the working class, even when | ( ) | widely enfranchised by the end of the nineteenth I century, did not know how to use their votes to their advantage.Gi jathshala MHRD, + QTSeTeaT ee | Political Rights CO Fo C +») | That political power, unlike the civil rights, could be | | a potent threat to the capitalist system, was | C | grasped neither by the elite classes nor the | working class. For the elite classes, the strength of ( ) | the capitalist system to resist any attack was aver- | | whelming. |Qa ba | Political Rights oN ee es ee, ( ) / In addition, was the general perception that | political education of the working masses would | bring them closer to the existing system itself. Educated masses would accept the underlying C | principles of the capitalist system, realizing that | j good can be achieved only by being part of the | | system. Therefore, the working masses would | strive for their progress through the civil rights that were conducive to the growth of capitalist system cr OwGQarerat oe Political Rights | | | + The extension of civil rights in the economic i sphere materialized in the form of right of | collective bargaining and this was a result of the | increasing political power ie working class in increasing political of the working class i | the later nineteenth century. |aQeaat me | Political Rights foo i a C ( ) / It was through collective bargaining that the | there remained crucial difference between workers could demand for better economic and | | C ) ! « collective bargaining- based as it was on the i ( ) | patance between the economic forcesinatree |! | market society- and the assertion by workers for | | / social status. However, as Marshall maintains, social justice on the basis of collective civil rights. Ss peeeyelete ee ee «es ee sc -@ athshala MHRD, eQTSweT ee Political Rights - Therefore, the mere acceptance of the right of working class of collective bargaining cannot be | | seen as a natural extension of civil rights. Rather, | | it saw to the transfer of an important political issue | to the civil sphere of citizenship, which aided, and not hinder, the growth of capitalism, having very | little impact on social inequality between social | | classes. / Eee eer ee =Quer | Political Rights | Therefore, the growth of institution of citizenship, crucially in the | spheres of civil and political rights, did not alter the structure of capitalist society in any substantial way.Reiser ore Political Rights Social inequality rendered the exercise of civil rights difficult for the working masses. On the other hand, the extension of political rights to the same, was a long drawn process which took a long time to produce results.g Garant See, | Political Rights The working classes had to wait long before they could learn how to use their political power to their advantage. Therefore, civil and Political rights, while aiming to reduce poverty and social inequality _ in society, did not succeed in altering the social and economic | structure that produced them in the first place.Gaerne (mun y eo Social Rights TENS Aa steps in the direction of establishing social rights were COPA Mauna eee Pee ener e te DY Cee te uae RUM Ld) elec eT NC eae Rd och lodee APathshataSQetnsnate bmn Social Rights Sei eu ces eae) este MT nee Nusa sa OR material life enjoyed by the rich. With industries ee CRUSE RAUL aS LeE people more than before, the possibility of a civilized Pree MCR er ce eee enn TS omegaara f=. Social Rights pre ele ane RL RLU TES SRL citizenship was partly responsible for fuffiling several Cee Se ues nce oe) Ciel Ren uk curutetfr Seve. Social Rights enn arcu ese Murcer cy Cena CRN ROC OMA) BONNE Ray | rac] Tele RRC eae) Toe eee eee ACU an UMC LLCsQetnsnate ge Social Rights Cee nnn eer are Ey CC Reema rec «J ’ CEC Oceanian ec cas Reet @ tun aes eame cucu Maley eet rece era etersGRaserar = Q T.H. Marshall's work on citizenship needs to be applauded in the light of its most important contribution, that is, the idea of legally-sanctioned equality between citizens within a territory.Gl athshala MHRD, +9 TST ee Q The traditional systems of hierarchy and status- ranking are replaced with a system of formal equality between the citizens. Marshallian scheme of evolution of citizenship rights throws crucial light on the particular nature of welfarism in capitalist societies.Q The structural inequality engendered by capitalism is sought to be somewhat evened out by dispersal of citizenship rights. It is through the idea of social citizenship that Marshall explains the redistributive aspect of the institution of citizenship which seeks to mitigate the extent of inequality fostered by the market in capitalist societies.Q Social citizenship, as per Marshall's definition, refers to institutional provisions that enable individuals to effectively enjoy their citizenship rights. To what extent negative consequences of market society in terms of inequality between social classes is remedied by unbundling of ‘social citizenship is a matter of debate.@l tiene fsnno, |_ Critiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights ) OQ Many critics have highlighted the failure of citizenship rights to modify the structure of inequality inherent in capitalism. They maintain A ap that the Marshallian scheme of citizenship rights i » serve as intellectual counterpart to the Keynesian A reconstruction project in post-war capitalist world order, whereby, stabilizing conditions to redeem the capitalist system from recurring crises were institutionalized through positive intervention by the state. iag OReiseier i Critiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights A: a Q Therefore, the evolving institution of citizenship rights functions to institutionalize class conflict in S47 capitalist society rather than challenge it in any ; ‘substantive way. \Caste se | Critiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights Q Itis also debatable whether the logic of evolution that Marshall deciphered in the course of development of citizenship rights in Britain would be the same for other histories and contexts. Q The process of evolution of citizenship rights in Britain, as described by Marshall, coincides with the rise of capitalism. Q The nature of capitalist development in Britain, like other advanced Western countries, is different from that in other historical contexts, say that in an ex-colony like India. What particular shape do citizenship rights and institution take place in such a context, is a question that has been overlooked by Marshall. Q Atanother place, Marshall contends that growth of the ideology of citizenship fosters a sense of national identity in people of a common territory and in a sense, provides basis for a common solidarity and unity to take shape.Qa fen |_ Critiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights Q Critics are of the opinion that the relationship between citizenship and a national identity is more complex than what Marshall puts forward in his account. Formation of a nation and the attendant ideas of nationality and nationalism are historical processes, often produced by inter-sectionality of a variety of factors. QO The category of citizenship in a particular nation-state at a given historical time is defined by a host of political processes, which set criteria pertaining to who belongs, and consequently, who does not. In other words, processes of ‘otherization’ are constant within the boundaries of a nation-state, and the category of a ‘citizen’ serves as one of the modes for its effective actualization.Qu peers, |_ Critiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights Q Everyone living within the boundaries of one nation-state does not qualify to become its citizens. In Marshall's account, there is a overlooking of mediation of certain crucial factors like race, ethnicity, gender, culture and religion in defining the idea and identity of national citizenship. In contemporary times, the recent upsurge in masses of refugees, immigrants in different states, puts strains on our existing understandings of citizenship.Critiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights TEE Us Rome een meer a ta recalled that social rights or citizenship as per Marshall's understanding, refer to certain welfare and redistributive policies that the state is obligated to formulate so as to make Creme a ee Snr Poa ene ey eS CH MM Ee CMSs eck cle Rec emurnicece sultry measures, allowance for the unemployed etc are some policy initiatives by the state that seek to provide a minimum standard of life to the poor and the marginalized. In this regard institutional provisions of social citizenship serve as means of social inclusionCritiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights _ » Their primary contention with liberal citizenship is that it is blind to the existing hierarchies within society that make access to these basic citizenship rights difficult for certain sections within the population.