17 T.H. Marshall: Citizenship and Social Class

Shashwati

1. Introduction

According to T. H. Marshall, citizenship is a status conferred upon an individual by virtue of his or her being full member of a community. Citizens of a community are equal in terms of the rights and duties granted to them by such a status. Therefore, in a very fundamental respect, the developing institution of citizenship aims at creating more equality in society. Rights and duties of citizens can vary in different historical contexts. But the aspiration of achieving greater equality by extending the status of equal citizenship to more number of peopleis the yardstick of ideal citizenship in all societies.

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. He concedes that the development of citizenship can be traced through the evolution of three elements, namely civil rights, political rights and social rights. Civil rights, as the first set of citizenship rights, took shape in the early decades of the nineteenth century, followed by the extension of political rights- 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. Social rights- till now of negligible existence as compared to other elements of citizenship rights- were sought to be revived with the development of public elementary education, but took a concrete shape only by the twentieth century.

Civil rights are the rights necessary to secure individual freedom. Right to liberty, equality before law, right to justice, right to own property, freedom to enter into valid contracts, freedom of speech, expression and faith- these are some of the crucial rights constituting civil rights of an individual. Equality before law and right to justice ensure that the individual can claim his rights on an equal footing like others and these rights receive due protection from processes of law. Therefore, in the domain of civil rights, courts of justice assume utmost importance. Political rights enable the citizen to exercise his or her political powers, either as the member of the body holding political authority or as the member of the electorate. Parliament, and its corresponding institutions, including bodies of local government assume importance in respect of political rights. Social rightsinclude those rights that enable citizens to fully exercise their freedoms. In other words, they aim at removal of such impairments that prevent a citizen from exercising his rights, to live a fulfilled and civilized life according to the existing standards of society. This set of rights includesa wide range of provisions of economic welfare and social security. In ancient and medieval times, these three sets of rights were fused. For example, the status of the individual in society was defined by his class, which in turn, decided the kind of rights he would enjoy, if any. The social status of the individual also decided what kind of justice he could get or whether or not, he was eligible to participate in the political affairs of the community. Therefore, far from the modern concept of citizenship defined by a status of equality, status in earlier times denoted inequality of social classes, and therefore lacked any universal measure of rights and duties of all men alike, irrespective of their social classes. It is only as the society moves towards modernity, that the concept of equal citizenship rights emerge, and the three sets of rights which were previously fused, begin to get differentiated.

In his analysis, Marshall discusses the important question of the impact of evolving citizenship rights on social class. The stratification of society on different axes, based on a variety of values and beliefs leads to emergence of social classes, which essentially signifies a system of inequality. In context of an unequal system based on social class, the unfolding of equal citizenship rights means clash of two contradictory forces. The historical period of evolution of citizenship rights in England coincides with the rise of capitalism, which is a system rooted in inequality between different social classes. Marshall dwells upon the important question 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. According to Marshall, this question assumes more importance since the twentieth century as the antagonism between citizenship and capitalism has sharpened.

2. 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. 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 system. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. According to Marshall therefore, the issue of social inequality as fostered by capitalism remained largely unaddressed by the institution of citizenship till at least the end of nineteenth century. However, gradual development of citizenship did ensure that the society moved progressively towards the egalitarian policies of the twentieth century.

3. Political Rights

The political rights of the citizens were an outcome of growing national consciousness, strengthened by the institution of citizenship. Citizenship was based on the idea of membership of a community- a community of free and equal men, protected by a common law. This common heritage of a progressive civilization based on unity of free men, strengthened the feeling of patriotic nationalism. National consciousness implied heightened public opinion concerning national life, and this necessitated gradual extension of political rights to all social classes in society. 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.

Marshall dwells upon the question whether extension of political rights challenged social inequality inherent in the capitalist system. He says that the political rights failed to have any substantial effect on the hierarchy of class structure because the working class, even when widely enfranchised by the end of the nineteenth century, did not know how to use their votes to their advantage. That political power, unlike the civil rights, could be a potent threat to the capitalist system, was 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 over-whelming. 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 principles of the capitalist system, realizing that 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. The extension of civil rights in the economic sphere materialized in the form of right of collective bargaining and this was a result of the increasing political power of the working class in the later nineteenth century. It was through collective bargaining that the workers could demand for better economic and social status. However, as Marshall maintains, there remained crucial difference between collective bargaining- based as it was on the balance between the economic forces in a free market society- and the assertion by workers for social justice on the basis of collective civil 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.

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. 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. 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.

4.Social Rights

It was only at the turn of twentieth century that first few steps in the direction of establishing social rights were taken. A rise in money incomes meant that the gap between different social classes was gradually reduced, especially that between skilled and unskilled labor and between non-manual labor and skilled labor. Similarly, small savings increased at a steady rate bridging the class divide between capitalist and the property-less working classes. A system of direct taxation kept a check on the increasing scale of disposable incomes. The expansion of home market and mass production resulted in brining the ordinary masses closer to the material life enjoyed by the rich. With industries looking into the interests and needs of the common people more than before, the possibility of a civilized and cultured life was progressively brought within the reach of many.

Social integration acquired a new meaning in the changed context. Much more than the values of patriotism and sentiment, the world of material enjoyment brought together different sections of social classes. Social welfare measures were sought to be extended to greater number of people. Material inequality, thus reduced to a good extent, furthered the demand for its complete abolition.

Development of social rights within the sphere of citizenship was partly responsible for fulfilling several of these aspirations, especially in the context of a changed social and economic setting. One of the most important social rights includes the right to real income so as to be able to live a civilized life according to existing standards in society, irrespective of one’s economic status in the market. With extension of social rights, there emerged a different way of looking at the cause of mitigating class differences. More and more marginalized sections were brought within the ambit of citizenship rights through welfare and social security measures. Therefore, it was with social rights that individual exercise of civil and political rights, was enabled, thereby creating a horizontal uniformity across social classes.

5. Critiques of Marshallian Scheme of Evolution of Citizenship Rights

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. 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. 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. 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. Many critics have poignantly highlighted the failure of citizenship rights to modify the structure of inequality inherent in capitalism. They maintain that the Marshallian scheme of citizenship rights serve as intellectual counterpart to the Keynesian 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. Therefore, the evolving institution of citizenship rights functions to institutionalize class conflict in capitalist society rather than challenge it in any substantive way.

It is 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. As said before, the process of evolution of citizenship rights in Britain, as described by Marshall, coincides with the rise of capitalism. 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.

At another 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. 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. 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. 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.

Many scholars have put Marshall’s idea of social rights to further scrutiny. It must be 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 citizenship rights available to marginalized sections within the population. For example, anti-poverty schemes, subsidized food grains, income-redistribution 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. The question is to what extent the welfare provisions of the state must be limited to the identity of a citizen within the state? Is it feasible that the provisions of social inclusion and social equality be tied up with the criterion of citizenship? As said before, the category of citizen with its attendant criteria of belongingness, results in excluding certain populations and people from its ambit, even within the boundaries of a nation-state. It is important to understand the repercussions when social welfare measures of the state are tied up with the identity of the ‘citizen’ only.

Marshall’s scheme of citizenship rights belongs to the liberal democratic tradition that accords a uniform set of rights to individuals as citizens of a community, or a nation-state. This implies that all citizens have an equal status before law, and by virtue of this equal legal status, they are entitled to a set of basic rights. These civil, political and social rights are available to the citizens irrespective of their social location like class, race, ethnicity, religion and sex. The elements of uniformity and equality contained in the tradition of liberal citizenship have been subject to criticism from several quarters, including the feminists, Marxists and the multiculturalists. 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. Therefore, the assumed neutrality of the liberal state in the way it uniformly treats its citizens independent of their respective social positions, tends to create more social and economic inequality, thereby, undermining its own equalitarian agenda. From within the liberal democratic tradition, Marshall’s idea of a uniform set of citizenship rights has been reformulated by many thinkers. For example, John Rawls’ ‘difference principle’, as one of the important elements of his theory of justice, seeks to make liberal citizenship more responsive to existing social and economic hierarchies in society. He says that social and economic inequalities must be taken into consideration in formulating principles of justice, if any such scheme benefits the least advantaged sections in society.

6.1. Marxist Critique

The Marxist critique of liberal citizenship derives from their critique of the liberal state as historically being a bourgeois state, which primarily aims to secure the interests of the capitalist class. Therefore all talk of equal citizenship rights within liberal constitutions to create freedom and equality in society are interpreted by Marxists as being a farce. The liberal state, in garb of a neutral institution to maintain law and order in society to protect basic rights of the individuals, does in fact, function as an instrument in the hands of the propertied classes to secure its right to unlimited property acquisition and ownership. On the pretext of maintaining a formal, legal edifice to protect basic individual rights of citizens, the bourgeois state has historically aided the unequal structure of capitalism to prosper. Liberal citizenship is based on the idea of formal equality between citizens, and through this, it seeks to mask and neutralize class antagonism in capitalist societies by insisting on equal political rights of the workers and capitalists. The rights of a citizen within the scheme of liberal citizenship is based on the idea of an individual as a rational, egoistic and isolated, self-seeking being, whose relation with others is motivated only by private interests. Therefore, liberal citizenship does not give any space to the idea that bonds between individuals are developed on the basis of social or communal concerns. With a basis in bourgeois individualism, liberal democratic citizenship negates the possibility of collective action on part of citizens to bring about a socialist transformation in society.

6.2.Gender and Citizenship Rights: Feminist Critique

The feminist critiques of liberal citizenship as expounded by Marshall, focus on the latter’s gender-blind orientation. Contrary to men, any substantial access of women to citizenship rights is curtailed by patriarchal institutions and traditions in society. Therefore, to treat women as equal citizens like men, is turning blind eye to structural disabilities that women face when it comes to full and equal exercise of citizenship rights. A woman’s limited access to education, job, property and health etc prevents her from participating in the public life of the state on an equal footing with men. In other words, liberal notion of citizenship rests on the twin principles of public-private dichotomy and sexual division of labor, which reinforces the subordinate position of women in the national life. The public life represented by the institution of citizenship comes to be identified increasingly with the activities of the male. A parallel identification of the private realm of the household and family with the activities of the females results in their exclusion and subordination from the public realm. Therefore, on the one hand, feminists seek to make citizenship more gender sensitive, by demanding women’s equal participation in public life. This also includes dispensing with the traditional roles as wives, mothers and supporters through which women are incorporated into the public realm. Like their male counterparts, women’s participation in the public life should be based on their recognition as able individuals with a right to participate in political affairs of the state. On the other hand, feminists’ project to build an inclusive citizenship is expressed through the dictum ‘personal is political’. This means that the exclusion of women from public life is intimately related with their relegation to the private life of household, family and children .The assumed ‘maleness’ of public activities, and the simultaneous process of naturalization of women’s space within the household must be seen, the feminists insist, as part of the same exclusionary politics which result in subordination of women.

6.3. Multiculturalism and Citizenship Rights

Since the decade of the 1980s, multicultural theories have sought to expand the category of citizenship rights to include group-differentiated rights, leading to what is termed as differentiated citizenship. Scholars like Iris Marion Young and Will Kymlicka are of the opinion that it is through differentiated citizenship that needs of diverse groups and communities within pluralistic societies can be better catered to. The question therefore, is not just one of making institution of citizenship more inclusive by extending representation and rights to more number of people and communities. It is also one concerning the terms and conditions on which diverse people and communities are sought to be accommodated within the national mainstream. The universal set of rights that define citizenship may not result in addressing the wide range of concerns of the religious, ethnic and cultural minorities. Therefore, the rights of citizenship must be so formulated that is sensitive to the specific, and yet different contexts in which people are placed. Therefore, it is the element of diversity or difference that makes the category of citizenship more inclusive and substantial. For example, positive intervention by the state to help cultural and ethnic minorities to set up educational and cultural institutions of their own; provisions to secure their language and script etc are of crucial importance in present-day multicultural societies, so as to enable them to live an autonomous life, free from the hegemony of the majority. Included are the needs of special rights and representation to non-ethnic marginalized populations like women and the poor, to rectify their conditions of marginality and oppression.

Reference bibliography

T.H. Marshall. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays, Cambridge: CUP
Iris Marion Young. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Will Kymlicka. 1996. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford:Clarendon Press

Further Reading

· T.H. Marshall. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays, Cambridge: CUP

· Martin Bulmer and Anthony M. Rees (eds). 1996. Citizenship Today: The Contemporary Relevance of T.H. Marshall, UCL Press

· A. M. Rees. 1995. The Other T. H. Marshall,Journal of Social Policy, 24, pp. 341-362

· T. H. Marshall. 1973. A British Sociological Career, The British Journal of Sociology, 24/4, pp. 399-408

· Jytte Klausen. 1995. Social Rights Advocacy and State Building: T.H. Marshall in the Hands of Social Reformers, World Politics, 47/2, pp. 244-267

· A.H. Hasley. 1984. T.H. Marshall: Past and Present1893-1981: President of the British Sociological Association 1964-1969, Sociology, 18/1, pp. 1-18

· David Lockwood. 1974. For T. H. Marshall, Sociology, 8/3, pp.363-367

· Bryan S. Turner. 2009. T.H. Marshall, Social Rights, and English National Identity, Citizenship Studies, 13/1, pp. 65-73

· John Crowley. 1998. The National Dimension of Citizenship in T.H. Marshall, Citizenship Studies, 2/2, pp.165-178

· John Holmwood. 2000. Three Pillars of Welfare State Theory, T.H. Marshall, Karl Polanyi and Alva Myrdal in Defense of National Welfare State, European Journal of Social Theory, 3/1, pp. 23-50

· JeffManza and Michael Sauder (eds). 2009. Inequality and Society, W.W. Norton and Co.: New York

· Iris Marion Young. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

· Nira Yuval-Davis. 1991. The Citizenship Debate: Women, Ethnic Processes and the State, Feminist Review, 39, Shifting Territories: Feminism & Europe, pp. 58-68

Nira Yuval-Davis. 1997. Women, Citizenship and Difference, Feminist Review, 57, Citizenship: Pushing the Boundaries, pp. 4-27
Will Kymlicka. 1996. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights,Oxford: Clarendon Press

Web links: