Synopsis of Citizenship and Social Class and other essays, T.H.

Marshall

Citizenship in Walter Bryce Gallies word is a contested concept because there are different
types of arguments on citizenship which would claim to be a champion definition of
citizenship but we cant come to any common point about what citizenship is. Citizenship is a
clustered and contested concept where many concepts like rights, equality, justice, duties,
entitlement, membership etc involve in it. In general sense Citizenship refers not only to a
legal status as a member of a particular country but also a normative ideal which provides full
and equal participation in the political process. The idea of citizenship in its early form is
found in the ancient Greek and Roman state system. It was Aristotle who developed the
concept in his work Politics. When we see the evolution of the Concept of citizenship in
modern times , it was T.H. Marshal who tried to provide us a universalised accepted
historically grounded concept of citizenship through three different set of rights in different
th th th
time period i.e. civil in 18 , political in 19 , social in 20 century , corresponds with the
development of specific state structures- the judiciary, parliamentary institutions of
governance and the educational system and welfare state. He tried to define citizenship as
full and equal membership in a political community where we find two kinds of promise
that modern citizenship makes equality as opposed to hierarchical inequalities among
members of the political community and the promise of integration and universalising by
expanding equality. Marshall tried to frame citizenship as coming from institutional apparatus
along with social transformation and economic relation. But lot of scholar disagree with
Marshall from different perspective from pluralist to Marxist and in this case we may find
Upendra Baxis views on citizenship is interesting. For Baxi Citizenship is not about equality
but its about hierarchy, he through different types of citizenship like super citizens, negotiating
citizens, insurgent citizens tried to explain how hierarchy is exist in Citizenship. Hyper-
globalist Saskia Sassen highly emphasised on denationalised citizenship with the recent
developed phenomena like globalisation, human rights which challenged the states role and
citizenship as incomplete theorized concept. So John Hoffman in his book Citizenship
beyond the state mentioned citizen as a momentum concept. Momentum concepts are those
that are infinitely progressive and egalitarian. Even those who seek only limited steps forward
and are oblivious of a more wide-ranging agenda can develop struggle for citizenship.
Citizenship involves a process that is evolutionary and revolutionary. So we see different ways
one can think citizenship. Citizenship as a core activity and become a base of solidarity,
passivity, participation, entitlements and rights and as a necessary activity for actualising
political self.

Marshall on Citizenship
T. H. Marshall a liberal social democrat could be regard as a key contributor of the modern
concept of citizenship who tried to provide a universal notion of citizenship based on
equality and rights grounded on historical development and linked it to social class in the
context of the rise of capitalism and its most important by- product the market. In his
Citizenship and Social Class (1950) Marshall defined citizen as free and equal members
of a political community where he explain citizenship as a process of expanding equality
against the inequality of social class. Marshall mainly developed his concept of citizenship
from historical perspective in Englands context so here we find mainly a euro-centric
approach of citizenship based on urban industrial society. Through his evolutionary
approach Marshall define citizenship through three different set of rights developed in
th th th
three different times i.e. civil in 18 , political in 19 , social in 20 and corresponding
with the development of specific state structures- the judiciary, parliamentary institutions
of governance and the educational system and welfare state.

So according Marshall three different strand of rights with three different time constituting
citizenship viz. civil, political and social where Civil rights is composed of rights
necessary for individual freedom include liberty of the person, freedom of speech,
movement, freedom of thought and faith, the right to own property and as a negative rights
these rights limited the government power . Political rights are composed of the right to
vote , right to participate in the exercise of political power, as member of a body invested
with political authority or as an elector of the member of such a body. Social rights which
th
was developed in 20 century guaranteed the individual a minimum social status and
provided the basis for the exercise of both civil and political rights. Each of these three
strands has developed with different historical period with the development of specific
state structures- for e.g. social rights with judiciary, political rights with parliamentary
institutions of governance and social rights with the educational system and welfare state.

For Marshall there is no universal principle that determines what those rights and duties
shall be, but 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.
Criticism of T.H. Marshalls Citizenship
Though Marshall has successful in providing a universalise systematic proper theory of
citizenship from evolutionary perspective grounded on United Kingdoms context but he
face many criticism from Pluralist to Marxist and Feminist scholars. Pluralist like B.S.
turner questioned the Marshalls entire developmental logic and asserts that there is no
necessary historical logic or upholding process. For him the extension of citizenship right
take place when groups, which are previously excluded, specially the working class, get
accommodated. Turner also finds that Marshalls overemphasis and preoccupation with
class has lead to neglect of other important factors of modern social changes mainly war
and migration.

Marxist scholar Giddens acknowledge the importance of Marshalls analysis of citizenship

but makes a number of critical remarks. For him the historical account of Marshall is not
acceptable and the teleological and evolutionary theory of Marshall is based on flawed
logic of modern historical process. He is also critical of Marshalls theory of industrial
rights, which for him means forming trade union, collective bargaining and right to strike.
For Gidden Marshall fails to emphasis that citizens right have been achieved in
substantial degree of struggle.

Though different scholar criticized Mrashalls theory of citizenship as a flawed logic grounded
on teleological ,historical etc but he has been credited for providing a theory of citizenship as
modern concept by universalising, expanding with promise of equality and rights Most
important thing is the relation and interplay between citizenship and social class is Marshalls
most important contribution to the theory of citizenship where set up its link with the rise of
capitalism. He is successful in giving a proper definition of citizenship as a common
citizenship bond which create a new national identity and consciousness among
themselves as being citizen.