Michael Listers Citizenship and Social Class - Literature review Example

Michael Lister’s: Marshall-ing Social and Political Citizenship Introduction Marshall’s work on “Citizenship and Social has widely been studied and referenced by sociology writers and scholars over the years. Citizenship within the social context can not be completely covered, according to Marshall, without integrating some elements that define the whole concept of citizenship. Some of the main elements included the elaboration are three namely; civil, political and social (Bottomore and Marshall, 8). Understanding the integration of the three elements in the citizenship topic allows the formulation of a complete picture in unravelling the sociological aspect of citizenship. Due to the apparent misconception of the concepts that Marshall postulated concerning citizenship and society by many writers, an analysis can be carried out to show the differences in ideas. The following text contains an overview and a critical review of the citizenship articles provided, in analysing citizenship literature that relies on the work done by Marshall. Overview and Critical Review of Text Overview The overview to the text has main areas as outlined in the text below touching on; reasons for revisiting and upgrading Marshall’s work which is inadequate in its form to warrant the heavy reliance it has had, citizenship rights issue and the manner to handle them, the purely practical presentation approach used as well as criticism to Marshall’s work (Barbalet, 19). Marshall’s work has been analysed to give different interpretations, yet the intentions of the analysers were to reach at a solution to citizenship and society issues. Over reliance by sociologists on the work done by Marshall has eventually led to distortion of the primary thought on citizenship. The limitations of the work were transferred to the other texts that relied on his work, due to lack of diversification of the ideas. Heavy reliance on Marshalls work for instance transfers issues such as citizenship development periodization, evolutionary and unidirectional establishment of the argument to all other similar arguments that rely on his work. Marshall based his citizenship concept on a welfare state which has continually diminished from the face of political establishments of the modern world (Gutmann, 238). Evolution of the European state to steer away from the welfare establishment shows a huge disparity of the definition of citizenship between what modern sociologists ought to give and that postulated by Marshall. Disparities could also arise from the fact that studying citizenship also entails studying the rights thereon. The three elements of citizenship identified by Marshall (civil, political and social) determine the rights of citizenship to be enjoyed by the citizenry. While the rights are discrete and independent, they need to be integrated for the complete study of citizenship to be achieved. The wide scope that the involvement of all the rights has could be a reason of insufficient research on the citizenship rights as a topic in political science. To further understand the causes of misunderstanding and misconnection of the citizenship concept, dissecting the work by Marshall gives a practical approach which requires a theoretical backing. Comprehending the social aspects of the political studies of a society must be accompanied by normative link in order to form a relationship with the underlying principles. Criticism to the approach adopted in the text written by Marshall explains the areas that future studies on citizenship should take (Halsey, 13). Critical Review Inasmuch as the author finds issues with the heavy reliance that Marshall’s work attracts from sociologists, it can not be singled out as a weakness. Instead, this may act as a major strength in the work done by Marshall, since all the reliance assists other scholars in unraveling other issues in citizenship that Marshall pioneered. Schools of thoughts like the author’s and any further developments could not have been formulated were it not for such issues. For instance the fact that the author finds it inappropriate for Marshall to unify the citizenship rights due their distinct nature is clearly brought out. Citizenship rights are however identified as distinct as they should be in Marshall’s work. The argument on whether they should be unified to form mutuality or differently due to their tensional forces of repulsion cannot amount to a fundamental difference. Despite the creation of the link between these rights, Lister’s work is clear that the empirical condition of this mutuality can be backed by the theoretical perspective of equality of status (Marshall, 68). Unified citizenship rights perspective by Marshall’s work could be admissible since all systems work in a similar manner as political systems do; with supporting conditions. Lister’s proposition of equality of status which divides citizenship rights into different elements only clarifies the fact that the citizenship rights have a discrete nature and that there are conditions required in the exercise of the rights. Normative and practical aspects characterise citizenship and the author brings in this argument clearly in his work (Mead, 197). For instance, the author tries to find a missing link in the fact that Marshall presents citizenship development in Britain touching on the introduction of the three rights without a theoretical backing. Periodization of the achievements in citizenship as in the case of Britain has been criticised. There are however some explanations to back Marshall’s position in the practical interconnections of citizen rights and equality of status. Practical perspective given by Marshall, for instance literacy for the electorate in the realisation of civil rights needed for full participation, explains citizenship rights better than if a theoretical approach was used instead. The realisation that some rights become very useful than others at some point negates the position taken by Marshall that all the rights are useful in a unified manner. Theoretical contribution to dispel misunderstanding from Marshall’s argument has been south by the author from works done by Aristotle and Arendt. These theorists postulate that full participation is determined by the support obtained from the socio-economic situation that the society or individuals are experiencing. Equality of status theory is brought out in Marshall’s work to explain that the individuals’ legal equality and rights relating to liberty determine the status they possess (King and Waldron, 420). The author dispels any conflict in the presentation of citizenship by Marshall where it is explained by unified rights yet tension existed. The author does this by explaining that the theoretical basis of equality of status guides in development of citizenship and not in its determination. Normative Criticism Marshall presents his work without a mention of any limitation or problems between the rights. Sequential development of the citizen rights from one to the other as detailed in the work by Marshall is impractical according to the author. This is because the tension existing between them could not allow such a smooth realisation. Conflicts exist within citizenship but in Marshall’s work, there is not a single account of their possibility. Marshall proposes that citizenship is capable of thriving without the influence of class inequalities that are characterised by the free market systems. It is however impractical to assume that the capitalist society is likely to assimilate competitive citizenship, without serious implications by the market system (Mann, 342). Marshall makes an assumption that citizenship is as a result of developments of events, which compromises the postulate of social groups and formations. Citizenship on the other hand comes via struggle according to the author. There is a huge void left for the connection between the state and citizenship in the work done by Marshall. Some scholars have raised criticism to Marshall’s work due to the fact that his work incorporates the class inequality system of economic establishment. It is particularly observed in the manner in which arguments get skewed towards avoidance of problems with the economic system in as far as citizenship rights are concerned. Likewise, feminist authors have had issues with the gender insensitivity that Marshall’s work is set (Barry, 13). The basis of forming the criticism can however not place the citizenship issue at a better situation than it would if more studies were done to offer solutions to what Marshall found. It is imperative that studies such as the one Lister undertakes be embarked in order to further unravel what the topic has. By re-examining and reappraising the work done by Marshall, the author is able to open up positive ideas that can be expounded to further link citizenship to sociological advancement. Words= 1382 Refernces Barbalet, J. M., Citizenship. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988. Print. Barry B., Culture and equality: an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism, Oxford, UK: Polity Press, 2001. Print. Bottomore, T., & Marshall, T. H., Citizenship and social class. London, UK: Pluto Press, 1992. Print. Gutmann A., Democracy and the welfare state, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Print. Halsey, A. H., ‘T. H. Marshall: Past and Present.” Sociology, 18.1(1984):13. Web. 12th Nov 2010 King, D., & Waldron, J., ‘Citizenship, Social Citizenship and the Defence of Welfare Provision.’ British Journal of Political Science, 18.4(1988):415–43. Web. 12th Nov 2010 Mann A., ‘Ruling Class Strategies and Citizenship.” Sociology, 21.3(1987):339–54. Web. 12th Nov 2010 Marshall, T. H., Sociology at the crossroads, London, UK: Heinemann Publishers, 1963. Print. Mead, L. M., ‘Citizenship and Social Policy: T. H. Marshall and Poverty.’ Social Philosophy and Policy, 14.2(1997):197–230. Web. 12th Nov 2010 Read More