T. H. Marshall’s Theory of Citizenship

What are the major contributions of T. H. Marshall’s theory of citizenship? Elaborate. Citizenship according to sociologist T.H. Marshall is a status, given to all full members of a community. That status is assuring rights and duties, though there is no universal principle what those should be; in general the idea of citizenship goes in the direction of greater equality. T. H. Marshall’s ‘Citizenship and Social Class’ (1950) formulated a theory of citizenship which focuses precisely on the relationship between developments in the nature of citizenship and in the class system. As he states at the very beginning of his article, he is dealing with national citizenship, for it is a formation of nation-states that contributed to universalisation of what were in medieval Europe local rights and duties. Marshall’s argument is of particular interest because in explaining the nature of citizenship in post-world war II Britain, i.e., since the rise of welfare state, it also provides an account of the emergence of citizenship in the modern nation-state in terms of the historical development of capitalist society. Marshall argues that as capitalism evolves as a social system, and as the class structure develops within it, so modern citizenship changes from being a system of rights which arise out of and support market relations to being a system of rights which exists in an antagonistic relationship with market and class systems. The general understanding of citizenship according to Marshall is entirely conventional. He says: Firstly, that citizenship is a status attached to full membership of a community Secondly, that those who possess this status are equal with respect to the rights and duties associated with it. T. H. Marshall, in his influential account of the growth of citizenship in England, states that the concept developed in a peculiar relationship of conflict and collusion with capitalism. Marshall’s widely accepted definition of citizens as ‘free and equal members of a political community’ comes primarily from the study of citizenship as a process of expanding equality against the inequality of social classes, the latter being an integral element of capitalist society. Marshall adds that different societies will attach different rights and duties to the status of citizen, for there is no universal principle which determines necessary rights and duties of citizenship in general. It is by going beyond the conventional idea that membership of a community is predominantly a political matter that Marshall is able to contribute to the study of citizenship. Three distinct parts or elements of citizenship are identified by Marshall which may or may not be present in any given constitution of citizenship: these are civil, political and social rights. The civil element of citizenship is composed of the rights necessary for individual freedom, and the institution most directly associated with it is the rule of law and a system of courts. The political part of citizenship consists of the right to participate in the exercise of political power. Such rights are associated with parliamentary institutions. The social element of citizenship is made up of a right to the prevailing standard of long and the social heritage of the society. These rights are significantly realized through the social services and the educational system. Marshall adds that in the experiences of the development of citizenship in modern English nation-state the civil, political and social components developed in 18th, 19th and 20th centuries respectively. The three elements of citizenship distinguished by Marshall are defined in terms of specific sets of rights and social institutions through which such rights are exercised. The requirement of understanding citizenship in terms of rights and the institutional context through which rights are exercised is a genuine improvement on the idea that rights intrinsically attach to persons and that the concept of human rights can inform an understanding of the rights of the citizens. Marshall’s approach indicates that rights are only meaningful in particular institutional context and are thus only realizable under specified material conditions. The most important aspect of Marshall’s theory of citizenship is that it directly and explicitly addresses the question of the relationship between citizenship and social class. Marshall notes that the development of the institutions of modern citizenship in England coincided with the rise of capitalism. He regards this as inconsistent because while capitalism creates class inequalities between those subject to it, citizenship is a status through which its members share equal rights and duties. Marshall concludes that it is reasonable to expect that the impact of citizenship on social class should take the form of a conflict between opposing principles. During the period of 18th and 19th centuries, the rights of citizenship were entirely harmonious with the class inequalities of capitalist society. According to Marshall, such rights were necessary to the maintenance of the particular form of inequality; civil rights were indispensable to a competitive market economy. The reason for this is that civil rights bestow on those who have then the capacity to enter market exchanges as independent and self-sufficient agents. The character of the inequalities created by the practice of citizenship rights is that they are legitimate: the status acquired by education carried out into the world bearing the stamp of legitimacy, because it has been conferred by an institution designed to above the citizen his just rights. Marshall says that the assumption that the basic equality of citizenship rights is consistent with the inequalities of social class is demonstrated in the fact that citizenship has itself become the architect of legitimate social inequality. Thus, citizenship is not opposed to inequality as such but to illegitimate inequality, to inequality which can not be justified on the basis of equal citizenship rights. Citizenship’s promise of equality is premised on camouflaging ascriptive and hierarchical inequalities of culture, caste, gender, ethnicity, etc. All citizens appear the same to the state and it would therefore treat everyone equally by applying uniform standards, so that irrespective of whether a person is an upper-caste man or a Dalit women, they possess the same rights and are protected by the state in the same manner and measure. The United States has become disillusioned by the idea of social citizenship, but many industrialized states view social citizenship as their responsibility, even providing welfare outside of their own borders. Marshall’s articulation of the idea of social citizenship was vital to the idea’s proliferation. Marshall fails adequately to consider the relationship between the different elements of citizenship. Though the concept of secondary rights he proposes a treatment of their serial development, and he also shows how civil rights on the one hand and political and social rights on the other bear a different relationship with market relations and class inequality. What he fails to treat is the means through which the distinct sets of rights function together as components of unified citizenship. Marshall takes the state for granted and fails to reflect upon its significance for the development of citizenship. He tends to share this inclination with his critics. However, the role of the state in the development of citizenship is crucial; and any theory of political and social participation and rights must acknowledge and build on the fact. T. H Marshall’s Theory of Citizenship Page 2