The patriarchal understanding of citizenship … allows two alternatives only:
either women become (like) men, and so full citizens; or they continue at
women’s work, which is of no value for citizenship. Moreover, within a patriarchal welfare state neither demand can be met. To demand that citizenship, as it now exists, should be fully extended to the women accepts the patriarchal meaning of ‘citizen’, which is constructed from men’s attributes,
capabilities and activities. Women cannot be full citizens in the present meaning of the term; at best, citizenship can be extended to women only as lesser men.
(Pateman, C. 1989).
It is difficult to share in Marshall’s universal, developmental processes of citizenship, for history highlights how women have not been advantaged by equal citizenship nor have they benefited from Marshall’s ‘set timings’ of citizenship development.
The concepts of citizenship and social rights, spoken of by Marshall, are encapsulated within the institutions and ideology of the welfare state and the welfare state refers to the state's provision of public measures and support to achieve basic living standards and help those in need across society. The Beveridge Report (1942) was designed to counter the ‘five giants of illness, ignorance, disease, squalor, and want’. It considered the whole question of social insurance, arguing that ‘want’ could be abolished by a system of social security organised for the individual by the state. Beveridge recommended the establishment of a national health service, national insurance and assistance, family allowances, and stressed the importance of full-employment. Ideally, the welfare state aims to relieve poverty, reduce inequality, and achieve greater social integration and solidarity. Although not entirely as Beveridge wished, the measures were adopted and formed the basis of the British post-war Welfare State. Family allowances were enacted in 1945, and National Insurance and
the National Health Service in 1946; full employment became government policy. Together, these developments created the welfare state, a system of social security guaranteeing a minimum level of health and social services (L.S.E., 2000). Women and women’s movements have not been silent in their search for equal citizenship:
they have campaigned through the ages to have their voice heard and their specific problems addressed. With hindsight, we are able to travel back to the early nineteen
hundreds to see the strong inequalities encompassing women’s lives: they did not have the right to vote or hold political office; as contraception and abortion were denied them, they were refused their right to be in control of their own bodies. Married women could only live where their husbands dictated and they did not have the right to refuse sexual intercourse with their husbands nor could they own property. Women were viewed as different to men, and as such, were subjected to the values and norms of the prevailing society. This meant they were seen as the nurturers, carers, educators and most importantly, unpaid domestic labourers. They were to tend their husbands, who were seen as the family breadwinner and be at home tending house and children. Once married, women were expected to give up paid employment as the status that marriage bestowed upon them (and their men-folk) meant they needed to show society that they were conforming to the social acceptance of marriage whereby the male was viewed as the head of the family. This continued to be the pattern of society throughout the Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) and continued to be the ruling norms throughout the remainder of the 1800's and much of the 1900's. Indeed, thanks to the valuable role of, amongst others, the inimitable Pankhurst family, who are not without critics, women only
obtained their full right to vote in 1928. After achieving equal voting rights, the women’s movement suffered a split and liberal and welfare feminists emerged. Liberal feminists, following the dictum of Mary Wollstonecraft 1759-1797, argued that women should be afforded the same opportunities as men: women should be treated the ‘same as’ men. This particular form of feminism has been accredited with the
removal of barriers for women through the introduction of the several key Acts of
Parliament, particularly the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts of 1975. Welfare feminists, notably Beatrice Webb (1858-1943) and Eleanor Rathbone (1872-1946), argued that the biological ‘differences’ of men and women should be emphasised: priority should be given to the role of women as mothers and women should be defended as they require special attention. This branch of feminism, seen as active Labour Party members, had the greatest influence on William Beveridge, as we shall see later in this paper. Welfare feminists have been accredited with the introduction of women specific welfare provision such as Well Woman clinics and universal Family Allowances: although Beatrice Webb was furious that family allowances were to originally be paid to the father of the children and not the mother. Further changes, within the feminist movement, occurred and over time, (1970’s onwards) Radical Feminism came to the fore; these women claimed women lived in a ‘patriarchal’ society where women were both dominated and exploited by men. They believe men are able to justify this domination and exploitation of women by persuading people that it is ‘natural’ for men to be dominant over women and as such, sexual inequality is institutionalised. Although there are other branches of feminism (Marxist feminists – both women and men are exploited by the capitalist state. Black feminists argue for
the inclusion of race and ethnicity in the whole equality debate. Functionalist feminists claim the ‘structure’ of society as a whole prevents full sexual equality being achieved), for the purpose of this paper, we will review Beveridge’s Welfare State from the Liberal and Welfare perspective. This brief outline of the history and make up of women’s history of equality, or rather inequality, highlights how Marshall’s theory of citizenship is flawed: women obviously did not gain equal access
to the implied universal rights of citizenship, be they civil, political or social, in incremental stages. A stronger argument, put forward by Sylvia Walby (1994, p. 384), claims:
‘It is useful in carrying the notion of change built upon foundations [emphasis added] which remain, and that layer upon layer of change can take place, each of which leaves its sediment which significantly affects future practices’.
Here, Walby is claiming that all previous concepts and assumptions are simply ‘added’ to, rather than changed outright. If we then take Walby’s built upon, layered view and examine the assumptions and preconceptions of the role of women, seen in the 1942 Social Insurance and Allied Services report, we can see how the current status of women, in relation to rights of equal citizenship, can be traced to the founding father of the welfare state.
Given the devastating effects on the population of the ravages of war, Beveridge was highly concerned with two issues, firstly the age constitution of the population. Beveridge believed ‘that persons past the age that is now regarded as the end of working life will be a much larger proportion of the whole community than at any time
in the past’ (HMSO, 1942 1:15): to counter this, Beveridge proposed postponing the age of retirement. His second concern was of low population reproduction rates and he claimed it ‘imperative to give first place of social expenditure to the care of childhood and to the safeguarding of maternity’ (ibid.). Throughout his report, Beveridge refers to citizens being provided for and citizens contributing towards the proposed social insurance scheme but he also implied that women, as a gender,
made little or no, profitable contribution to society. Beveridge maintained his plan would cover ‘all citizens’ and, for social insurance terms, went on to classify Britain’s population: employees, others gainfully occupied, housewives, others of working age not gainfully occupied, below working age and retired above working age (ibid. 1:19). Although he recognised housewives as an independent category, Beveridge failed to recognise women as independent beings: women, or rather wives and widows, would only receive social assistance ‘by virtue of their husbands’ contributions’ (ibid.). Apart from women being classified as housewives or widows, he took great pains to ensure the married female citizen returned to and remained very much
dependent upon her male partner. Beveridge, and others following him, failed to understand the central problem faced by women, that of public and private demands made of them. On the one hand, women are expected to participate publicly in the workplace to gain equal citizenship rights through contributions paid to the State whilst, on the other hand, citizenship dictates a ‘moral’ duty to the dependents of women themselves: their children and aged relatives. A good citizen must surely guide a child through their formative years and look after an elderly relative rather
than condemn them to an institution. This is the true crux of women’s inability to gain equal citizenship rights to men: they must participate both in the workforce to
maintain National Insurance payments, thus meeting their full benefits and pension rights through contributions. In addition, they must be the central carers to the family, thus taking time from work, thereby reducing their National Insurance payments and, in turn, their pension and benefits rights. Beveridge was keen to point out ‘every citizen of working age will contribute in his appropriate class according to the security
that he needs’ (ibid. 1:20) but the inclusion of the term ‘gainfully occupied’ also implied a lesser status. It is as if, whilst being recognised as the bearers of Britain’s much-needed future work force, women were thought of as not making any profitable contribution to society. Beveridge himself made this distinction when he stated, ‘There will be a joint rate for a man and wife who is not gainfully occupied’ and ‘(housewives) not being gainfully occupied’ (ibid.), although he did go on, in a most contradictory manner, to speak ‘of those rendering vital unpaid service as housewives’ (ibid. 1:309). Although Beveridge’s plan for social insurance was by far the most forward thinking of its time and did make a small provision for women that
had not been in place before, he was not without his critics. In their Women’s Freedom League publication, Elizabeth Abbott and Katherine Bompas (1943) heavily criticised the vast swathes of the Report.
The improved subsistence level of unemployment benefits, the equalising of unemployment and disability payments and the introduction of a universal National Health and Rehabilitation Service, were praised by these two ladies, but, Abbott and Bompas claimed there was one overtly major error:
‘The error – an error which lies in the moral rather than the economic sphere – lies in denying to the married women, rich or poor, housewife or paid
worker, an independent personal status. From this error springs a crop of injustices, complications and difficulties, personal, matrimonial and administrative’
(Abbott and Bompas, 1943 p. 3).
They went on to argue the Report recognised the importance of women ‘in words alone’ and these words failed to offer ‘practical recognition of the needs of this
central figure in our social economy. No independent status is given to her as citizen and worker…The “decay of the home” is lamented. Can it be otherwise when the centre of that home – the wife and mother – is to be given no place as an individual in plans made for that future’ (ibid, p 10). Although Abbott and Bompas criticised the Report for not officially recognising the important work of women as being a gainful occupation, they also criticised the Report for allowing married women exemption from making National Insurance payments, as they recognised that this exemption would have long term effects on the pension rights of women in future years. Notwithstanding the criticisms of the Report, it was, in part, accepted and
implemented over time; it succeeded in laying the foundations for all future reforms concerning women and their role in and to society. Beveridge’s clear male (breadwinner and provider) female (housewife and dependent) distinctions ensured that paid employment was taken to be a key basis for citizenship in Britain (Pascall, 1993 p.120). Furthermore, the dependency of women upon men has been carried forward and remains very much alive today: women remain the highest members of
the unpaid, caring community; women remain a ‘dependent’ of the male breadwinner where certain social benefits are concerned; until recently many family benefits were paid directly to the main breadwinner (normally male). The fact that women are forced to leave paid employment (and thus, gainful occupation) for long periods
during childrearing has a direct effect upon their final pension rights and, as Gillian Pascall (1993) argues, ‘By attaching social security to paid employment, national insurance still penalizes women for carrying out their “vital” work’ (Pascall, 1993 p.120).
To conclude, the criticisms made against William Beveridge by the feminist movement have, by-and-large, not been without justification for women have indeed suffered at the hands of the social insurance schemes introduced both then and now. We continue to see the assumptions and values of Beveridge being re-enacted, by both men and women today. Unequal distribution of wages between (breadwinner) man and (dependent) woman; more women in the caring professions; with an aging population we see more women taking time from paid work, fulfilling their roles as carers to their aged parents; more women in the workplace in general (although suffering at the hands of lower paid, less secure jobs) etc. The
public/private debate surrounding the unequal division of labour faced by women has not, and does not look like it will be addressed in this, or future governments. Perhaps the only way forward for women achieving full equal status and therefore, full and equal rights as citizens would be the removal of ‘paid employment’ from the realms of, Beveridge’s sphere of ‘gainful occupation’. The unpaid work of women as individuals, mothers, carers and housewives must be acknowledged as being of
benefit to society as a whole. To achieve this we must see more provision made for women who choose to remain in the home by, for example, having National Insurance contributions made from the central reserves thereby guaranteeing
women’s rights to social benefits and pensions rather than penalizing them for
undertaking, as Beveridge himself put it, ‘the vital unpaid service as housewives’ (and mothers).
REFERENCES
Abbott, E. and Bompas, K. (1943) The Woman Citizen and Social Security A Criticism of the Proposals made in the Beveridge Report as they affect women,
Women’s Freedom League Publication, Keighley: Wadsworth and Company (online)
Available from:
(Accessed 19 Dec. 2003).
British Broadcasting Corporation, (2001) Blunkett urges citizenship debate, B.B.C. News Report, 11 December 2001 (online). Available from: . (Accessed 19 Dec. 2003).
British Broadcasting Corporation, (2002) M.P. calls for citizenship classes, B.B.C. News Report, 09 February 2002 (online). Available from: . (Accessed 19 Dec. 2003).
Beveridge, W. (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services Report, (Cmnd. 6404) London: H.M.S.O. in Lancaster, G. and Rathfelder, M. (2003) Socialist Health Association (online). Manchester: Socialist Health Association. Available from: history Link on – . (Accessed 3 Dec. 2003).
Caddick-Adams, P., (2002) Women at War History Trail Wars and Conflict, London: British Broadcasting Corporation (online). Available from: . (Accessed 19 Dec. 2003).
Garner, R., (2002) Citizenship: Equipping a generation for the 21st century, The Independent, Education Supplement, 27 September 2002 (online). Available from: .
(Accessed 19 Dec. 2003).
Great Britain. Parliament (2002) Education Act 2002, Chapter 32,
London: H.M.S.O. (online). Available from: .
(Accessed 17 Dec. 2003).
Great Britain. Parliament (2003) Anti-social Behaviour Act, Chapter 38, London: H.M.S.O. (online). Available from: .
(Accessed 17 Dec. 2003).
Kennett, P., (2001) Comparative Social Policy Theory and Research, pp. 119. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
London School of Economics and Political Science (2000) The Beveridge Report and Welfare State, London: L.S.E.
(Accessed 17 December 2003).
Marshall, T.H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class: 10-11. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, in Walby, S. (1994) Is Citizenship Gendered? Sociology 28 (2), pp. 379-395. London: Cambridge University Press.
Wintour, P., and White, M., (2003) Blair: we need instant fines to curb crime, The Guardian, 28 November 2003 (online). Available from: .
(Accessed 19 Dec. 2003).
Pascall, G. (1993) Citizenship – A Feminist Analysis pp. 113-115 in Drover, G and Kerans, P [Eds.] (1993) New Approaches to Welfare Theory Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Pateman, C. (1989) The Disorder of Women Chicago: Polity Press, in Pascall, G. (1993) Citizenship – A Feminist Analysis pp. 113-115, in Drover, G and Kerans, P [Eds.] (1993) New Approaches to Welfare Theory Cambridge: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Pedersen, S. (1993) Family, Dependence and the Origins of the Welfare State:
Britain and France 1914-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press in Kennett, P. (2001) Comparative Social Policy, pp. 119. Buckingham, Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
Simpson, J.A. and Weiner, E.S.C. [Eds.] (1989) Oxford English Dictionary
(2nd Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walby, S. (1994) Is Citizenship Gendered? Sociology 28 (2), pp. 379-395.
London: Cambridge University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Drover, G. and Kerans, P. [Eds.] (1993) New Approaches to Welfare Theory,
Cambridge: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Watson, S. and Doyal, L. [Eds.] (1999) Engendering Social Policy, Buckingham,
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hallett, C. [Ed.] (1996) Women and Social Policy an Introduction, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Midwinter, E., (1994) The Development of Social Welfare in Britain, Buckingham & Bristol: Open University Press.
Meehan, E. and Sevenhuijsen, S. [Eds.] (1991) Equality Politics and Gender,
London, California & New Delhi: Sage Publications Limited.
Maclean, M. and Groves, D. [Eds.] (1991) Women’s Issues in Social Policy,
London & New York: Routledge.
Ungerson, C. and Kember, M. (1997) Women and Social Policy A Reader,
Hampshire & London: Macmillan Press Limited.
McDowell, L. and Pringle, R. [Eds.] (1992) Defining Women Social Institutions and Gender Divisions, Cambridge & Oxford: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers and The Open University.
