Lewis (1998) offers a clearer view of citizenship and discusses the connections between individuals, state and welfare. Citizens imagine a link between themselves and the state and their sense of belonging is central to the construction of boundaries of entitlement. This in turn raises questions of who is excluded and who is included. Dwyer (2004) adds that the right to membership has to be recognised by others in the community. If people cannot participate in a meaningful way, the idea of citizenship begins to unravel.
Yuval-Davis (1991 Cited in Lister, 1998, p52) argues that “constructing boundaries according to various inclusionary and exclusionary criteria which relate to ethnic and racial divisions as well as class and gender divisions is one of the main arenas of struggle concerning citizenship that remains completely outside the agenda of Marshallian theories of citizenship”. Turner (2002) notes that in part, this omittance was due to migration not being at the scale it is today and Britain was not as yet, a multicultural society. Also major social changes have taken place since which may not have been considered at the time of Marshall’s writing. Turner (1986 cited in Crompton, 1998) argues that the discrimination towards certain groups and their campaigns for full citizenship rights has had a great impact on the development of modern social citizenship.
Gender is an important factor which has impacted upon notions of citizenship. Feminists argue that although women have now achieved full citizenship status, they continue to be held back by their responsibility in the private sphere such as caring for older relatives or children. In turn this frees men to continue to participate in the public sphere and women remain largely under represented in positions of power (Lister, 1998). Lister (1998, p55) points out that the “identikit” citizen appears to be a white, non-disabled, heterosexual male of working age which presents problems for those who don’t conform to this ideal.
Although Marshall touched upon duties, he was mainly concerned with the extension of social rights. The obligations and responsibilities which today play a crucial part in the notion of citizenship are missing from his account. The lack of clarity in the concept of citizenship has allowed it to be appropriated by various political parties (Lister, 1998). There has been a shift from rights to an obligations based construction which shows its fluid nature.
Thatcherism brought about a direct attack on the welfare rights as envisaged by Marshall. In the Conservatives eyes, the development of state intervention represented state socialism and a loss of freedom. This in turn created irresponsible societies who look to the state for support and provisions which they should be providing for themselves (Phillips, 1991).
Liberal economic and political theories have therefore underpinned policies and reforms pursued during the Thatcher administration holding values of competitive individualism, a minimum state role and maximum market role (King, 1988). Through minimising state intervention and in the promotion of the private market, universal citizenship rights seem to have been eroded with responsibility and obligation taking their place (Alcock, 1989). The most important obligation here is the duty to work.
John Moore, the social security secretary under Thatcher emphasised the work obligation of social security claimants. By the end of the Major administration, unemployment benefit was replaced by Job Seekers Allowance which made clear to claimants the link between their right to receive this benefit and the obligations expected of them. It became widely accepted that claimants should be available for work and should accept reasonable job offers with sanctions if this did not happen (Lister, 1998).
The New Right contention of citizenship is not without criticism. Kymlica and Norman (1994) challenge the New Right presumption that it is available welfare creating an irresponsible society along with the subsequent erosion of citizen’s welfare rights. In countries such as Sweden, welfare is extensive yet unemployment rates are low. They also point out that cutting benefits has disadvantaged people further instead of helping them back onto their feet.
In rolling back the welfare state, citizen’s obligation to work has acted as a further force of exclusion. Those already excluded from the labour market and relying heavily on state services such as women, loan parents, people with disabilities and black people are penalised and become even more impoverished (Alcock, 1989). The Conservatives appeal to consumer choice through the market but this has little significance to those excluded from it (Alcock, 1989). Dwyer argues that “this concentration on individual responsibility/duty has undermined the welfare rights of some of the poorest members of society” (1998, p493.)
The term ‘active citizenship’, conceived during the Major administration promoted social cohesion and reduced government involvement in the provision of welfare through neighbourliness, voluntary and charity based activities. Active citizenship can be seen as a significant move away from the state provided services central to Marshalls Theory (Crompton, 1998). Active citizenship was largely discredited due to run down public services and growing inequality (Lister, 1998). Dwyer (1998) draws attention to the negative implications for those who would not be able to engage in voluntary or charitable work which would exclude them further and relegate them to a second class citizenship status.
New Labour contested citizenship as a retaliation against Thatcherism (Driver & Martell, 1998). Although New Labour were opposing Thatcherism, Dwyer (1998 p494) notes that “both major political parties endorse the view that it is necessary to increase individual responsibility for welfare while simultaneously diminishing the state’s responsibility”.
In order to move past Thatcherism, the idea that “community” would be the solution to many problems in society became prominent in New Labours “Third Way”. Etzioni, an Israeli-American Sociologist heavily influenced their ideas and New Labour rhetoric was underpinned by his work around Communitarianism (Driver & Martell, 1998).
Communitarianism was seen as the way to rebuild social cohesion and the “moral fibre” which was undermined previously by the Conservatives as it addresses the paternalism and lack of accountability as a result of the welfare state (Lister, 1998). Dwyer (2004) points out that Communitarianism draws on civic republicanism for its philosophical justifications in which citizens recognise their civic duties (p19).
The words “community” and “stake holding” appear in high frequency across New Labour policies. For the citizen, it brings not only rights but duties and obligations which are not just logic but moral (Driver & Martell, 1998). It means social inclusion for all and independence but emphasising responsibilities for members of the community. These are all predominantly to be achieved, like under the Conservatives, through employment (Driver & Martell, 1998).
Turner (2001) discusses the way in which New Labour’s Third Way moves away from Marshallian ideas of protecting individuals from the uncertainty of the market and builds on Thatcherism by assisting people to participate in the market through education, flexible employment and tax incentives. New Labour acknowledges that citizenship requires social rights but moves away from the old left view of “passive citizenship”. As Kymlica and Norman (1994, p358) note “imposing obligations is futile if genuine opportunities are absent”. New Labour has recognised this and opportunities can be seen in the “New Deal” programme to help people off benefits and into work, especially young people and the long term unemployed (Walsh et al, 2000). This then places the onus on the individual to achieve their citizenship rights through education, skills and work. Inclusion in the market rather than equality is therefore the key concept (Crompton, 1998).
In conclusion, from the points discussed it becomes clear that citizenship is a highly contested and very fluid concept. Marshall’s work is an important starting point in understanding modern social citizenship but the social and political changes that have taken place since have significantly undermined his ideas.
Social changes since the 1950’s have highlighted tensions in citizenship such as inclusion and exclusion. These tensions however have given a powerful voice to those previously excluded in their fight for full citizenship rights and have had a considerable impact on citizenship as it is today.
The varied adoption of the use of citizenship by the two main political parties has shown its fluid nature. It is also important to note that there is also some continuity between parties, dubbed the new consensus (Lister, 1998). New Labour and New Right both propagate the importance of rights and duties but New Labour have attempted to expand on opportunities to help people to fulfil their obligations.
These factors force citizenship to be a fluid concept as there is no single accepted definition. As proposed in the Comitè des Sages (1996, p13 cited in Lister, 1998) a nation state “must have a clear statement of the citizenship it is offering to its members”. Without a clear, unambiguous statement, citizenship will continue to be re-defined as further changes take place on a national and global level.
References:
Alcock, P., 1989. Why citizenship and welfare rights offer new hope for new welfare in Britain. Critical Social Policy. [9] 32 pp 32-43. Available at: [Accessed 14/10/2009]
Crossley, N,. 2005. Key Concepts in Critical Social Theory. London. Sage Publications Ltd
Driver, S and Martell, L,. 1998. New Labour: Politics after Thatcherism. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers Ltd
Dwyer, P., 1998. Conditional Citizens? Welfare Rights and Responsibilities in the late 1990s. Critical Social Policy [18] pp 493 – 517. Available at: [Accessed 14/10/2009]
Dwyer, P,. 2004. Understanding Social Citizenship: Themes and Perspectives for Policy and Practice. Bristol. Policy Press
King, D., 1988. New Right Ideology, Welfare State Reform and Citizenship: A Comment on Conservative Capitalism. Comparative Studies in Society and History [30] 4 pp792 – 799. Available at:
[Accessed 14/10/2009]
Kymlica, W., & Norman, W., 1994. Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory. Ethics [104] 2 pp352 – 381. Available at: [Accessed 14/10/2009]
Lister, R., 1998. New Conceptions of Citizenship in (eds.) Ellison, N,. &Pierson, C., 1998. Developments in British Social Policy. London. Macmillan Press Ltd
Lewis, G. (1998) Citizenship in Hughes, G. (ed.) Imagining Welfare Futures, London Routledge
Marshall, T. H,. (1964) Welfare and Citizenship in (eds.) Braham., P. & Janes, L., 2002. Social Differences and Divisions. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers
Phillips, A,. 1991. Citizenship and Feminist Theory in (ed.) Andrews, G,. 1991 Citizenship Lawrence and Wishart Limited pp 76-88
Turner, B., 2001. The Erosion of Citizenship. British Journal of Sociology Vol. No. 52 Issue No. 2 pp. 189–209. Available at: [Accessed 14/10/2009]
Turner, B., 2002. Citizenship in (Eds.) Braham., P. & Janes, L., 2002. Social Differences and Divisions. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers
Walsh, M., Stephens, P., & Moore, S., 2000. Social Policy and Welfare. Cheltenham. Stanley Thornes Ltd
