1 DO NOT FORGET PAGE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Discuss the type of rights I think are necessary for citizenship in modern society. Thesis: to analyze and compare M and K+N's articles and using evidence from both compile my own grand master theory. The evidence 1The Views a-M's condcept b-K+N's revision 2Comparison :Pro's and Con's what I consider important for mordern citizenship Conclusion I will state that first the individual owes nothing to the state.... The institution of government at its core is solely to serve, not the other way around. I agree with Marshalll that yes a set of social, political, and civil rights are a good foundation to ensure that nobody gets taken advantage of. Kymlicka and Norman see that basic rights are not enough for the underprivileged minority...seeing that the rights were primarily intended for the 'white man'; I concede that this also has been the case in many instances where the Governmental powers have been abusive( especially to native indians). The types of rights that I deem necessary are pretty much the same as the ones that T.H Marshall laid down is his essay on "Citizenship and Social Class". I feel that to effectively ensure some degree of equality all aspects of society must be addressed; like Marshall I would feel that ensuring civil, social, and political rights can guarantee this across the board. I also feel, as Kymlicka and Norman state in the "Return of the Citizen", that perhaps an extra set of special representations rights are needed on top of Marshall's basic rights to ensure the inclusion of left out groups. I do not wholly agree completely with either article, though I will tend to associate myself more with Marshall's because his general focus at least denotes the intent of a common equality. I particularly feel that the Multicultural rights covered by Kymlicka and Norman are somewhat unnecessary. When we speak of cultural identity we must not forget that the North American culture, though based mostly on British imperialism, does have much multicultural tie-ins. Today I personally see many influences from other sides of the cultural spectrum. I do not like the idea of schools with special curriculums, I abhor schools with themes whether religious, military or otherwise; the school system should not fixate on morals of a specific group, only the law should be covered to instill a general moralground. I feel it is up to the cultural community to ensure that its participants are versed in their culture. This isn't a localized problem, even the white majority of Christians are finding that their offspring are abandoning the moral majority; so it doesn't surprise me to see that immigrant kids are more accepting of the popular culture than that of their parents. Marshall's view focuses on how citizenship can modify the inequality created by social/economic class and capitalism. He argues that citizenship is required to include groups excluded because of social and economic class. Marshall assumes the social, political and civil rights are all encompassing in the role of citizenship. He believes rights to be individualistic and that citizenship is Universalistic. Firstly T. H Marshall's article is a sociological analysis of citizenship in the welfare state that separates citizenship into three elements: civil, political and social The Civil element associated with civil rights which pertain to such things as freedom of thought and religion, speech, and freedom of the person; the right to own property, contract freely and the right to justice are intrinsic values that civil law undertakes to ensure. The Political element encompasses the political rights such as the right of participation in the exercise of political power The Social element regards the social right defined as an absolute right to certain standards of civilization which means it is a right to a certain level of income and economical security, to share in the common heritage and a right to live the life of a civilized being. Most important factor is membership in political community Mordern citizenship defined as equality Relationship between full membership and social rights -social rights necessary for full membership and participation in community. one needs economic security to exercise civil rights, social rights are a guarantee that political rights are exercised. Relationship between citizenship and capitalism citizenship(equality) versus capitalism(inequality) -positive relationship between capitalism and civil -neutral relationship with political -negative relationship with social which could challenge the inequality created by capitalism Citizenship is capable of modifying the inequality of capitalism Citizenship only modifies inequalities -aim is not to create absolute equality -Marshall stops short of demanding substantive equality Civil type of right: civil rights institution(social or political): courts of law specific historical period: consolidated in 18th century Civil rights liberties of the person freedom of speech* freedom of religion and thought right to contract freely right to justice right to own property -civil rights developed during growth of economic and religious freedom in 18th century Political type: political institution: parliament/legislative period: 19th century Political rights right to participate in exercise of political power -historical context of suffrage extension in 19th century; stems idea the idea citizenship as membership in political community Social type:social institution: welfare state period: 20th century Social rights defined as absolute right to certain standard of civilization 2 Kymlicka and Norman have a different approach, a political one. Immediate context of article is that citizenship is central to contemporary debates in political and legal theory and links rights(justice) to identification with specific political communities. Starting point for analysis -Return to Marshall's view of citizenship Characterization of M's approach to citizenship -Rights based approach What kind of citizenship is this? -Passive citizenship dependent on rights given by state Is this a fair characterization of M's concept of citizenship? -Kymlicka and Norman might be right on focusing on passivity of rights but not on M himself 2 sets of criticisms of M's theory: a-conservative critique suggests the need to supplement or replace passive citizenship b-cultural pluralists critique of failure to accommodate cultural diversity Citizenship; Identity and Difference K+N supplement M's conception of citizenship a-legal status for M b-also identity for K+N 3 Concept of identity is crucial to the critique of citizenship by cultural pluralists a-distrust of common identity/citizenship b-critique focuses on recognition of "difference" Questions the adequacy of the common rights of citizens for promoting the inclusion of these groups a-can rights accommodate special needs? b-groups may still feel excluded Accommodate through revision of citizenship Their alternative to common citizenship is idea of differentiated citizenship a-rights that attach to individuals by virtue of their membership in certain "disadvantaged" or "excluded" groups Justification for such rights? -drastic=their voice would not otherwise be heard 3 forms of differentiated citizenship rights a-special representation rights: as a response to disadvantaged or oppression* b-multiculural( polyethnic) rights: to both promote and recognize cultural difference* *not to include self government rights because it does not focus on inclusion. First 2 special rights are demands for inclusion - how they can be included in decision-making and allowed to value their culture Marshall's citizenship is criticized for being passive, yet I agree fully with him that to emphasize rights over obligations is the way to go. Just look at the state the new right put the populace in when it tried to enforce obligations, it created more private lives and widened the rift between the rich and the poor. Marshall saw that historically most rights arose from power struggles, and he feels that citizenship will ensure participation of the populace to deter further upheavals. History has shown the negativity of segregation. Together We Stand, Divided We Fall; I completely agree with that statement because it is true. I am not talking about self-government rights here, but what I am talking about is that if we start focusing on our differences than our commonalties we will be liable to cause unnecessary tension between different cultural communities. No one should be placed above another in status or privilege, except if the office attained is selfless in administering to the good of the people. When I hear about the homosexual community asking for special representation it does not give me the idea that they need a different code of conduct than the rest of us, they have not been able to enjoy the rights that we have about marriage and adoption. Just as suffrage gave all men(and later women) the right to vote, the gay community should be set on par with the rest of society. These rights if they are to be given, as Kymlicka states, should be temporary. Now where I will tend to disagree with what Kymlicka and Norman has put forward as another differentiated citizenship right is the Multicultural or Polyethnic rights to promote and recognize cultural differences. I am not advocating for a society devoid of individuality but I will advocate a society in which groups can put aside their differences to come together as a whole when required. I feel that most immigrants go through much pain adapting to our lifestyles and letting go of most of theirs, But we as a Country have our own cultural identity originating mostly from the melting-pot philosophy. What I am trying to get at is that yes it is hard for many minority groups to keep their cultural legacy alive; especially if they are widely spread out. I feel that no there should be no set 'holidays', I enjoy X-mas break as much as the next person, but it does not mean the same to me as it would to a devote Christian; I also feel that Sunday closing have no religious significance and no longer should be mandatory, period, for any culture; though its use lies in giving some businesses a weekly break. Now exempting a Sikh from wearing a motorcycle helmet does not bother me because in the instance of an accident to rider has the onus for personal safety precautions; but I would strongly disagree with exempting a Sikh from wearing a construction helmet were the safety of others are involved. And a Sikh mountie with a turban sort of undermines the purpose of a UNI-form if you ask me. So allowing for some exemptions, so long as not to interfere with the greater workings of society, really does not bother me. One thing that I feel will create some problems is the idea of promoting a cultural identity. If there is to be public support of bilingual education and ethnic studies in schools one has to ask is which cultural group, if a conflict of interests shall rise with another minority, has seniority. I will concede that yes Marshall's only discernible weakness is that he did not address the issue of differentiated citizenship, but to criticize it is unjust. The work was from a different time, that noted it still has much relevancy. Kymlicka and Norman have been very careful not to state directly their own views as Marshall has, but it is understandable seeing that Kymlicka and Norman's intent was to create a forum for alternatives to orthodox citizenship. One last thing about the sacrificing animals thing with the Jews and Muslims. We as a Nation have a set of intrinsic values, but as much as I feel bad saying this I can't see any problem with allowing them the right to humanely sacrifice animals; seeing as hunting for Sport, seen by many as an acceptable pastime, it would be hypocritical of us to deny religious minorities like exemptions on the grounds of slaughtering animals while Joe Blo takes his trusty 12 gauge and blows a Stag away.