Law Essay

Citizenship is widely considered to be an integral part of society yet it paradoxaly it "remains unclear what we can expect from a [general] 'theory of citizenship'"(K+N, p.309). In his essay, "Citizenship and Social Class", T.H Marshall proposes that citizenship is essential to promote equality and inclusion by counteracting the inequality created by capitalism and social class. He goes on to say that it should be divided into three sets of rights . In the recent article, "Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory", Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman argue that Marshall does not address the issue of cultural diversity. They argue that the orthodox conception of citizenship excludes minorities from the common culture. Many groups still feel alienated despite possessing the common set of citizenship rights described by Marshall. Even with Marshall's sets of rights theorectically insuring the inclusion of these groups into the common culture;

T.H Marshall focuses more on the economic aspects of inclusion to battle the inequality created by Capitalism. In his essay "Rights based approach What kind of citizenship is this?

-Passive citizenship dependent on rights given by state.

Marshall's view focuses on how citizenship can modify the social and economical inequality created by social and economic class and capitalism. He argues that citizenship is required to include groups excluded only 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 rights based 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 developed during the growth of economic and religious freedoms in the eighteenth century. These rights 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 courts are primarily responsible for upholding these values. -positive relationship between capitalism and civil

The Political element encompasses the political rights such as the right of participation in the exercise of political power. suffrage extension in 19th century; stems idea the idea citizenship as membership in political community. -neutral relationship with political

The Social element regards the social right defined as an absolute right to certain a 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.-negative relationship with social which could challenge the inequality created by capitalism

Most important factor is membership in political community

Modern 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 is citizenship(equality) versus capitalism(inequality)

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

Kymlicka and Norman have a different approach, a political one. The 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.-Kymlicka and Norman might be right on focusing on passivity of rights but not on M himself. criticisms of M's theory: cultural pluralist critique of failure to accommodate cultural diversity

Concept of identity is crucial to the critique of citizenship by cultural pluralist

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-multi cultural( poly-ethnic) 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

"It is true that class still functions. Social inequality is regarded as necessary and purposeful. ..................

"Culturally excluded groups are at a disadvantage in the political process, and 'the solution lies at least in part in providing institutionalized means for the explicit recognition and representation of oppressed groups'(Young 1989, p.259)"(Kymlicka and Norman, p.303)

"Culturally excluded groups often have distinctive needs which can only be met through group-differentiated policies."(K+N, p.303)

"The demand for both representation rights and multi cultural rights is a demand for inclusion. Groups that feel excluded want to be included in the larger society, and the recognition and accommodation of their 'difference' is intended to facilitate this."(K+N, p.306)

"Citizenship has itself become, in certain respects, the architect of legitimate social inequality."(M, p.396)

"I have tried to show how citizenship... has been altering the pattern of social inequality .[...] We have to look.... for the combined effects of three factors. First, the compression... of the scale of income distribution. Second, the great extension of the area of common culture and common experience. And third, the enrichment of the universal status of citizenship, combined with the recognition and stabilization of certain status differences chiefly through the linked systems of education and occupation."(M, p.400)

"The extension of the social services is not primarily a means of equalizing incomes. [...] What matters is that there is a general enrichment of the concrete substance of civilized life... Equalization is not so much between classes as between individuals.... Equality of status is more than equality of income. [...]"(M, p.400)

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.

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. Wassup