Citizenship is a status bestowed on those who are full members
of community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the right
and duties with which the status is endowed. There is no universal principle
that determines what those rights and duties shall be, but societies in which citizenship
is a developing institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against which
achievement can be measured and towards which aspiration can be directed. The urge
forward along the path thus plotted is an urge towards a fuller measure of equality,
an enrichment of the stuff of which the status is made and an increase in the
number of those on whom the status is bestowed. Social class, on the other hand,
is a system of inequality. And it too, like citizenship, can be based on a set
of ideals, beliefs and values. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the
impact of citizenship on social class should take the form of a conflict
between opposing principles. If I am right in my contention that citizenship
has been a developing institution in England at least since the latter part of
the seventeenth century, then it is clear that its growth convinces with the
rise of capitalism, which is a system, not of equality but inequality. Here is
something that need explain. How is it that these two opposing principles could
grow and flourish side by side in the same soil? What made it possible for them
to be reconciled with one another and to become, for a time at least, allies
instead of antagonists? The question is pertinent one, for it is clear that, in
the twentieth century citizenship and the capitalist class system have been at
war.
Everyone within a community is granted citizenship. With this
status everyone is equal with respect to their rights and duties. Also
communities that haven’t established an image of citizenship can work in the
direction of equality. On the other spectrum, social class which is considered
to be the opposite of citizenship is considered to be a system of inequality.
Then he asks the question as to how two different principles can be considered
“as allies rather than antagonists”. Then he answers it by saying “in the
twentieth century, citizenship and the capitalist’s class system have been at
war.” What I think he means by this quote is that citizenship is rooted on the
bases that everyone is equal. Whereas the capitalist class system, is rooted on
the bases that everyone is unequal. So these two opposite views will clash in
many ways.
The reason why I picked this quote is because I don’t agree
with Marshall’s idea that citizenship and capitalists class system have been at
war. However, I do believe in order to be equal and be granted rights is
through citizenship. In order to be protected by the laws of this country you
have to be a citizen, and that’s one way that makes everyone equal. Granted, we
are talking about England but within the lecture you talked about “many of the
American ideas and institutions are influenced by the English institutions.” On
the other hand, one of the most extensive system that was happening during this
time, which was affecting many of the people within America was the slavery
system. This system had an effect on many of the people who lived in America so
the word “everyone” that Marshall used to talk about citizenship, rights,
respect and being equal did not apply to them. So because they are not treated
on the same level as “everyone” this act of being citizens and citizenship
causes capitalists class system and social class. Marshall talks about citizenship
and capitalist’s class system being on two opposite ends basically parallel to
each other but are continuously at war. The way I view this is, I think of
those who have the rights to citizenship and those who don’t which causes this
social class of inequality.
No comments:
Post a Comment