Social Liberalism and Social Citizenship

1
Social Liberalism and Social Citizenship
2
Recall last week

• N/K propose four ways to think about citizenship.
  What are they?
• The focus on citizenship reflects a shift away
  from debates about what?
• Name one reason why N/K think the focus on
  citizenship has merit?

3
Any questions about the reading from last week?
4
Questions about this weeks readings?

• Some I may answer now
• Some I may postpone and cover in the lectures
  this week.
• Any one heard of or read about T.H. Marshall?

5
How does this week contribute to the goal of the
course?

• Goal learn about five contemporary normative
  perspectives consider their implications for
  public policy.
• The five schools of thought all respond in some
  capacity to social liberalism
• TH Marshall and Rawls seminal social liberals
• Introduce the social element of citizenship

6
Marshalls approach to citizenship innovative

• identified three potential elements (p. 71)
• Civil
• Political
• Social

7
Civil element

• composed of the rights necessary for individual
  freedom (71)
• liberty of the person
• freedom of speech, thought and faith
• the right to own property and to conclude
  contracts
• the right to justice

8
Political element

• the right to participate in the exercise of
  political power, as a member of a body invested
  with political authority or as an elector of the
  members of such a body (72)

9
Social element

• the whole range from the right to a modicum of
  economic welfare and security to the right to
  share to the full in the social heritage and to
  live the life of a civilized being according to
  the standards prevailing in the society (72)

10
Institutions give citizenship elements de facto
power

• Marshall links each part of citizenship with
  certain institutions
• Courts of justice ? civil element
• Parliament and local govt councils ? political
  element
• Educational system and social services (aka
  welfare state) ? social element

11
Implication?

• Social scientists can track the actual status of
  citizenship in a society/community by examining
  the evolution of its institutions.

12
Why does Marshall distinguish between
citizenships different parts?

• Citizenship is inadequately theorized if only its
  formal legal dimension is appreciated.
• Equality before the law does not guarantee all
  persons the practical ability to benefit from
  legal entitlements since unequal social and
  economic conditions limit for some the
  opportunities to exercise their civil and
  political liberties

13
The opportunity to participate fully does not
just depend on the range of formal civil and
political liberties one enjoys

• This is how Marshall (p. 88) puts it
• civil rights confer only the legal capacity
  to strive for things one would like to possess
  but do not guarantee the possession of any of
  them. A property right is not a right to possess
  property, but a right to acquire it, if you can,
  and to protect it, if you can get it. But, if
  you explain to a pauper that his property rights
  are the same as those of a millionaire, he will
  probably accuse you of quibbling.

14
Marshall is most concerned with social
citizenship.

• Wants something to counter tendency for laissez
  faire capitalist economies to produce substantial
  inequality within societies.
• Thinks the demands generated by need and the
  unequal status associated with poverty radically
  undermine the conditions necessary for successful
  market and political participation, thereby
  distorting both the contribution that individuals
  can make and the ends they can achieve.

15
Rawls also engages with social element of cit

• But not specifically in those words.
• Reading package includes a few pages about the
  veil of ignorance.
• Didnt want to assign the whole text!
• Essentially, Rawls asks us to consider the
  principles of justice we would choose if we new
  nothing about our status in society i.e. our
  skills, education, culture, ability, income.

16
If we might have to occupy any position in
society

• What principles of justice would we want to
  govern that society?
• Rawlss answer 2 principles (pp. 60-61)

17
Principle 1

• would guarantee each person an equal right to
  the most extensive basic liberty compatible with
  a similar liberty for others.
• This principle, he explains, defines and secures
  the equal liberties of citizenship.
• Rawls lists the same rights that Marshall
  assigns the civil and political parts of
  citizenship (p. 61).
• These rights identify the ways in which all
  citizens must be equal regardless of inequalities
  in wealth, income or status that that may
  otherwise be permitted.

18
Principle 2

• Has two parts
• positions of authority and offices of command
  must be accessible to all (p. 61)
• difference principle inequalities of wealth
  and income are just if and only if they work as
  part of a scheme which improves the expectations
  of the least advantaged members of society (p.
  75)

19
The principles must be implemented in order
first P1, then P2.

• The order tells us that the basic structure of
  society is to arrange the inequalities of wealth
  and authority in ways consistent with the equal
  liberties of civil and political citizenship (p.
  43).
• Why? Because some allocations are fundamentally
  incompatible with equal liberties and
  opportunities for all Until the basic wants of
  individuals can be fulfilled, the relative
  urgency of their interest in liberty cannot be
  firmly decided in advance (p. 543).
• Only under favourable circumstances are
  citizens free to prioritize their fundamental
  interest in determining their life plan
  according to their personal talents, values and
  objectives (ibid.).

20
In summary

• It requires little imagination to question the
  value and meaning of a right
• to freedom of conscience and opinion without
  adequate food
• to freedom of expression without adequate
  education
• to security of the person without adequate
  shelter and health care.
• Questions??????????

21
Lots of historical figures draw link between
citizenship and SES

• Aristotle, Machiavelli, de Tocqueville, Mill
• all believed that in order to be a citizen of a
  polis, in order to be able to participate fully
  in public life, one needed to be in a certain
  socioeconomic position.
• People cant be expected to act well in the
  political sphere and to make adequate decisions,
  unless some attention was paid to matters of
  their wealth, their well-being and their social
  and economic status.

22
So what is new?

• the conclusion Marshall and Rawls draw about the
  connection between SES and the capacity to
  participate in ones community effectively.
• Until about Mill, thinkers used this link to
  restrict citizenship to those who occupy a
  suitable social location.
• In contrast, the social liberal philosophy urges
  that social institutions should be arranged to
  ensure all members of a society occupy the
  socioeconomic position necessary for citizenship.
  

23
The tremendous appeal of liberalism

• The egalitarian view that all members of a
  community count for one and no more than one.
• Anyone study Bentham? The initial link between
  liberalism and utilitarianism is not a coincident.

24
From Politics of Honour to Dignity

• Marshall (87-88) attributes the development of
  this liberal notion of citizenship with the shift
  away from societal practices premised on the
  differential status or honour associated with
  class, function and family toward practices that
  presumed contracts between men who are free and
  equal in status.
• Among theorists, Kants work is held up as a key
  turning point for recognizing that individuals
  should be treated with dignity as ends in
  themselves

25
Lets focus on social citizenship

• point around which our five political camps
  will have the most disagreement with social
  liberalism.
• Recall THMs definition
• the whole range from the right to a modicum of
  economic welfare and security to the right to
  share to the full in the social heritage and to
  live the life of a civilized being according to
  the standards prevailing in the society (72)

26
What does that mean?

• tendency to claim that social citizenship
  (pretty much) the welfare state.
• There are problems with this
• 1. the welfare state has been reconstructed in
  recent years? Does that mean that THMs ideal of
  citizenship has changed?
• 2. what about things that were never integrated
  into the welfare state? Might they not also be
  important to THMs vision of SC?

27
3-Part Framework for SC

• Social security
• Substantive equality of opportunity
• Dignified community membership

28
Social security

• Marshall calls for a system of social services
  that both creates
• a universal right to real income which is not
  proportionate to the market value of the
  claimant (p. 96)
• and a guaranteed minimum supply of certain
  essential goods and services (such as medical
  attention and supplies, shelter and education)
  (p. 101).
• Rawls (p. 87) a guaranteed reasonable social
  minimum.

29
Decommodification

• THMs Point to counter the tendency for
  capitalist economies to commodify citizens.
• The real income on which citizens depend for
  their survival and well-being would no longer be
  contingent on the sale of their labour power for
  a wage that makes little reference to their
  social needs and status as citizens (p. 80).

30
An egalitarian foundation

• Not a commitment to equality of outcomes
• Recall Rawlss second principle part a) a
  commitment to equality of opportunity.
• This may ultimately result in inequalities of
  income and other material conditions among
  citizens as they pursue disparate opportunities
  that generate different material rewards.

31
Substantive, not just formal, equality of
opportunity

• Rawls (p.73)
• Positions in a society should not only be open
  to talents in a formal sense.
• Citizens also should have a fair chance to
  attain those talents.
• The expectations of those with the same
  abilities and aspirations should not be affected
  by their social class.
• Conclusion Free market arrangements must be
  set within a framework of political and legal
  institutions which regulates the overall trends
  of economic events and preserves the social
  conditions necessary for fair equality of
  opportunity.

32
SC mitigates illegitimate inequality

• Marshall A public commitment to education is
  critical to prevent cyclical privilege premised
  on intergenerational inheritance.
• But the right to equal opportunity is ultimately
  an instrument of social stratification (110).
• At first, the major effect of universal
  education is to reveal hidden equalities to
  enable the poor boy to show that he is as good as
  the rich boy. But the final outcome is a
  structure of unequal status fairly apportioned to
  unequal abilities (p. 109).

33
No dynamic inequality

• THM Democratic citizenship is entirely
  consistent with status differences provided
  they do not cut too deep and provided they are
  not an expression of hereditary privilege (116).
  

34
Implication?

• Social citizenship can co-exist with capitalist
  economies.
• THM (p. 110) SC imposes modifications on
  capitalism, but markets must still function
  within limits.
• Reciprocity between citizenship and capitalist
  market since the latter powers the economic
  growth necessary to enrich citizenship status
  with social security that can be distributed
  fairly among all members of society.

35
Dignified Community Membership

• Integral to Rawlss notion of citizenship
• the intuitive idea that since everyones
  well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation
  without which no one could have a satisfactory
  life, the division of advantages should be such
  as to draw forth the willing cooperation of
  everyone taking part in it, including those less
  well situated (p. 15).
• This position implies that individuals are
  self-respecting full members of a community if
  and only if it can reasonably be expected that
  they would voluntarily collaborate with those
  better endowed, or more fortunate in their
  social circumstances (p. 103).

36
Interpreting the difference principle

• The second part of Rawlss 2nd principle suggests
  terms under which it is reasonable to expect such
  participation would be forthcoming
• When a community endeavours to ensure that no
  individual loses out while subject to the social
  order that inequalities in wealth and income
  benefit even those who are least advantaged in
  the community.

37
Interpreting the difference principle

• Recall behind the veil of ignorance people are
  deciding upon the organization for their society
• Imagine that they initially propose an
  arrangement in which all goods are distributed
  equally similar rights and duties and identical
  income and wealth.
• This state of affairs, Rawls (p. 62) suggests,
  provides a benchmark for judging the relative
  merit of alternative social arrangements.

38
Interpreting the difference principle

• Recall behind the veil of ignorance people are
  deciding upon the organization for their society
• Imagine that they initially propose an
  arrangement in which all goods are distributed
  equally similar rights and duties and identical
  income and wealth.
• This state of affairs, Rawls (p. 62) suggests,
  provides a benchmark for judging the relative
  merit of alternative social arrangements.

39
Interpreting the difference principle

• But what if some inequalities of financial
  resources and organizational powers raise the
  economic and social well-being of even those
  least advantaged in society above the
  hypothetical benchmark?
• Then no one would have reason to reject the
  inequalities. Nobody stands to lose from such
  unequal distributions even if she winds up in the
  least privileged social location within the
  society she is co-designing.

40
Interpreting the difference principle

• Scenario B no one does worse than benchmark
• Scenario A benchmark

41
THM Standard of Civilization

• THMs def of SC a range of entitlements intended
  to guarantee that citizens lead a civilized life
  according to the standards of the day.
• Not nearly as rigid as Rawlss difference
  principle.
• But still proposes a strict constraint on what
  inequalities are permissible.
• No inequalities where the relative material
  deprivation that some suffer renders them
  uncivilized by the standards of their more
  privileged peers.

42
We should not strive merely to treat suffering of
less fortunate

• THM and Rawls defend against an impoverished
  vision of citizenship.
• One does not lead a civilized life because the
  state will treat ones poverty with (stigmatized)
  income assistance or ones illness with medical
  services if the state simultaneously supports and
  enforces social relations largely responsible for
  causing that suffering, for making people poor
  and making them sick.

43
SC calls for institutional reorganization

• The right to live a civilized life suggests a
  state duty to ensure that the institutional order
  does not discount the political and economic
  causes of poverty and illness to the so-called
  private and depoliticised workings of
• biology,
• individual choice and ability,
• family and
• the market

44
SC calls for institutional reorganization

• Rawls (87) the institutions presently
  responsible for redistributing wealth and income
  are riddled with grave injustices.
• They require reorganization to ensure the
  difference principle is satisfied consistent with
  the demands of liberty and fair equality of
  opportunity.

45
SC calls for institutional reorganization

• In the language of Marshall
• The standard of civilization demands the
  redesign of social institutions that are
  complicit in reinforcing social relations which
  sustain individual marginalization and impede
  some community members from accessing the means
  to achieve personal projects in a socially
  respected way.

46
Radical but still compatible with capitalism

• Provided an egalitarian social foundation is
  secured, Rawlss second principle urges
  communities to harness the power of capitalist
  markets (see especially 67-75).
• He indicates that the incentive effects implicit
  in markets offer societies an opportunity to
  capitalize on the varied levels of ambition and
  natural talents among its members to maximize
  economic growth and the value of available
  resources.

47
Radical but still compatible with capitalism

• Rawls (p. 179)
• Economic efficiency has the potential to render
  the distribution of natural abilities as a
  collective asset.
• The more fortunate in the lottery of natural
  talents and ambition prosper more within
  competitive markets.
• But in the just society that has undergone
  institutional recalibration, they do so in ways
  that help those who have lost out.

48
Next lecture

• The idiosyncrasies of social liberalism

49
Small group discussion

• Marshall indicates that the three elements of
  citizenship can be associated with three
  centuries respectively
• 18th century civil
• 19th century political
• 20th century social
• What do you think? When did women get the vote
  in Canada? Inuit women? Did all countries
  become democratic in the 19th century?