Lister, Ruth - Vocabularies of Citizenship and Gender The UK

http://csp.sagepub.
com
Critical Social Policy
DOI: 10.1177/026101839801805603
1998; 18; 309 Critical Social Policy
Ruth Lister
Vocabularies of citizenship and gender: the UK
http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/56/309
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Critical Social Policy Additional services and information for
http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/56/309#BIBL
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 4 articles hosted on the Citations
1998 Critical Social Policy Ltd. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by Graciela Di Marco on February 28, 2007 http://csp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
309
&squ; RUTH LISTER
Loughborough University
Vocabularies of
citizenship
and
gender:
the UK
Abstract
Citizenship
has
re-emerged
as a
key concept
in late 20th
century
academic and
political
discourse in the UK. This article
explores
the
changing
nature of this discourse in mainstream
political
and in aca-
demic and activist debate. The latter both reflects the mainstream
political
debate and
provides
critical
perspectives
on it. In
particular,
it
is here that we find a
gender
dimension and critical attention to differ-
ence. The article concludes
by speculating
about
possible
future
directions in UK
citizenship
debates.
Introduction
Late 20th
century
Britain has seen the
re-emergence
of the
language
of
citizenship
in both
political
and academic debates.
Having briefly
sketched out the historical
background,
this article
explores
contem-
porary
mainstream
political
vocabularies of
citizenship
and in
particular
the shift from a
rights
to a duties discourse. It focuses on a
number of
important policy
areas that have been framed most mark-
edly
within a discourse of
citizenship
and which therefore
provide
a
good
lens
through
which to
analyse shifting
vocabularies of
citizenship
in the UK. It then looks at alternative constructions
developed by
aca-
demics and activists in which the
gender
dimension,
missing
from
mainstream
political
discourses,
is more
likely
to be made
explicit.
In
conclusion,
it looks to
possible
future
developments.
Historical
background:
1900-1980
Anthony
Rees identifies three waves of
citizenship
in 20th
century
British
political thought.
The first was the three decades
prior
to the
Copyright ©
1998 Critical Social
Policy 56 0261-0183(199808)18:3
SAGE Publications
(London,
Thousand
Oaks,
CA and New
Delhi),
Vol.
18(3):
309-331;
005147.
310
First World
War;
the second the
period
between the Second World
War and the
1960s;
and the third the last two decades of the 20th
century.
He
suggests
that what marked these
periods
out from the
dead
periods
in between was their
preoccupation
with the
appropriate
welfare settlement between individuals and the state. These
vigorous
and anxious debates centred
respectively
on the social
legislation
of
the New
Liberalism,
the
implementation
of the
post-war
social demo-
cratic welfare state and the
Thatcher/Major recasting
of the late
1980s
and
early
1990s
(Rees,
1996:
4).
Contemporary
deliberations about
citizenship
tend to take as their
historical reference
point
the start of the second wave in the immediate
post-war
era when the
Beveridge Report
of
1942
marked the
apogee
of
social
citizenship
and T. H. Marshall laid the theoretical
groundwork
for
subsequent thinking.
However,
the roots of some of their ideas
lay
in
early
20th
century
new liberalism. In its
appeal
to the common
good,
it
attempted
to combine a collective notion of
citizenship,
underpinned by
the
state,
with liberal ideas of
rights (Jordan,
1989).
The new liberals
recognition
of the
importance
of basic social
rights
to
the exercise of individual freedom
represented
a
challenge
to the nar-
rower market liberalism dominant in the
19th
century
(Clarke
et
al.,
1987; Plant, 1988).
The first hesitant but
highly significant steps
towards the creation of a framework of social
citizenship rights
had
been taken
by
the time of the First World War.
The
hardship
of the inter-war
years, together
with the
experience
of the Second World War
itself,
provided
the backcloth for
Beveridges
appeal
to the values of social
citizenship
in his
report
which ushered in
the
post-war
welfare state. At the same
time,
T. H. Marshalls famous
lecture on
Citizenship
and Social Class
(1950)
provided
the intellectual
paradigm
for
post-war thinking
on
citizenship
in the UK.
One of the
contemporary
criticisms of this
paradigm
is its
neglect
of
citizenships gendered
nature,
in relation both to the
chronology
of
the
development
of
citizenship rights
and womens
partial
exclusion
from
many
of the new social
rights
(Pascall, 1997).
The
struggle
for
womens
suffrage
in the
early
20th
century
(achieved
finally
in
1928)
involved debates about the nature of womens
political citizenship.
Alongside
demands for
equal political citizenship
with men
through
the
vote,
there were other women who
argued
for a
different citizenship
expressed through public community
work which
represented
the
exercise of a form of
citizenship obligation (Riley,
1988; Koven, 1993;
Lewis, 1994).
During
the inter-war
period,
a
range
of
organizations,
311
including
local Womens
Citizenship
Committees,
worked to attract
women into
public
life
by emphasizing
their
citizenship obligations
(Dale
and
Foster, 1986).
After the First World War and more
decidedly
once the vote was
won,
the debate about different or
equal citizenship
focused more on
the nature of womens social
citizenship
and whether it should derive
from
paid
work or motherhood. This was then reflected in different
reactions to the
Beveridge Report. Many
women welcomed
Beveridges
recognition
of the value of married womens
unpaid
work.
Others,
though,
such as Elizabeth Abbott and Katherine
Bompas
of the
Womens Freedom
League
identified the failure to treat women as full
and
independent
fellow citizens with men as the
Reports
fatal flaw
(Abbott
and
Bompas,
1943: 18).
Beveridges image
of the citizen-mother as
having
vital work to do
in
ensuring
the
adequate
continuance of the British race and of British
ideals in the world
(1942:
para
117)
revealed the racialized nature of
dominant models of
citizenship,
the roots of which
lay
in Britains
imperialist past
(Williams, 1989).
From the
early
20th
century,
social
citizenship rights
have been linked to
immigration
status
(Cohen,
1985;
Jacobs,
1985).
A
key
issue for the UK in the
post-war period
was
the
citizenship
claims
(formal, substantive,
cultural and
symbolic)
of
former colonial
subjects.
There was considerable resistance to these
claims,
during
the
1960s
in
particular.
The
period
as a whole saw an
increasingly
nationalistic definition of
citizenship
in Britain culmi-
nating
in the
1981
Nationality
Act
entrenching
the
patriality
definition of British
citizenship
based on descent
(Rich,
1991: 87).
The revival of
citizenship
in mainstream
political
debate:
the
1980s
and
1990s
The renaissance of the
language
of
citizenship
in the late
1980s
reflected factors which were
not,
by
and
large, unique
to the UK but
which took on a
particular
resonance in what has been described as the
chief
European testing ground
for new
right theory (Marquand,
1991:
329).
In some
ways,
the UK acted as a conduit for new
right
ideas as
they
travelled from the United States to
Europe
on the back of the
wave of broader
global
economic trends.
Some of these broader trends
began
to be
apparent during
the
1970s,
contributing
to the
perception
of welfare states in crisis.
312
The
ability
of the new
right
to
exploit
this sense of
crisis,
combined
with a
growing
dissatisfaction with the
top-down
and
poor quality
service delivered
by
the welfare
state,
contributed to
Margaret
Thatchers
victory
in
1979.
What was to follow was a concerted ideo-
logical
attack on the
post-war
social democratic
conception
of social
citizenship.
Notions of
community
and collective welfare were cast
aside before the altar of
individualism,
enterprise
and consumerism.
Roche has
suggested
that the dominant
rights-based citizenship
paradigm
was in
poor shape
to
respond
to,
let alone to
anticipate,
the
ideological
and structural
challenges
which arose to batter it in the
1980s
(1992: 38).
In search of a
big
idea with which to
respond
to
these
challenges,
the centre-left looked to a
reworking
of
citizenship
in
the late
1980s
and
early
1990s
(see,
for
example,
Plant, 1988;
Ashdown, 1989; Andrews, 1991).
The
philosophy
of
citizenship pro-
vided a means of
reconciling
the collectivist tradition of the left with
notions of individual
rights,
in
recognition
of the need for an alterna-
tive
political
credo to accommodate the individual to whom the new
right
directed its
appeal. Citizenship provided
a
key
intellectual tool
for defenders of the values of the welfare state
(Harris, 1987;
King,
1987;
King
and
Waldron, 1988; Lister, 1990a;
Taylor-Gooby,
1991;
Hutton, 1995).
It also acted as a
rallying cry
for those concerned with
the corrosion of
democracy
under Conservative rule in the face of a cen-
tralization of state
power,
the erosion of local
government
and of trade
union and other civil
rights
(Hall
and
Held, 1989).
In a
country
of con-
stitutional
subjects
rather than
citizens,
it is
only relatively recently
that debates about
democracy
have become more
prominent.
Although,
in the
event,
citizenship
was not
adopted
as the new
model Labour
Partys big
idea,
as a succession
of big
ideas were taken
up
and discarded with
bewildering speed
(Lister, 1997b),
it has been
an
important
element in the evolution of its
philosophy.
Thus,
for
instance,
Tony
Blairs first
exposition
of the
meaning
of socialism
(or
social-ism as he chose to recast
it),
on
taking up
the
leadership
of the
party,
set out his
interpretation
of the Left view of
citizenship
and
included the
equal
worth of each citizen as one of the values of demo-
cratic socialism
(Blair, 1994).
His first social
policy speech
as Prime
Minister characterized worklessness as detachment from full citizen-
ship
and declared that to be a citizen of Britain is not
just
to hold its
passport
it is to share its
aspirations,
to be
part
of the British
family
(Blair, 1997b).
At the same
time,
the
language
of
citizenship
has con-
tinued to inform a number of
important
texts on the
centre-left,
most
313
notably
Will Huttons
best-selling
The State Were In
(1995)
and to a
lesser extent the
report
of the Commission on Social
Justice
(1994).
Moreover,
alternative
big
ideas such as
community
and stake-
holding
themselves draw
upon
the
vocabulary
of
citizenship,
albeit at
times
implicitly.
In the case of
community
in
particular,
this
vocabulary
is one of
responsibility
and
obligation, reflecting
the influence on New Labour
both of
popular
communitarianism,
as
expounded by
Amitai Etzioni
and David
Selbourne,
and of a British tradition of ethical Christian
socialism. It is an
expression
of what David
Marquand
(1996)
has
called a new kind of moral collectivism on the centre-left
(see
also
Driver and
Martell, 1997).
The statement of
values,
which
replaced
the totemic Clause IV of the
partys
constitution,
offers a new ideal of
a community...
where the
rights
we
enjoy
reflect the duties we
owe,
a formulation which
implies
that duties exist
morally
and
logically
prior
to
rights.
This New Labour mantra echoes the
deployment
of
the
language
of
citizenship obligation by
Conservative ministers in
the
1980s (see later).
It also reflects a more
deep-rooted paradigm
shift
in which the discourse of
citizenship
draws
increasingly upon
the
lexicon of
obligations
rather than
rights
(Roche, 1992).
This is
reflected both in New Labours moral exhortations and in
legal
changes, particularly
in the areas of social
security
and crime and dis-
order
(see later).
From
rights
to
obligations
Rights
The restriction of social
citizenship rights
was a central aim of the new
right project
as the Thatcher
government
set out to reduce
expecta-
tions of what the state should
provide (King,
1987).
Under
John
Major, citizenship rights reappeared
in the
guise
of the Citizens
Charter,
published
in
1991. However,
this
represented
a
consumerist,
market-oriented
conception
of
rights
in which the individual citizen
qua
customers
rights
were limited to the
provision
of
information,
the
expression
of choice and
compensation
claims for
public
services that
did not meet Charter standards. The
placing
of the
apostrophe
before
rather than after the s in Citizens underlined the
individualistic,
depoliticized
nature of the citizen-state
relationship
embodied in the
314
Charter
(Taylor,
1991/2;
Miller and
Peroni, 1992;
Oliver and
Heater,
1994).
The Charter
notwithstanding,
the
1990s
have witnessed a backlash
against
what has been
portrayed
as a culture and
politics
of dutiless
rights
in
which,
in Selbournes
words,
the
individual,
the
community,
the
concept
of
right,
the sense of
citizenship,
the civic
bond,
and the
civic order itself come to be diminished
together
(Selbourne,
1994:
54). Indeed,
when he was Shadow Home
Secretary, Jack
Straw
(1995)
used Selbournes
phraseology
to attack the Citizens Charter as encour-
aging
a culture of dutiless
rights. Popularized by journalists
such as
Melanie
Phillips
of The
Ob.rerver,
such sentiments have become common
currency,
as our
rights
culture,
often linked with the values of the
permissive
1960s,
is blamed for
many
of the evils of modern
society.
Perhaps paradoxically,
this is the context in which the
campaign
by
Charter 88 and others for a Bill of
Rights
and a Human
Rights
Commission has
finally
entered on to the mainstream
political stage
(Klug,
1996).
Charter 88s
campaign
for constitutional reform aimed
not
only
to
deepen citizenship
but to extend and rework this
concept
to make it relevant to all sections of
society
(Ellis, 1993: xix).
The new
government
is committed to the
incorporation
of the
European
Convention on Human
Rights
into British
law,
an historic
moment,
according
to Andrew
Puddephatt,
Director of Charter 88: for the first
time,
our fundamental
rights
will be written down in a
way
that can
be
easily
understood and will be enforceable
through
the courts
(Puddephatt,
1997: 37).
European
law also has
implications
for social
rights
of
citizenship
in the UK now that it has
finally signed up
for the
Social
Chapter, although
the
present government
shares the Tories
concern that
any
further
rights
under the
Chapter
should not burden
business. It has also
signalled
a refusal to
strengthen
social
citizenship
rights through
an overall real
improvement
in benefit levels which is
dismissed as old Labour
thinking
and as
encouraging
a
dependency
culture.
Thus,
while New Labour has embraced the
agenda
for
strengthening
civil and
political rights,
it is rather less enthusiastic
about social
rights.
Obligations
Instead,
in a series of
speeches
and
essays,
Blair has
emphasized
the cen-
trality
of
citizenship obligation
to New Labours
project.
In a
Spectator
Lecture,
for
example,
Blairs
subject
was
peoples
duties to
315
one another as citizens:
duty,
he
declared,
is an essential Labour
concept.
It is at the heart of
creating
a
strong community
or
society.
He distanced himself from
early
Left
thinking
in which the
language
of
responsibility
[was]
spoken
far less
fluently
than that of
rights.
He
spoke
of a covenant between
society
and each of its citizens within
which
duty
must be
set;
and it involves duties from
society
to citizen
as well as the other
way
about. This allows us to be much
tougher
and
hard-headed in the rules we
apply;
and how we
apply
them
(Blair,
1995).
A decade
earlier,
a
very
similar
message
was
given
to the
Conservative
Party
Conference
by John
Moore,
then
Secretary
of State
for Social
Security,
when he set the
Party
the task of:
[C]orrecting
the balance of the
citizenship equation.
In a free
society
the
equation
that has
rights
on one side must have
responsibilities
on the
other.... For more than a
quarter
of a
century public
focus has been on
the citizens
rights
and it is now
past
time to redress the balance.
(Moore, 1988)
Moores main concern was with the
paid
work
obligations
of unem-
ployed people,
which also
figures strongly
in the new
governments
policy agenda.
In each
case,
a central aim has been to end the
depen-
dency
culture,
exhibiting
the
fingerprints
of
political
ideas
imported
from the US where the
imposition
of
paid
work
obligations upon
unemployed
and lone
parent
welfare claimants has
gone
much further
than in the UK. The
philosophy
was summed
up
in a statement
by
the
highly
influential Lawrence Mead that the enforcement of obli-
gations-in particular
work
obligations-is
as much a
badge
of
citizenship
as
rights
(1986: 229).
As Alan Deacon
(1997)
reminds
us,
it has
always
been a central
tenet of British income maintenance
policy
that
unemployed people
should be available for and
prepared
to
accept
suitable
employment.
However,
under the Conservatives this
principle
was
subject
to increas-
ingly punitive interpretation
and
application. By
the end of the
Major
government,
an
actively seeking
work test had been
imposed, pilot
workfare
type
schemes had been introduced and
unemployment
benefit
had been
replaced
with the
job
seekers allowance
(JSA), designed
to
make clear to
unemployed people
the link between their
receipt
of
benefit and the
obligations
that
places upon
them
through
a manda-
tory job-seekers agreement
(DEG/DSS,
1994: 10;
see also
Oppenheim
and
Lister, 1996).
316
Although
Labour had
opposed
the introduction
of the JSA,
there is
no commitment now to its abolition.
Instead,
the
government
has
made clear that its commitment to
tackling youth
and
long-term
unemployment
must be matched
by
the exercise of
responsibility
among unemployed people
themselves. As Gordon Brown warned in
his first
Budget speech,
in
1997,
with the new
opportunities
for
young
people provided by
his welfare to work
scheme,
come new
responsi-
bilities. The
penalties
associated with
non-compliance will,
in some
cases,
be even harsher than under the Tories.
Where the UK has not
(yet)
followed the US is in the
application
of these
principles
to lone
parents.
In the US it has been
(primarily
black)
lone mothers who have been the
target
of work-welfare
policies.
It has thus been both a
gendered
and a racialized construction of citi-
zenship obligation
at issue. This
has, however,
exposed
some of the
tensions within new
right thinking
about
citizenship.
For
some,
the
presence
of children to be
supported
intensifies the
paid
work obli-
gation ;
for
others,
such a
position
is
regarded
as
undermining family
responsibilities. Despite
its obsession with welfare
dependency,
the
Conservative
government
did not
challenge
lone
parents exemption
from the
paid
work
obligation.
In the conflict between different
strands of
neo-conservatism,
unlike in the
US,
the
pro-family
con-
struction of lone mothers
primary obligation
won out. Labours
policy
is to
place greater emphasis
on
encouraging
lone
parents
to take
paid
employment,
without
actually requiring
them to do so. The
Conservatives
side-stepped
the issue
by using
the Child
Support
Act
(CSA),
coupled
with benefit
incentives,
to
encourage
a shift from
reliance on income
support
to an income
package combining
child
support, wages
and in-work benefits. The notion of
responsibility
was
likewise central to the
CSA,
at the heart of which is the
obligation
of
absent
parents
to
support
their children
financially.
Both under the
previous
and
present governments,
the
language
of
responsibility
has also been
applied
more
generally
to the
parental
role.
In a foreword to the Citizens
Charter,
John Major
underlined that cit-
izenship
is about our
responsibilities-as parents
for
example,
or as
neighbours-as
well as our entitlements
(1991).
Blair
(1995)
has
warned that education cannot be
dependent
on teachers and
govern-
ment alone. Parents have a
duty;
to their children and to others affected
by
their children. More
recently,
he has linked families
right
to a
top-
class education for their child to their
responsibility
to contribute to
that education themselves. One
expression
of this is the idea of
317
home-school
contracts,
detailing
what school and
family
should
expect
from each
other,
and
covering
issues like
attendance,
discipline
and
homework
(Blair, 1997a).
The
gender implications
of such
ideas,
in a
context where it is still
primarily
mothers who take
responsibility
for
these matters but more mothers are now in
paid employment,
are never
spelt
out.
Another area of
family responsibility
stressed
by
both Conservative
and Labour is that of
public housing.
The Conservative
governments
1995
housing policy
White
Paper
stated that the allocation of social
housing
should reflect the
underlying
values of our
society. They
should balance
specific housing
needs
against
the need to
support
married
couples
who take a
responsible approach
to
family
life
(DoE,
1995: 36).
The main
target
was lone mothers who were demonized as
jumping
the
housing queue
and
effectively
cast as second class citi-
zens
(Ginsburg,
1996: 145).
Labours concern is rather different.
Referring
to anti-social behav-
iour such as
violence,
racial abuse and
noise,
Blair has
argued
that the
states
duty
to house the homeless and to
provide
affordable rented
housing
has to be matched
by
families
duty
to behave
responsibly:
that is the contract
(Blair, 1995).
This notion of
responsible
behav-
iour towards fellow citizens
underpins
New Labours
general approach
to crime and
disorder,
again echoing
earlier Conservative discourses.
According
to the Home
Secretary,
one of the
key
aims of the Crime and
Disorder Bill is to make
parents
more
responsible
for their childrens
behaviour
(The
Independent,
9
August
1997).
The Green
Paper
on welfare reform
promises
a new contract for
welfare which
spells
out the duties of
government,
individuals and of
us all.
Citizenship responsibility
is invoked even more
explicitly
in
relation to social
security
fraud. Four DSS
press
releases in the summer
of
1997
lauded the drive
against
fraud as an
expression
of
responsible
citizenship. Despite greater
attention to tax fraud under
Labour,
the
implications
for
citizenship responsibility
have not been stressed in the
same
way.
Likewise,
there has been rather less
emphasis
on the citi-
zenship responsibilities
of the better off to contribute to
society
through payment
of taxes.
Not
surprisingly,
the
payment
of taxes did not
figure
in the Tories
interpretation
of the
citizenship responsibilities
of the better off either.
Indeed,
John
Patten,
a Home Office
Minister,
explicitly
distanced the
Tories from such a
view,
asserting
instead that
citizenship responsi-
bility
was about time and commitment and not
just paying
taxes.
318
Enter the active citizen-an individual who
gives
time and
money
as
an act of
charity
to the
community. Although
active
citizenships prin-
cipal exponent,
the then Home
Secretary, Douglas
Hurd,
stressed that
it
applied
not
only
to the
elite,
both he and
John
Patten directed their
exhortations
primarily
to the beneficiaries of
Tory
income tax
cuts,
in
an
attempt
to soften the harsher
edges
of Thatcherism. Patten defined
the active citizen as someone who
cares,
but who
gives expression
to
their
caring
in a
quantifiable way (Sunday
Times,
11 December
1988).
This
conveniently
excluded the
unquantified
care
provided by
women
in the home and
glossed
over issues about the
gendered
distribution of
time available for active
citizenship
at different
points
in the life course
(Lister, 1990b).
In the context of the increase in
inequalities
and run down of
public
services for which the Thatcher
government
was
responsible,
its exhortations to active
citizenship
were
largely
discredited.
Nevertheless,
the
spirit
of active
citizenship
lives on in the form of
ideas for some kind of citizens service which has the
support
of all the
main
political parties.
A
voluntary
citizens
service,
aimed at
young
people,
was
proposed by
the Commission on Social
Justice (CSJ,
1994),
as a
way
of
strengthening
the
expression
of
young peoples citizenship
responsibilities
and
promoting
their
personal development.
The idea
was taken
up
with enthusiasm
by
the Labour
Party.
David
Blunkett,
when Shadow Education and
Employment Secretary,
saw it as
helping
to
develop
a sense of
citizenship
which our
country
needs to
replace
the
alienation,
disaffection and individualism that
young people
have
experienced
(Blunkett, 1996).
The Labour
Party
Manifesto committed
the new
government
to a national Citizens Service
scheme,
declaring
that an
independent
and creative
voluntary
sector,
committed to vol-
untary activity
as an
expression
of
citizenship,
is central to our vision
of a stakeholder
society
(Labour
Party,
1997: 31 ).
Both Blunkett and the
CSJ
linked citizens service to education for
citizenship
which is
being promoted by
the
government
and which has
been the
subject
of some debate in education circles in recent
years
(Demaine
and
Entwistle, 1996;
see also Commission on
Citizenship,
1990).
It is a debate
which,
according
to Wilfred Carr and
Anthony
Hartnett,
has been conducted in a
social,
political
and historical
vacuum,
ignoring
issues of
power,
status and wealth as well as citi-
zenships
contested nature
(Carr
and
Hartnett,
1996: 64-5).
An
example
of the latter was the controversial
suggestion by
the Chief
Executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment
Authority
that
319
citizenship
education should include a
stronger emphasis
on a national
identity
and common
heritage,
a reminder of the
dangers
of the notion
of
citizenship being hijacked by
a narrow and
inward-looking
nation-
alism
(The
Independent,
8
February
1996).
Alternative vocabularies of
citizenship:
academic and
activist
perspectives
Even if
citizenship
did not become
quite
the
political big
idea some
of its advocates would have
liked,
we have seen how the vocabularies of
citizenship
have nevertheless infused
political
debate,
explicitly
or
implicitly.
These vocabularies have also been taken
up by
some volun-
tary
sector and social movement actors.
Among
academics,
citizenship
has
re-emerged
as a
pivotal concept,
with a stream of volumes devoted
to the
topic;
indeed,
it is almost as if
every
social scientific
phenom-
enon now has to be studied
through
the lens of
citizenship.
To some
extent,
academic and activist contributions to the wider debates about
citizenship
reflect those in mainstream
politics.
But
they
also,
in some
cases,
go beyond
them,
introducing
alternative more critical and
plu-
ralist vocabularies and
perspectives.
Reflections
In the late
1980s
and
early
1990s,
a central issue was the nature of cit-
izenship rights.
In
particular,
in the face of the renaissance of classical
liberalism that
recognized only
first
generation
civil and
political
rights,
a defence of second
generation
social
rights
as a
legitimate
dimension of
citizenship
was
mounted,
most
notably by Raymond
Plant
(1988, 1990, 1992;
see also
King
and
Waldron, 1988;
Taylor-
Gooby,
1991; Twine, 1994).
In similar
vein,
a number of accounts of
poverty
and social
security
have used the
vocabulary
of
citizenship
(for
instance, Scott, 1994; Dean, 1996;
Dean and
Melrose, 1996);
the Child
Poverty
Action
Group
launched its 25th
anniversary year
with a book
on the
subject
(Lister, 1990a);
and the Institute of Public
Policy
Research conducted a
major
research
programme
on the
development
of social
citizenship rights
in the field of welfare services
(Coote, 1992).
Reflecting
mainstream
political
debate,
during
the
1990s,
the cit-
izenship
literature became
increasingly preoccupied
with the nature of
citizenship obligations.
This was
exemplified by
Maurice Roches
320
Rethinking Citizenship
which not
only analysed
the
paradigm
shift but
also made the case for it:
[Slupporters
of a
progressive approach
to the
politics
of social
citizenship
will need to rethink the absolute
priority they
have
traditionally given
to
social
rights
in
ideological
debate.
They
will need to reconsider the moral
and
ideological
claims of
personal responsibility,
of
parental
and eco-
logical obligations,
of
corporate
and
inter-generational obligations,
and
so on. The
politics
of
citizenship
has for
generations
formulated its
goals,
fought
its battles and found its voice in the discourse of
rights.
In the late
twentieth
century
it also needs to be able to
speak,
to act and to under-
stand itself in the
language
of citizens
personal responsibility
and social
obligation,
in the discourse of duties as well as of
rights.
(Roche, 1992:
246;
see
also, Oldfield, 1990;
Marquand,
1991)
As Roche
indicates,
one strand of this discourse
appeals
to
ecological
concerns,
as
expressed
in the notion of environmental
citizenship,
transcending
both the
geographical
and
temporal
boundaries of a
par-
ticular citizen
community
(see,
for
instance, Steward, 1991; Weale,
1991; Twine, 1994;
Newby,
1996).
More central
though,
as in mainstream
politics,
is the issue of work
obligations.
A focus for some of the academic and activist debate has
been the idea of a citizens
income,
paid
to all citizens
(or residents)
without
any
conditions attached. While mainstream
politics
takes for
granted
a link between the
right
to benefit of
unemployed people
and
the
obligation
to be available for
paid
work
(even
if the exact nature of
that
obligation
is
contested),
this link has been
questioned by
acade-
mics such as Ralf Dahrendorf and Bill
Jordan
(1989).
Dahrendorf
(1988),
for
instance,
has
argued
that
paid
work involves an
essentially
private
contract that cannot be
played
off
against
social
citizenship
rights.
Others,
such as Stuart White
(1995),
maintain that a
totally
unconditional benefit
upsets
the balance of
reciprocity
between
rights
and
obligations.
Citizens income also raises broader
questions
about
the nature of work
obligations
and the treatment of
unpaid voluntary
work and
caring
work undertaken in the home
(see,
for
instance,
Miller, 1988; Parker, 1993).
Feminists have taken a
range
of
positions
on womens work
obligations,
but,
on
balance,
in recent debates about
lone
mothers,
work and
benefits,
have tended to
emphasize
the value of
caring
work as a
citizenship obligation.
Recently
a call has been made for
voluntary
work to be
recognized
321
as a form of active
citizenship
so that
unemployed people
are not
penalized
if
they participate
in
community activity
(Zadek
and
Thake,
1997: 31;
see
also, MacDonald, 1996).
This echoes alternative notions
of active
citizenship
to be found in both the academic and activist
literature. In a
paper
for the Economic and Social Research
Council,
which
sponsored
a number of
workshops
on
citizenship
from the
per-
spective
of its contribution to social order and
cohesion,
Ray
Pahl
offered a definition of active
citizenship
as local
people working
together
to
improve
their own
quality
of life and to
provide
conditions
for others to
enjoy
the fruits of a more affluent
society
(Pahl, 1990: 8).
This chimes with the
experience
of
community-based
activists such as
Bob Holman
who,
in
response
to the Tories
paternalistic image
of the
active
citizen,
pointed
to the
multiplicity
of credit
unions,
play
schemes,
tenants
associations,
welfare
rights groups
and so forth in
order to counter that active
citizenship certainly
has not declined here
in the
days
of the welfare state
(Holman, 1988).
Similarly, arguments
for
strengthening
the
myriad
of
community groups
that constitute
civil
society
and
promote
social
capital
have been couched in the lan-
guage
of
citizenship (Knight
and
Stokes, 1996).
The renewed
emphasis
on
citizenship
at the
community
level
reflects a dissatisfaction with
top-down approaches
to social
citizenship
that has also fuelled the
increasingly
influential case made for the
democratic
accountability
of and user-involvement in welfare institu-
tions
(Ignatieff,
1989;
Sheffield
Group,
1989).
Suzy
Croft and Peter
Beresford of the
Open
Services
Project
have
developed
the idea within
a
citizenship
framework,
arguing
that it is this
political process
of
gaining
a
say
which we see as at the heart of
citizenship
(Croft
and
Beresford,
1989:
16;
see also Beresford and
Croft, 1993).
The
Open
Services
Project
itself
helped
to establish a Citizens Commission on
the Future of
Welfare,
the members of which were all welfare state
service users
(Beresford
and
Turner, 1997).
Citizens
juries
have also
been
promoted
as a means of
citizenship participation
(Stewart
et
al.,
1994; Stewart, 1995; Meehan, 1996). Likewise,
narrow
conceptions
of
political citizenship
are
being challenged by
the
growing
direct action
movement,
particularly
with reference to environmental
citizenship
obligations.
Critical
perspectives
These alternative
images
of active
citizenship
shade into the critical
322
perspectives
on
citizenship
that have been
developing
in both the aca-
demic and activist literature. Three
key pieces
of
work,
published
in
1989,
signalled
the
beginnings
of this alternative discourse. One was
Fiona Williamss Social
Policy:
A Critical Introduction which
argued
that
feminist and
emerging
anti-racist
critiques
of the welfare state have
challenged
the notion of
citizenship by demanding
full
political
and
civil
rights
to
all,
regardless
of
sex,
ethnic
origin
or
immigrant
status
(Williams,
1989: 206).
Another was CSPs own
special
issue on
Citizenship
and
Welfare,
the introduction to which
argued
that old
collectivist models of &dquo;welfare
citizenship&dquo;
as a universal
panacea
to the
inequalities generated by
the market have failed to include
many
sec-
tions of
society
and often reinforced
class, &dquo;race&dquo;,
gender
and other
divisions
(CSP
Editorial
Collective,
1989:
4;
see also
Taylor,
1996).
David
Taylor developed
the
critique, arguing
for a
reconceptualization
of
citizenship
that
challenged
its
exclusionary practices,
both within
and at the borders of nation
states,
and tied it to a
dynamic concept
of
human need
(Taylor,
1989).
Finally
and more
fundamentally,
an
important
article
by
Stuart Hall and David Held
posed
the
question:
is there now an irreconcilable tension between the thrust to
equality
and
universality
entailed in the
very
idea of the &dquo;citizen&dquo; and the
variety
of
particular
and
specific
needs,
of diverse sites and
practices
which constitute the modern
political subject
(Hall
and
Held,
1989:
17;
see also
Riley,
1992).
This set a
challenge
for critical academic
citizenship theory
in the
1990s.
Initially,
much of the work addressed
specific
dimensions of the
exclusions identified
by
CSP;
more
recently attempts
have been made
to take on board the
underlying
tension
exposed by
Hall and Held.
The most
developed
work relates to the
gendered
nature of traditional
conceptions
of
citizenship
and to the
ways
in which it has excluded
women,
not
merely
as some historical accident. From a
range
of disci-
plines,
feminists have
developed
an extensive
critique
of traditional
citizenship theory
and
practices
(see
the introduction to this
special
issue).
In Northern
Ireland,
a
specially
formed Women and
Citizenship
Research
Group
(1995)
applied
some of these theoretical
developments
to a critical
study
of womens
citizenship participation,
with the
support
of the Northern Ireland
Equal Opportunities
Commission.
Feminist
interpretations
of
migration
and
citizenship
include work
by
Louise Ackers
(1994, 1996)
and Eleonore Kofman
(1995)
and Nira
Yuval-Davis
(1991, 1997).
The last observed that
constructing
boundaries
according
to various
inclusionary
and
exclusionary
criteria,
323
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 remain
completely
outside the
agenda
of Marshallian theories of
citizenship
(Yuval-Davis,
1991: 61; 1997).
The
ways
in which such
borders serve to exclude black
people
from both formal and substantive
citizenship
have been
explored by
Paul Gordon
(1989, 1991).
In the
special
edition
of CSP,
Norman
Ginsburg
(1989)
analysed
how racial
discrimination,
harassment and
violence,
together
with the threat of
them,
serve to undermine black
peoples citizenship
(see
also
Cook,
1993).
During
the
1990s,
vocabularies of
citizenship
have also been used
to frame the
analysis
and demands of other
oppressed groups.
This has
been most notable in the
disability
movement. The demand for the
realization of disabled
peoples
full
civil,
political
and social
rights
is
represented by
Len Barton as the
continuing struggle
for
citizenship
(1996: 187;
see also
special
issue of
Disability, Handicaps Society,
1993).
This
struggle
will need to
continue,
warns
Oliver,
even with
the achievement of anti-discrimination
legislation,
for such
legislation
must be seen as a
platform
for the
continuing struggle
for
citizenship,
not as a
sign
that
citizenship
has been achieved
(Oliver,
1996: 160).
Some disabled feminists have warned of the
dangers
of
appropriating
a
male
citizenship paradigm
(see Morris, 1991).
Lois Keith
(1992),
nevertheless,
has
suggested
that the
concept might
offer a means of
balancing
the
rights
of both disabled
people
and carers.
The lesbian and
gay rights
movement has
increasingly
framed its
anti-discriminatory
demands in the
language
of
citizenship,
while the-
orizing
about
sexuality
has
begun
to address
critically
the nature of
citizenship. Examples
include: David T. Evanss
study
of sexual citi-
zenship
(1993);
Diane Richardsons
critique
of the
taken-for-granted
heterosexual nature of
citizenship
(1996);
and Ken Plummers
sugges-
tion of the notion of intimate
citizenship,
defined as a cluster of
emerging
concerns over the
rights
to choose what we do with our
bodies,
our
feelings,
our
identities,
our
relationships,
our
genders,
our
eroticisms and our
representations
(Plummer,
1995: 17).
Future directions
The next
step
in the
development
of these critical
perspectives
is
twofold:
first,
to unite them in a more
integrated critique
that
324
addresses the tension between
citizenships
universalist
promise
and
the multi-dimensional nature of
difference,
and second to
develop
alternative constructions of
citizenship
that are able to work with this
tension in a creative
way
(Yuval-Davis
and
Werbner, 1996; Lister,
1997a;
Feminist
Review, 1997).
As well as
grappling
with
difference,
citizenship theory
is
having
to address the
changing relationship
between the individual citizen
and the nation state in the face of both
centrifugal
and
centripetal
pressures
on the
latter; indeed,
this is one of the reasons for the renewed
interest in
citizenship. Key citizenship
issues
facing
the UK are: the
nature of
European citizenship;
the
changing relationships
between its
constituent
countries;
and its wider world role
against
a backcloth of
globalizing
forces.
Elizabeth Meehan
(1993a, b)
has warned of the limitations of
European citizenship
for
women,
insofar as it is
largely
tied to the
interests of
paid
workers and involves remote
political
institutions,
while at the same time
suggesting
that its
potential
as a force for
equal
citizenship
should not be dismissed. For
many
British
women,
EU
membership
has meant a
strengthening
of a
range
of social
rights.
But
for
migrants
and
asylum-seekers, European citizenship,
as
currently
constructed,
reinforces the
exclusionary
tendencies of nation state citi-
zenship (European
Womens
Lobby,
1995;
Hoskyns,
1996).
Within the
UK,
Scottish devolution and its weaker Welsh coun-
terpart, together
with the
ongoing struggles
in Northern
Ireland,
are
raising important questions
about
citizenship identity.
In Northern
Ireland
possibilities
of multi-tiered
citizenship
identities are
being
dis-
cussed in relation to the wider
European
Union
(Meehan, 1992;
Delanty,
1996).
The Scottish
Assembly opens up
new
possibilities
for
citizenship;
from a
gender perspective,
the balance of
gender represen-
tation and
family-friendly procedures
were central issues tackled
by
the Scottish Constitutional Convention. In the UK
parliament
itself,
the
election,
in
1997,
of a
significant
number of women
(one
of whom
was
disabled)
and of three
publicly gay
men was
symbolically
important
in the
representation
of a more differentiated
citizenship.
However,
the House of Commons remains an
overwhelmingly
white
institution and its class base has narrowed. And whether Blairs
promise
of a more inclusive
politics
will embrace those
groups
whose
political citizenship
has been
marginalized by
the formal
political
system
remains to be seen.
As the conflation of British and
English identity
comes
unstuck,
325
the nature of
English identity
is
being problematized
for the first
time. Whether this will
emerge
as an
inward-looking,
chauvinistic,
racist and exclusive little
Englander
construct or an
outward-looking,
pluralist
and inclusive one is a crucial
question
for the future of citi-
zenship.
Part of a more
outward-looking perspective
involves a
repositioning
in relation both to the
European
Union and to wider
global
economic and environmental commitments. The new
govern-
ments somewhat more
positive
attitude to
European membership,
its
commitment to
prioritizing
human
rights
in its
foreign policy
(at
least
in
principle)
and the new
Secretary
of State for International
Developments
stand on
tackling
world
poverty
are all
hopeful
auguries
for the future.
Important
too will be the stance it takes on
immigration
and
asylum.
The
early promise
of abolition of the
primary purpose
rule and of a review of
asylum
law is welcome as far
as it
goes.
But
exclusionary practices against asylum-seekers
are con-
tinuing
and there is no indication of a more fundamental review of
immigration
laws or of the
inter-relationship
between
immigration
and
asylum
status and social
citizenship rights.
In the field of civil
rights,
there is a
widespread expectation
of some
progress
on homosexual law
reform,
although
not in the armed forces.
An
initially high profile,
but
under-resourced,
Cabinet Sub-
Committee for
Women,
is
supposed
to
inject
a womens
perspective
into
policy-making, although
its
impact
hitherto has been
patchy.
At
the same
time,
a
growing
debate about mens
responsibilities-
financial and otherwise-as fathers
signals
new
gendered
dimensions
in the construction of
citizenship responsibilities
and
rights.
The back-
cloth is the
changing
labour market which will also be crucial to the
success or otherwise of the
governments
social
security policies,
premised
on
paid
work
obligations. Any
future
attempt
to translate
these
obligations
into a
legal requirement
for lone
parents,
rather than
moral exhortation as at
present,
would raise controversial issues at the
heart of
gendered
debates about
citizenship.
The review of
pensions
is
likely
to mean a further enhancement of the
private
sectors
role,
aggra-
vating
the shift towards the civil
opportunity
rather than
citizenship
route to
pensions,
to the detriment of women
(Twine, 1994). However,
the
promise
to consider a second-tier
citizenship pension
for those
whose contribution records are affected
by caring responsibilities
could
redress the balance somewhat.
As these and related debates
unfold,
they may
not
necessarily
be
couched
explicitly
in the
language
of
citizenship.
Nevertheless,
their
326
implications
for
citizenship
will be
profound.
A
question
for academics
and activists is how far it will be
possible
to make links between main-
stream debates and alternative critical vocabularies and
agendas
so that
the latter are able to influence future directions of
citizenship
in the
UK.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to
Jane
Lewis and to the referees for their
helpful
comments on
the first draft of this article.
References
Abbott,
E. and
Bompas,
K.
(1943)
The Woman Citizen and Social
Security.
London: Mrs
Bompas.
Ackers, L. (1994) Women,
Citizenship
and
European Community
Law: the
Gender
Implications
of the Free Movement
Provisions,
Journal of
Social
Welfare
&
Family
Law 4:
391-406.
Ackers,
L.
(1996)
Citizenship,
Gender,
and
Dependence
in the
European
Union: Women and Internal
Migration,
Social Politics
3(2/3): 316-30.
Andrews,
G.
(1991)
Citizenship .
London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Ashdown,
P.
(1989)
Citizens Britain. London: Fourth Estate.
Barton,
L.
(1996)
Citizenship
and Disabled
People:
A Cause for
Concern,
in
J.
Demaine and H. Entwistle
(eds)
Beyond
Communitarianism:
Citizenship,
Politics and Education.
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Beresford,
P. and
Croft,
S.
(1993)
Citizen Involvement.
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Beresford,
P. and
Turner,
M.
(1997)
Its our
Welfare.
London: National
Institute for Social Work.
Beveridge,
W.
(1942)
Social Insurance and Allied
Services,
Cmnd 6404.
London: HMSO.
Blair,
T.
(1994)
Socialism . London: Fabian
Society.
Blair,
T.
(1995)
The
Rights
We
Enjoy
Reflect the Duties We
Owe,
Spectator
Lecture, London,
22 March.
Blair,
T.
(1997a)
Seven Pillars of a Decent
Society,
Lecture,
Southampton,
April.
Blair,
T.
(1997b)
Speech
at the
Aylesbury
Estate, Southwark,
2
June.
Blunkett,
D.
(1996)
Millennium
Force,
The
Guardian,
2 October.
Carr,
W. and
Hartnett,
A.
(1996)
Civic
Education,
Democracy
and the
English
Political
Tradition,
in J.
Demaine and H. Entwistle
(eds)
Beyond
327
Communitarianism:
Citizenship,
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Clarke,
J.,
Cochrane,
A. and
Smart,
C.
(1987)
Ideologies of Welfare.
London:
Hutchinson.
Cohen,
S.
(1985) Anti-semitism,
Immigration
Controls and the Welfare
State,
Critical Social
Policy
13: 73-92.
Commission on
Citizenship
(1990)
Encouraging Citizenship.
London: HMSO.
Commission on Social
Justice
(1994)
Social Justice: Strategies for
National
Renewal. London:
Vintage.
Cook,
D.
(1993) Racism,
Citizenship
and
Exclusion,
in D. Cook and B.
Hudson
(eds)
Racism and
Criminology.
London:
Sage.
Coote,
A.
(ed.) (1992)
The
Welfare of
Citizens. London: IPPR.
Croft,
S. and
Beresford,
P.
(1989) User-involvement,
Citizenship
and Social
Policy,
Critical Social
Policy
26: 5-18.
CSP Editorial Collective
(1989) Foreword,
Critical Social
Policy
26: 4.
Dahrendorf,
R.
(1988)
Citizenship
and the Modern Social
Conflict,
in R.
Holme and M. Elliott
(eds)
The British Constitution:
1688-1988.
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Dale,
J.
and
Foster,
P.
(1986)
Feminists and State
Welfare.
London: RKP.
Deacon,
A.
(1997)
Benefit
Sanctions
for
The
Jobless: Tough
Love or
Rough
Treatment? London:
Employment Policy
Institute,
Economic
Report
11(7).
Dean,
H.
(1996)
Welfare,
Law and
Citizenship.
London: Prentice Hall/
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Dean,
H. and
Melrose,
M.
(1996)
Unravelling Citizenship:
the
Significance
of Social
Security
Benefit
Fraud,
Critical Social
Policy
16(3):
3-31.
DEG/DSS
(1994) Jobseekers
Allowance
(White
Paper).
London: HMSO.
Delanty,
G.
(1996)
Northern Ireland in a
Europe
of
Regions,
Political
Quarterly
67(2): 127-34.
Demaine,
J.
and
Entwistle,
H.
(eds) (1996)
Beyond
Communitarianism:
Citizenship,
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Disability, Handicap & Society
(1993)
Special
issue: Citizens
of
the State? The
Experience of
Disabled
People,
8(3).
DoE
(1995)
Our Future Homes
(White
Paper).
London:
Department
of the
Environment/HMSO.
Driver,
S. and
Martell,
L.
(1997)
New Labours
Communitarianisms,
Critical Social
Policy
17(3):
27-46.
Ellis,
C.
(1993) Preface,
in A.
Barnett,
C. Ellis and P. Hirst
(eds)
Debating
the Constitution.
Cambridge: Polity
Press.
European
Womens
Lobby
(1995)
Confronting
the Fortress—Black and
Migrant
Women in the
European
Union.
Luxembourg: European
Parliament.
Evans,
D. T.
(1993)
Sexual
Citizenship .
London:
Routledge.
Feminist Review
(1997)
Citizenship: Pushing
the
Boundaries,
57.
328
Ginsburg,
N.
(1989)
Racial Harassment
Policy
and Practice: the Denial of
Citizenship,
Critical Social
Policy
26: 66-81.
Ginsburg,
N.
(1996)
Recent
Changes
in Social
Housing,
in M.
May,
E.
Brunsdon and G.
Craig
(eds)
Social
Policy
Review 8. London: Social
Policy
Association.
Gordon,
P.
(1989)
Citizenship for
Some? Race and Government
Policy
1979-1989 . London:
Runnymede
Trust.
Gordon,
P.
(1991)
Forms of Exclusion:
Citizenship,
Race and
Poverty,
in S.
Becker
(ed.)
Windows
of Opportunity.
London: CPAG.
Hall,
S. and
Held,
D.
(1989)
Left and
Rights,
Marxism
Today June:
16-23.
Harris,
D.
(1987) Justifying State Welfare.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Holman,
B.
(1988) Forum,
Community
Care 24 November.
Hoskyns,
C.
(1996)
Integrating
Gender:
Women,
Law and Politics in the
European
Union. London: Verso.
Hutton,
W.
(1995)
The State Were In. London:
Jonathan Cape.
Ignatieff,
M.
(1989)
Citizenship
and Moral
Narcissim,
Political
Quarterly
60(1): 63-74.
Jacobs,
S.
(1985) Race,
Empire
and the Welfare State: Council
Housing
and
Racism,
Critical Social
Policy
13: 6-28.
Jordan,
B.
(1989)
The Common Good:
Citizenship, Morality
and
Self
Interest.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Keith,
L.
(1992)
Who Cares Wins?
Women,
Caring
and
Disability,
Disability, Handicap
&
Society
7(2):
167-75.
King,
D.
(1987)
The New
Right:
Politics,
Markets and
Citizenship . Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
King,
D. and
Waldron,
J.
(1988)
Citizenship,
Social
Citizenship
and the
Defence of Welfare
Provision,
British
Journal of
Political Science 18:
415-43.
Klug,
F.
(1996)
Reinventing Community.
London: Charter 88.
Knight,
B and
Stokes,
P.
(1996)
Self
Help Citizenship,
The
Guardian,
30
October.
Kofman,
E.
(1995)
Citizenship
for Some But Not for Others:
Spaces
of
Citizenship
in
Contemporary Europe,
Political
Geography
14(2):
121-
37.
Koven,
S.
(1993)
Borderlands:
Women,
Voluntary
Action and Child
Welfare in
Britain,
1840 to
1914,
in S. Koven and S. Michel
(eds)
Mothers
of a
New World. New York and London:
Routledge.
Labour
Party
(1997)
New Labour Because Britain Deserves Better. London:
Labour
Party.
Lewis,
J.
(1994) Gender,
the
Family
and Womens
Agency
in the
Building
of "Welfare States": the British
Case,
Social
History
19(1): 37-55.
Lister,
R.
(1990a)
The Exclusive
Society: Citizenship
and the Poor. London:
CPAG.
329
Lister,
R.
(1990b)
Women,
Economic
Dependency
and
Citizenship, Journal
of Social Policy
19(4):
445-67.
Lister,
R.
(1997a)
Citizenship
Feminist
Perspectives. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Lister,
R.
(1997b)
From Fractured Britain to One Nation?: The
Policy
Options
for Welfare
Reform,
Renewal
5(3/4): 11-23.
MacDonald,
R.
(1996)
Labours of Love:
Voluntary Working
in a
Depressed
Local
Economy, Journal of
Social
Policy
25(1): 19-38.
Major, J.
(1991) Foreword,
The Citizens
Charter,
Cm
1599.
London: HMSO.
Marquand,
D.
(1991)
Civic
Republicans
and Liberal Individualists: the Case
of
Britain,
Archive
Européenne
de
Sociologie
(XXXII): 329-44.
Marquand,
D.
(1996)
Moralists and
Hedonists,
in D.
Marquand
and A.
Seldon
(eds)
The Ideas that
Shaped
Post-War Britain. London:
HarperCollins.
Marshall,
T. H.
(1950)
Citizenship
and Social Class.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Mead,
L.
(1986)
Beyond
Entitlement: the Social
Obligations of Citizenship .
New
York: The Free Press.
Meehan,
E.
(1992)
Citizens are
Plural,
Fortnight
November:
13-15.
Meehan,
E.
(1993a)
Womens
Rights
in the
European Community,
in
J.
Lewis
(ed.)
Women and Social Policies in
Europe.
Aldershot: Edward
Elgar.
Meehan,
E.
(1993b)
Womens
Rights
in Citizens
Europe,
in A.
Barnett,
C.
Ellis and P. Hirst
(eds)
Debating
the Constitution.
Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Meehan,
E.
(1996)
Democracy
Unbound,
in R. Wilson
(ed.)
Reconstituting
Politics. Belfast: Democratic
Dialogue.
Miller,
A. G.
(1988)
Basic Incomes and
Women,
in A. G. Miller
(ed.)
Proceedings of
the First International
Conference
on Basic Income.
Antwerp:
Basic Income
European
Network.
Miller,
S. and
Peroni,
F.
(1992)
Social Politics and the Citizens
Charter,
in
N.
Manning
and R.
Page
(eds)
Social
Policy
Review 4.
Canterbury:
Social
Policy
Association.
Moore,
J.
(1988)
Speech
to Conservative
Party Conference,
12 October.
Morris,
J.
(1991)
Pride
against Prejudice.
London: Womens Press.
Newby,
H.
(1996)
Citizenship
in a Green
World,
in M. Bulmer and A. Rees
(eds)
Citizenship Today .
London: UCL Press.
Oldfield,
A.
(1990)
Citizenship
and
Community:
Civic
Republicanism
and the
Modern World. London:
Routledge.
Oliver,
D. and
Heater,
D.
(1994)
The Foundations
of Citizenship.
Hemel
Hempstead:
Oliver,
M.
(1996)
Understanding Disability:
From
Theory
to Practice.
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Oppenheim,
C. and
Lister,
R.
(1996)
Ten Years After the
1986
Social
Security
Act,
in M.
May,
E. Brunsdon and G.
Craig
(eds)
Social
Policy
Review 8. London: Social
Policy
Association.
330
Pahl,
R.
(1990)
Prophets, Ethnographers
and Social Glue: Civil
Society
and
Social
Order,
mimeo: ESRC/CNRS
Workshop
on
Citizenship,
Social
Order and
Civilising
Processes,
Cumberland
Lodge, September.
Parker,
H.
(1993)
Citizens Income and Women. London: Citizens Income.
Pascall,
G.
(1997)
Social
Policy:
A New Feminist
Analysis.
London:
Routledge.
Plant,
R.
(1988)
Citizenship, Rights
and Socialism. London: Fabian
Society.
Plant,
R.
(1990)
Citizenship
and
Rights,
in R. Plant and N.
Barry
(eds)
Citizenship
and
Rights
in Thatchers Britain: Two Views. London: IEA
Health and Welfare Unit.
Plant,
R.
(1992)
Citizenship, Rights
and
Welfare,
in A. Coote
(ed.)
The
Welfare of
Citizens. London: IPPR.
Plummer,
K.
(1995)
Telling
Sexual Stories. London:
Routledge.
Puddephatt,
A.
(1997)
The
Writing
of Human
Rights,
New Statesman 18
July:
37.
Rees,
A. M.
(1996)
T. H. Marshall and the
Progress
of
Citizenship,
in M.
Bulmer and A. Rees
(eds)
Citizenship Today .
London: UCL Press.
Rich,
P.
(1991)
Patriotism and the Idea of
Citizenship
in Postwar British
Politics,
in U.
Vogel
and M. Moran
(eds)
The Frontiers
of Citizenship.
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Richardson,
D.
(ed.) (1996)
Theorising sexuality. Buckingham: Open
University
Press.
Riley,
D.
(1988)
Am I that Name?
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Riley,
D.
(1992)
Citizenship
and the Welfare
State,
in J.
Allen,
P. Braham
and P. Lewis
(eds)
Political and Economic Forms
of Modernity. Cambridge:
Polity
Press.
Roche,
M.
(1992)
Rethinking Citizenship. Cambridge: Polity.
Scott,
J.
(1994)
Poverty
and Wealth:
Citizenship, Deprivation
and
Privilege.
Harlow:
Longman.
Selbourne,
D.
(1994)
The
Principle of Duty .
London: Sinclair-Stevenson.
Sheffield
Group
(eds) (1989)
The Social
Economy
and the Democratic State.
Steward,
F.
(1991)
Citizens of Planet
Earth,
in G. Andrews
(ed.)
Citizenship .
Stewart, J.
D.
(1995)
Innovation in Democratic Practice.
Birmingham:
Institute
of Local Government Studies.
Stewart,
J.
D., Kendall,
E. and
Coote,
A.
(1994)
Citizens
Juries .
London:
Institute of Public
Policy
Research.
Straw,
J.
(1995)
The Ambassadors
Lecture, London,
7 November.
Taylor,
D.
(1989)
Citizenship
and Social
Policy,
Critical Social
Policy
26:
19-31.
Taylor,
D.
(1991/2)
The
Big
Idea for the Nineties? The Rise of Citizens
Charters,
Critical Social
Policy
33: 87-94.
Taylor,
D.
(ed.) (1996)
Critical Social
Policy.
A Reader. London:
Sage.
331
Taylor-Gooby,
P.
(1991)
Social
Change,
Social
Welfare
and Social Science. Hemel
Hempstead:
Twine,
F.
(1994)
Citizenship
and Social
Rights .
London:
Sage.
Weale,
A.
(1991)
Citizenship Beyond
Borders,
in U.
Vogel
and M. Moran
(eds)
The Frontiers
of Citizenship . Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
White,
S.
(1995)
Liberal
Equality, Exploitation
and the Case for an
Unconditional Basic
Income,
in
J.
Lovenduski and
J. Stanyer
(eds)
Contemporary
Political Studies
1995.
Exeter: Political Studies Association.
Williams,
F.
(1989)
Social
Policy:
A Critical Introduction.
Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Women and
Citizenship
Research
Group
(1995)
Women and
Citizenship.
Belfast: WCRG.
Yuval-Davis,
N. and
Werbner,
P.
(1996)
Final
Report:
Women,
Citizenship
and
Difference.
London: Greenwich
University,
Yuval-Davis,
N.
(1991)
The
Citizenship
Debate:
Women,
Ethnic Processes
and the
State,
Feminist Review
(39):
58-68.
Yuval-Davis,
N.
(1997)
Gender & Nation. London:
Sage.
Zadek,
S. and
Thake,
S.
(1997)
Send in the Social
Entrepreneurs,
New
Statesman,
20
June:
31.
o Ruth Lister is Professor of Social
Policy
in the
Department
of Social
Sciences,
Loughborough University.
She is a former Director of the Child
Poverty
Action
Group
and sat on the Commission on Social
Justice.
Her
latest book is
Citizenship :
Feminists
Perspectives
(Macmillan, 1997). Ll

Lister, Ruth - Vocabularies of Citizenship and Gender The UK

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lister, Ruth - Vocabularies of Citizenship and Gender The UK

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

http://csp.sagepub.

Potrebbero piacerti anche