From citizenship to social liberalism or beyond? Some theoretical and historical landmarks

Abstract

This paper discusses the trajectory of the concept of citizenship in its manifold dimensions and ramifications in modernity, bringing out its main worldwide concrete incarnations. Marshall’s and Marx’s definitions are discussed, but an effort is made to cover the most relevant global literature on the subject. It is argued that although modernity has become a catchphrase lately, it is increasingly threatened by recent developments in terms of what may be called social liberalism, which seats comfortably with the present pattern of global capitalist accumulation and neoliberalism. Finally, against these recent developments, the emancipatory potential of citizenship is briefly accessed.

Keywords:

• Citizenship
• modernity
• social liberalism
• neoliberalism

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank María Elena Rodríguez Ortiz for her comments on an initial version of this paper.

Notes

1. Marshall was a liberal social-democrat, while a few social-democrats have been socialists (in residual numbers today since many have moved close to neoliberalism and residual welfare – see below). The main philosophical contribution to liberal social-democracy is Rawls (1971).

2. Citizenship, properly understood, demands the rule of law – that is, the homogenous and in principle neutral application of law to all citizens. Nevertheless, ‘rule by law’ is what happens in just too many settings, with the state using law to rule and disregarding ‘citizens’ rights. Of course the role of citizenship and its legal phrasing in terms of mediation is even radically restricted, thereby appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

3. Other particular aspects of social life, stemming from the discrimination of minorities and even majorities – such as ethnic, racial and religious groups – as well as the affirmative policies (of many types) aimed at overcoming this situation should be framed according to the social liberal view, but may not be restricted to it. Unless they imply established collective rights, something less common, they are in any case usually seen as transitory, until underprivileged citizens can achieve full formal equality. See for instance, for Africa, Berman, Eyoh, and Kymlicka (2004); for Asia, Ong (1999), Kymlicka and Baobang (2005); and, for Latin America, Stavenhagen (2010).

4. This is true above all in general theoretical terms, even if Sen (1992) has on occasion doubted the general reach of targeted policies.