Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 21 November 2014, At: 02:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Community PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20
Exploring Citizenship inContemporary CommunityWork PracticeUsha George PhD a , Bill Lee EdD b , Susan McGrathPhD c & Ken Moffatt PhD ca Faculty of Social Work , University of Toronto , USAb School of Social Work , McMaster University , USAc School of Social Work , York University , USAPublished online: 22 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Usha George PhD , Bill Lee EdD , Susan McGrath PhD & KenMoffatt PhD (2003) Exploring Citizenship in Contemporary Community Work Practice,Journal of Community Practice, 11:3, 71-86
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J125v11n03_05
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Exploring Citizenship in ContemporaryCommunity Work Practice
Usha George, PhDBill Lee, EdD
Susan McGrath, PhDKen Moffatt, PhD
ABSTRACT. The notion of citizenship as a triangular relationship be-tween civil, political and social rights has received a great deal of atten-tion by social scientists. However, the exploration of the relevance of thenotion for community practice is relatively new. Interviews with a non.random sample of community workers in southern Ontario, Canada, ex-plored the meaning of citizenship to the practitioners. The findings sug-gest that satisfaction of basic human rights is a prerequisite forexercising citizenship and therefore, social rights are seen as the basis forthe ability to exercise civil and political rights. The participants of thestudy stated that all the elements of citizenship–rights and responsibilities,inclusion and belonging–are linked and evolve into a reciprocal relation-ship between the state and individuals. [Article copies available for a feefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Usha George, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Social Work, Universityof Toronto.
Bill Lee, EdD, is Associate Professor at the School of Social Work, McMaster Uni-versity.
Susan McGrath, PhD and Ken Moffat, PhD, are Associate Professors at the Schoolof Social Work, York University.
Address correspondence to: Usha George, Faculty of Social Work, University ofToronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A1, Canada (E-mail:[email protected]).
Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 11(3) 2003http://www.haworthpress.com/web/COM
2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J125v11n03_05 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
KEYWORDS. Citizenship, community work, social rights/entitlements,responsibilities, participation, safety
“ . . . citizenship is a way of making concrete the ethical commit-ments of care and respect, of realizing in action an obligation to aidour fellow travelers–in short, of fostering justice between per-sons.”
Kingwell, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Across the political spectrum, there is considerable interest in theconcept of citizenship and much has been written on the subject, partic-ularly since 1985 (Rees, 1995). One area of discussion is the liberal“rights” perspective versus the neo-conservative “responsibilities” ar-gument (Plant & Barry, 1990; Mead, 1986). Researchers have shown howthe experience of citizenship varies from country to country (Kymlicka &Norman, 2000); while feminist writers Fraser and Gordon (1994), Lister(1997a, 1997b), Pateman (1988), and Phillips (1991) have explored howcitizenship has usually limited the opportunities for women. These de-bates take place in the context of declining welfare states, high rates ofmigration and a global economy. The current interest in citizenship inboth academic and political discourse is the result of major political,economic and social transformations that are taking place in all societ-ies. With economic restructuring, there are questions about the capacityof state institutions to ensure inclusion and participation to all membersof a political community. Immigrant and refugee flows as well as move-ment of persons within economic trade zones have highlighted “funda-mental issues about who is in and who is out, that is, precisely where theboundaries of citizenship are” (Jenson & Papillon, 2000, p. 4).
A key writer on citizenship is Marshall (1950), who proposed threeareas of rights of the modern citizen: civil, political and social. Civilrights concern individual freedom, including freedom of speech,thought and faith, the right to own property and the right to justice. Thepolitical element includes the right to participate in the exercise of politi-cal power. The issue of social rights, however, distinguished Marshall’sdefinition from previous conceptualizations. He argued for a range ofrights, from “the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security
72 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life ofa civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society”(1950, pp. 10-11).
This third “leg of the citizenship stool” influenced the formation ofthe welfare states in Europe and North America and is being contestedas the welfare states are coming under siege (Leonard, 1997). For coun-tries such as Great Britain, the US and Canada, the weakening of commit-ment to vulnerable members is increasing the polarization of these societies,particularly along economic lines. This economic marginalization resonateswith social marginalization experienced along the lines of differences in gen-der, race, ability, immigrant status and sexual identity (Tator, Mattis, & Rees,2000; Ornstein, 2000).
This paper summarizes and discusses a study undertaken with commu-nity social work practitioners to explore the meaning of citizenship totheir practice. Through a broader consideration of citizenship in com-munity work literature and our findings, we argue that social rights un-derpin the notion of citizenship for community practitioners and thateveryone in the field should also explicitly address social rights.
CITIZENSHIP IN COMMUNITY WORK LITERATURE
A concrete definition of citizenship remains elusive (Dwyer, 2000);however, there is broad agreement on the different components of citi-zenship as constituting not only rights but also responsibilities. His-torically, citizenship has been about two relationships: the status ofmembership in a political community, and the relationships of mutualsupport and solidarity existing between the members of that politicalcommunity (Jenson & Papillon, 2000). Faulks (1998) argues that a defi-nition of citizenship must address three criteria: legal, philosophical andsociopolitical. Dwyer (2000), however, notes that there is no clear sepa-ration between these three dimensions and elements of these dimen-sions form most definitions of citizenship. Citizenship is defined as “adynamic relation between three complementary dimensions: rightsand responsibilities, access and belonging” (Jenson & Papillon, 2000,p. 12). Faulks (2000) shares a similar notion when he states: “Throughits package of rights, duties and obligations, citizenship provides a way ofdistributing and managing resources justly, by sharing the benefits andburdens of social life” (p. 5). Lister (1997a) describes citizenship as a“status” involving the enjoyment of civil, political and social rights; andas a practice that involves responsibilities and duties (Dwyer, 2000).
George et al. 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Citizenship is an important concept for community practice, espe-cially with the recognition of the need to revise the definition of citizenshipto promote greater sense of community in the context of contradictory ten-dencies such as globalization and post-modernity (Kymlicka, 1992;Young, 1990; Isin & Wood, 1999). The notion of “citizenship” is beingreinterpreted in the context of the emergence of multiple identities.Janoski’s (1998) review of the three dominant theories of citizenship isrelevant in this context. The classical liberal perspective puts strong em-phasis on individual rights and social and group rights are seen to vio-late the rights of individuals. Communitarianism presents the oppositepoint of view. It emphasizes community (society or nation), and the ma-jor concern of communities is the just functioning of society. The goalis to build strong communities based on “common identity, mutuality,autonomy, participation and integration” (Janoski, 1998, p. 20). Indi-viduals should fulfill their obligations without expecting immediatebenefits. The third theory–namely the expansive democracy the-ory–deals with the expansion of “individual and organizational rightsconcerning people who have been discriminated against including mostclass, gender, and ethnic groups” (Janoski, 1998, p. 20). The resultingcomplex self-identity “fuses individual interests through participationin community activities, whether they are work, neighbourhood, or wel-fare-related needs, but at the same time protect individual civil rights”(Janoski, 1998, p. 20).
In the literature of contemporary North American community work,the concept of citizenship has been either not utilized at all, or presentedin a relatively limited manner that does not reflect the complexity foundin the broader social science discourse. For example, though Kahn(1994) refers to the civil rights movement, he does not use the term citi-zenship. McKnight (1993) focuses heavily on participation and urgesthe notion that communities are collective associations where citizensdecide that they have the power to identify their own problems, specifystrategies to address them and finally employ solutions. Kretzmann andMcKnight (1993) similarly emphasize the importance of activism.They contrast the more passive idea of “client,” which suggests onlyneeds and deficiencies, with that of citizens, which denotes capacitiesand gifts that can be mobilized and channeled into participation to makethe community more powerful. Rothman and Tropman (1987) did notuse the term citizenship extensively, though we can see it implied in twoof their three models of community organization. In the social actionmodel, participation in action against elites is required for asserting citi-zenship rights and redressing the imbalance of power. In the locality de-
74 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
velopment model, citizenship can be seen as participation throughassociation for the purpose of strengthening the ability of the commu-nity to deal with its problems. In both these models, then, citizenship islinked to the notion of participation in community consultation, prob-lem solving and action. In Rothman’s edited book (1999), citizenship isagain referred to exclusively in terms of participation. Hardcastle,Wenocur and Power (1997) view it in civic terms, but as a commodity,like a service that has been guaranteed or “pledged” by society throughlegislation. In these and other works, citizenship is seen in terms of itstraditional and limited meaning as a right to and necessity for civic en-gagement.
However, citizenship is beginning to appear as an important andmore complex topic in some Canadian literature (McGrath, 1999;Moffatt et al., 1999; Wharf, 1999; Wharf & Clague, 1997; Callahan,1999). The interest is partly a reaction against the tremendous successof neo-liberal argument to organize social relations according to capi-talist relations. For example, Faulks (2000) argues that the neo-liberalexperiences of the 1980s and 1990s have introduced market rights,which are necessary for the maintenance of a capitalist economy. Theserights have been asserted at the expense of social rights because socialrights were seen as restrictions on economic freedom, as resource de-pendent and as promoting a culture of dependency. Dwyer’s (2000) as-sessment of the New Right’s policies in the 1980s and 1990s arrives at asimilar conclusion. The success of this ideological approach has workedagainst an alternative response to the concern of citizenship (Harvey,2000; Wharf & Clague, 1997).
Moreover, interest in citizenship has been spurred by increasing dis-parities between social groups. It can no longer be argued that all mem-bers of society experience citizenship in the same manner. Feministshave argued that gendered citizenship is a reality in most societies be-cause legislative arrangements cast women as second-class citizens(Lister, 1990; Smart, 1989; Sydie, 1987. Denial of citizenship tonon-nationals (Faulks, 2000) and acceptance of a notion of anunderclass of welfare recipients (Dwyer, 2000) have obvious implica-tions for those involved. Marginalized populations experience citizen-ship in differing ways, being subject to a variety of disciplinary acts andrestrictions on the expression of citizenship according to their gender,class, sexuality, race, ability and ethnicity (Bronski, 1998; Caragata,1999; Young, 1990). Furthermore, the concern over citizenship iskeenly felt for those having to worry about basic survival due to socialand economic restructuring.
George et al. 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Citizenship is a process as well as an outcome, and struggle is a cru-cial part of the process (Lister, 1997b). The struggle recognizes and pro-motes agency rather than victimization. Community is recognized as acentral location for the practice of citizenship. Thus, the struggle for so-cial rights is being played out in community work.
Community workers, particularly the social democratic feminists,have helped to define citizenship as something achieved in communityand for the benefit of the collectivity (Naples, 1998). Lister (1998, p. 226)connects citizenship and community work, stating, “community develop-ment can be understood as an expression of citizenship in action.” Wharf(1999) argues that the “failure of the state to extend the status of first classcitizenship to all” is the raison d’être of community development. Thisposition agrees with Lee’s assertion (1999, p. 43) that community prac-tice attempts to promote “the sense in people that they have the abilityand right to influence their environment.” Citizenship can therefore belinked to the concept of human agency. People must first reacquire asense of control and the ability to make choices in their lives before theyare able to actively participate as citizens in society.
METHOD
This is a qualitative study, conducted to explore the meaning of citi-zenship and its relevance to community social work practitioners. Par-ticipants in this study were eight community social workers (one maleand seven females) practicing in a diverse range of settings: housing ad-vocacy, anti-harassment, long-term care, women’s health services, so-cial planning and tenant organization. The geographical area coveredwas Southern Ontario, west of Toronto, which includes urban and sub-urban communities. A purposive sampling meant that participants wereselected on the basis of their community social work backgrounds, theirexperience (ranging from 5 to 20 years in the field) and their reputationin their respective communities. The interviews were conducted bythree social work students from McMaster University School of SocialWork who were completing their final year of BSW1 study under the su-pervision of one of the authors.
Participants were provided with a list of questions around variouspossible meanings of citizenship (garnered from an examination of so-cial science literature) prior to meeting with interviewers.2 Questionsrelated to issues of rights and entitlements, responsibilities, legal rela-tionship with the state, resistance and struggle, citizenship participation,
76 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
inclusion, safety and due process. The interviews were approximatelyone to one and one-half hours long and open ended. Participants wereencouraged to respond to the questions with little input from the inter-viewers. The responses provided by the participants were analyzed us-ing constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and themeswere identified. A number of steps such as member checking and per-sistent observation were taken to ensure trustworthiness of this study.The researchers are connected to this topic through many years of com-munity practice teaching and field experience. However, we recognizethe limitation of this study in the nonrandomness of the participant sam-ple and therefore, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to allcommunity practitioners.
The participants were assured anonymity. Indeed, for a number ofthe participants, their involvement in this project was predicated on an-onymity. They wished to guard against a potential backlash againstthemselves or the organizations for which they worked. This is a disqui-eting finding. One of the clear hallmarks of citizenship is the right tofree speech; that these social workers felt a potential threat in this regardspeaks to a politically sensitive and constrained environment in whichthey worked.
FINDINGS
Conceptualizing Citizenship
Each of the research participants identified the concept of citizenshipas being an underlying principle of their work. They experienced someinitial difficulty in making explicit connection between the term and thework done, and explained that they were so preoccupied with assistingpeople to meet basic needs that they did not have much opportunity toreflect on broader notions. However, the workers were clear that citi-zenship was a concept that resonated importantly with their work. Oneworker stated, “it is not identified as citizenship, but it is talked about.”Similarly, another commented, “it is a concept that underlies many top-ics, but we never use the word.” Workers identified the concept as beingpart of their philosophy, as something that was intrinsic to their workwith the individuals and groups they met on a day-to-day basis. Theyfelt the notion was also important in their specific work with women,the homeless, and clients with AIDS and other marginalized groups.Two workers actually concluded that there is an intrinsic connection be-
George et al. 77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
tween community development and citizenship. One put it this way:“conversation around the ‘notion of citizenship’ is really communitydevelopment.” As the interviewees discussed their work and the way inwhich it relates to citizenship, they became better able to articulate theconnections between them.
We explored participants’ interpretations of the concept of citizen-ship and how it provides structure and meaning to their daily work.With the exception of one worker, participants concluded that each ofthe elements listed on the schedule–right/entitlement, responsibilities,political relationships, struggle/resistance (for example, strikes anddemonstrations), participation/voicing concerns, inclusion/belonging,safety/due process–was important for them in defining citizenship. Theonly dissension was regarding the element of safety and due process.Five respondents linked the elements together, stating there was a cer-tain degree of interconnection among them. As one worker stated, “all[elements] are important to citizenship, [there is] a lot of overlap be-tween them.” Another participant identified a specific connection be-tween rights/entitlements and responsibilities: “all people have rights . . .at the same time people have the responsibility to defend these rights . . .It is a very important notion that rights and responsibilities are linked.”Another coupled rights/entitlements with responsibilities, and connectedthese with the ability to struggle/resist effectively, maintain political rela-tionships, voice concerns, participate meaningfully and be safe withintheir communities. Overall, the workers identified inter-relatednessamong the various elements of citizenship.
The foundational theme that emerged from the interviews was thatbasic human rights/entitlements are pre-requisites for exercising allthe elements of citizenship. The importance of access to resources wasstrongly recognized by respondents, who continually made the linkbetween access and effective participation in society. Like Marshall(1950), the participants in this project viewed social rights as an inte-gral component of citizenship. Furthermore, by identifying the signif-icance of social rights, interviewees suggested that the achievement ofbasic human needs is necessary for citizens to effectively exercisetheir civil and political rights. Consequently, any participation in the so-cial and political discourse, as understood in the notion of civil and po-litical rights, cannot occur until social rights such as adequate housingand a decent standard of living are fulfilled. Thus, the recognition of so-cial rights as an essential component of citizenship is key to promotingthe effective exercise of civil and political rights by marginalizedgroups.
78 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Social Rights: Entitlements and Responsibilities
All of the participants believed rights/entitlements were essential ele-ments of citizenship. However, their definitions of rights varied widelyaccording to their individual workplace and experiences. For example,some suggested that basic human needs–which they identified as a de-cent standard of living, housing, food, and clothing–must be included asrights. Others expanded these rights to include leisure, safety, recre-ational activities, employment, education and freedom from oppres-sion.
These differences are also reflected in participants’ concern aroundthe discrepancies in the distribution of rights/entitlements among citi-zens. One worker stated: “We all have basic entitlements, but the degreeof those entitlements is varied.” For example, while Canadian Lawidentifies shelter as a basic right, numerous people are living on thestreets, in temporary shelters and in impoverished conditions. Anotherworker stated that these inequalities could be alleviated through the“expansion of rights to include client participation in all aspects ofentitlements and input regarding service provision.” Client participa-tion in all aspects of the entitlement process is linked to human agency,as it allows citizens to define their needs and advocate that they are ade-quately met. Thus rights/entitlements were seen as significant compo-nents of citizenship within community development.
Many participants linked rights and responsibilities. Three of themdiscussed the mutual obligation between the state and citizens. Onestated: “The state ensures certain rights, like the right to good healthcare or a certain standard of living, and develops certain programs to en-sure this, like the health care system. In return, the state expects certainthings of us as members of society.” In this way, the state is involved ina reciprocal relationship with its citizens.
Other interviewees expanded the concept of a mutual relationship toone that exists among citizens. One worker emphasized that responsi-bilities need “to involve social participation and mutual obligation forthe collective good of all people.” There exists a mutual responsibilityto “provide for the social good,” through such activities as “reportingcrimes . . . working towards environments free from harassment . . . andoppression.” These responsibilities were seen as being fulfilled on ei-ther a macro or micro level within society. At the micro level, for example,one worker identified educating clients regarding seemingly simplistic is-sues like “not screaming in your apartment all night.” This increases cli-ent awareness about “what the community expects [from fellow citizens]
George et al. 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
and how to fit in.” The community workers saw themselves as helpingindividuals fulfill social responsibilities in the highest capacity possi-ble. One worker, for example, stated that each person can contribute tofulfilling his/her social responsibilities in a unique manner: “It might beby being a friend, a partner, doing volunteer work, cleaning up one’s en-vironment, speaking out against injustice, etc.”
Three participants described the fulfillment of responsibilities as be-ing dependent upon one’s resources. Interestingly, the resources mostoften discussed were connected to basic human rights/entitlements.Echoing Marshall (1950), the workers discussed how clients cannot ful-fill social responsibilities when they are unable to meet their basicneeds, and noted that access to resources allow for meaningful partici-pation in society.
Social Rights: Relation to Civil/Political Rights
Each respondent suggested that political rights were a part of citizen-ship. Political rights were defined primarily in terms of voting. Fourworkers felt that one’s ability to vote is closely linked with one’s re-sources. For example, one housing worker stated that “not many peoplehere voted prior to 1993 and 1994; many people using our servicescouldn’t even name the Prime Minister of Canada.” Commenting onpeople who lack resources, another interviewee noted: “Sometimes[these] people need encouragement to vote, access to transportation,some support in discussing and learning about the issues, etc.” As dis-cussed previously, these statements reflect an understanding of socialrights as the basis for the ability to exercise civil and political rights.
Two workers took the concept of resources further and stated that so-cietal structures need to be reorganized to include more meaningful par-ticipation by all citizens. One commented: “People should have more ofa say than marking an ‘X’ on a ballot. I would like to see more of a col-lective/consensus approach within bureaucracies and organizations.”Another worker felt that political rights must be “expanded to includeparticipation and real ownership of the legal, electoral and governingsystems. This can be accomplished through the expansion of ways thatpeople can be involved in politics. Funds and resources need to be avail-able to encourage and support the growth of grassroots groups, net-works, national organizations and social action activities.”
All of the respondents recognized the importance of civil and politi-cal rights predicated in the notions of struggle/resistance and participation/voicing concerns. Six workers linked the concepts of struggle/resistance with
80 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
participation/voicing concerns and discussed them interchangeably.Their descriptions varied from micro-level involvement with individualclients to macro-level social policy debate. Five workers referred to thedisempowerment of clients and their individual experiences in support-ing them to struggle, resist and voice concerns; for example, “challeng-ing the government for nonprofit housing,” helping “anti-oppressiongroups challenge stereotypes that define citizenship,” or “construc-tively channeling client voices through letter writing or demonstrating.”Participants linked the concept of empowerment with that of citizen-ship.
On a broader scale, one worker echoed the sentiments of four of theothers by stating, “we all have a right and responsibility to [struggle, re-sist, voice concerns, participate] without being hurt and threatened.”These workers further observed that many people do not have the safetyto do this because “western society tends to squash or silence people.”Individuals and groups risk negative consequences when they choose tostruggle, resist or voice concerns in an unsafe environment. One statedthat her “clients are being threatened by having funds cut off because oftheir revolt.” She further explained that this jeopardized her ability toprovide services. The end result is that individuals are denied meaning-ful participation within society.
The Practice of Social Citizenship: Building Social Solidarity
Six respondents felt that inclusion/belonging were important aspectsof citizenship. For example, in reference to employment, one workercommented, “in 11 years [of community social work] I have never metanyone who didn’t want to be part of the capitalist market system.”However, despite one’s desire to be included, the structural inequalitiesthat exist within society make it difficult and at times impossible totranslate that desire into reality. Five interviewees discussed how feel-ings of equality and inequality affect one’s sense of inclusion/belong-ing. One worker said, “this is about ‘us’ and ‘them.’ We sense that thepeople who belong are those whose scars are not as public, who havegood paying jobs and privilege.” Another respondent discussed the no-tion of “isms” in society and how they serve to marginalize populations,thereby reducing their feelings of inclusion/belonging. Some respon-dents identified the need for systemic changes to equalize inequalitieswithin society. As expressed repeatedly by the participants in our study,social rights are necessary for citizens to feel a sense of inclusion/be-longing.
George et al. 81
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Most of the workers reflected on the vulnerability of one’s safety insociety. This was discussed in terms of both groups and individuals.Five participants explicitly stated that they saw safety as being “dis-counted,” “eroded” and “taken for granted” by those with privilege. Inparticular, they identified the populations with whom they interact asbeing the most vulnerable, commenting, “women need safe and afford-able housing,” “mental health clients are facing threats against their lib-erty”; and all people deserve “the right to live in a violence-free world inwhich organizing with and for each other” is safe.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study highlight the importance attached to socialcitizenship by community workers. Obviously, their perceptions are in-formed by the United Nations human rights documents–the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights (1966). The International Covenant on Eco-nomic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) protects workers’ rights, fam-ily rights, rights to health and to adequate standard of living, educationalrights, and cultural rights (Dickinson, Leipner, Talos, & Buckingham,1996: 534). Most of the participants in this study reiterated that social citi-zenship is a necessary condition for the exercise of political and civil citi-zenship. The notion of social citizenship in this context echoes the socialrights component of human rights. Social/economic/cultural rights areseen as claims on the state for protection and assistance and, along, withpolitical and civil rights they constitute the total package of humanrights (Whitaker, 2000). Analysts such as Eide (1995) and Eide andRosas (1995) argue that these components address three basic val-ues–integrity, freedom and equality of all human beings (Whitaker,2000). The participants of this study did not subscribe to the distinctionbetween citizens and subjects (Crick, 2000) or between citizens andsupplicants (Federico, 1990).
There is indication that users of services also find social citizenshipto be an integral ingredient of their citizenship status and practice. In astudy of welfare recipients, Dwyer (2000) found that users endorsed thenotion of citizenship, which includes civil, political and social rights,and that social rights were seen as essential elements of the citizenshippackage. This finding is in line with evidence from a number of otherstudies in the United Kingdom and the United States cited by Dwyer(2000). It is not surprising then, that Dean and Melrose (1999) see citi-
82 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
zenship as a “strategic terrain” “on which claims for social justice andthe recognition of individual difference are pursued; on which claimsfor redistribution can be fought and on which universal values can becontinually renegotiated” (p. 171).
The findings also support those practitioners and writers in commu-nity work literature who believe that citizenship offers us a usefullycomplex concept for centering community practice. In a previous study(Moffatt et al., 1999), the authors of this paper found that some commu-nity social planners are utilizing notions of citizenship to conceptualizetheir practice. The planners were deeply concerned that their work helpincrease the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in the life oftheir communities. There is a sense in the present study that for thesecommunity practitioners, social rights underpin all aspects of citizen-ship. Their comments reflect a belief that community work is an essen-tial forum for ensuring and enhancing people’s citizenship rights andresponsibilities. In fact, as noted earlier, community work is “an expres-sion of citizenship in action” (Lister, 1998, p. 226). This means encour-aging individuals and groups to actively struggle/resist, voice concerns,vote and help create an environment in which they can meaningfullyparticipate as citizens.
The participants in this study, however, stressed that basic humanneeds must be met for there to be citizenship practice: without a mate-rial base, individual citizens are simply not as able to participate mean-ingfully in society. This conclusion is significant in North Americansociety with its growing climate of neo-liberalism, in which rights are in-creasingly defined as privileges and public sector funding for supportiveservices is continually diminishing. The consequence is a two-tiered sys-tem of citizenship, in which marginalized groups and individuals do notenjoy the same participation as the privileged (Wharf, 1999).
It is our hope that the relatively traditional meaning and marginal sta-tus of the concept of citizenship in community work literature will be al-tered. There is an urgent need for those of us researching, teaching,discussing and working in community practice to address citizenship asa crucial and multifaceted notion. Authors like Rothman and McKnighthave rightly stressed the necessity for community practice to embrace aposition that emphasizes the need for active client participation in issueidentification and problem solving. We urge academics and communityresearchers to go further and examine the notion of citizenship as acomplex phenomenon involving basic social rights and entitlementsthat are the starting point for individuals to assume responsibility forcommunity participation. Indeed, the comments of the participants in
George et al. 83
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
this study suggest that practitioners already are shaping their practice interms of a sophisticated approach to citizenship.
NOTES
1. The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable work of Carol Feddema,Preet Gill and Danielle Mink, who conducted the interviews and assisted in the initialanalysis of the findings presented in this paper.
2. Rights/Entitlements; Responsibilities; Legal Relationships (e.g., vote); Strug-gle/Resistance (e.g., strikes, demonstrations); Voicing Concerns/Participation; Inclu-sion/Belonging; Safety/Due Process; Other.
REFERENCES
Bronski, M. (1998). The pleasure principle, sex backlash, and the struggle for gayfreedom. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Callahan, M. (1999). Creating second-class citizens in child welfare. In L. Dominelli(Ed.), Community approaches to child welfare: International perspectives (pp. 45-63). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Caragata, L. (1999). The privileged public: Who is permitted citizenship? CommunityDevelopment Journal, 34 (4), 270-287.
Crick, B. (2000). Essays on citizenship. New York: Cromwell Press Ltd.Dean, H., & Melrose, M. (1999). Poverty, riches and social citizenship. Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.Dickinson, Leipner, Talos, & Buckingham (1996). Understanding the law (2nd ed.).
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.Dwyer, P. (2000). Welfare rights and responsibilities. Bristol, UK: University of Bris-
tol, The Policy Press.Eide, A. (1995). Economic, social, and cultural rights as human rights. In A. Eide, C.
Krause, & A. Rosas (Eds.), Economic, social and cultural rights: A textbook(pp. 15-19). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Eide, A., & Rosas, A. (1995). Economic, social and cultural rights: A universal chal-lenge. In A. Eide, C. Krause, & A. Rosas (Eds.), Economic, social, and culturalrights: A textbook (pp. 15-19). Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.
Faulks, K. (1998). Citizenship in modern Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.
Faulks, K. (2000). Citizenship. New York: Routledge.Federico, R.C. (1990). Social welfare in today’s world. New York: McGraw Hill.Fraser, N., & Gordon, L. (1994). Reclaiming social citizenship: Beyond the ideology
of contract versus charity. In P. James (Ed.), Critical politics (pp. 59-75). Mel-bourne, Australia: Arena Publications.
Hardcastle, D., Wenocur, S., & Powers, P.R. (1997). Community practice. New York:Oxford University Press.
84 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Isin, E., & Wood, P. (1999). Citizenship and identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-
cations.Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and civil society: A framework of rights and obligations
in liberal, traditional, and social democratic regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
Jenson, J., & Papillon, M. (2000). The changing boundaries of citizenship. A reviewand a research agenda. Department de science politique, University de Montrealand CPRN, Inc., & Department of Political Science, York University.
Kahn, S. (1994). How people get power. Washington, D.C.: NASW Press.Kingwell, M. (2000). The world we want. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Penguin Books.Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out. Chi-
cago: ACTA Publications.Kymlicka, W. (1992). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (Eds.). (2000). Citizenship in diverse societies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Lee, B. (1999). Pragmatics of community organization (3rd ed.). Mississauga, On-
tario, Canada: Common Act Press.Leonard, P. (1997). Postmodern welfare: Reconstructing an emancipatory project.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Lister, R. (1990). The exclusive society: Citizenship and the poor. London: CPAG.Lister, R. (1997a). Citizenship: Towards a feminist synthesis. Feminist Review, 57,
28-48.Lister, R. (1997b). From fractured Britain to one nation? The policy options to welfare
reform. Paper to Annual Conference of the Social Policy Association, University ofLincolnshire and Humberside, Lincoln, 15 July.
Lister, R. (1998). Citizen in action: Citizenship and community development in aNorthern Ireland context. Community Development Journal, 33 (3), 226-235.
Marshall, T.H. (1950). Class, citizenship, and social development. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
McGrath, S.L. (1999). The politics of truth: A case study of knowledge construction bythe Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 1957-1988. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto.
McKnight, J. (1993). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits. New York:Basic Books.
Mead, L. (1986). Beyond entitlement: The social obligations of citizenship. New York:The Free Press.
Moffatt, K., George, U., Lee, B., & McGrath, S. (1999). Advancing citizenship: Astudy of social planning. Community Development Journal, 34 (4), 308-317.
Morrison, I. (1997). Rights and the right: Ending social citizenship in Tory Ontario. InD. Ralph, A. Regimbald, & N. St. Amand (Eds.), Open for business closed to peo-ple. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Naples, N.A. (1998, Fall). Toward a multiracial, feminist social-democratic praxis:Lessons from grassroots warriors in the U.S. war on poverty. Social Politics,286-313.
George et al. 85
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Ornstein, M. (2000). Ethno-racial inequality in the city of Toronto: An analysis of the1996 census. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: City of Toronto.
Pateman, C. (1988). The fraternal social contract. In J. Keane (Ed.), Civil society andthe state. London: Verso.
Phillips, A. (1991). Engendering democracy. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.
Plant, R., & Barry, N. (1990). Citizenship and rights in Thatcher’s Britain: Two views.London: IEA Health & Welfare Unit.
Rees, A.M. (1995). The promise of social citizenship. Policy and Politics, 23 (4),313-325.
Rothman, J. (Ed.). (1999). Reflections on community organization. Itasca, IL: F.E.Peacock Publishers.
Rothman, J., & Tropman, J. (1987). Three models of community organization. In F.M.Cox et al. (Eds.), Strategies of community organization. Itasca, IL: F.E. PeacockPublishers.
Smart, C. (1989). Feminism and the power of law. London: Routledge.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.Sydie, R. (1987). Natural women, cultured men: A feminist critique of sociological the-
ory. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Tator, F., Mattis, W., & Rees, T. (2000). The colour of democracy. Racism in Cana-
dian society (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Harcourt Canada Ltd.Wharf, B. (1999). Concluding comments. Community Development Journal, 34 (4),
365-369.Wharf, B., & Clague, M. (1997). Lessons and legacies. In B. Wharf & M. Clague
(Eds.), Community organizing, Canadian experiences (pp. 302-326). Toronto, On-tario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Whitaker, W.H. (2000). Food entitlements. In K.F. Kiple, & K.C. Ornelas (Eds.), TheCambridge world history of food (pp. 1585-1593). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press.
86 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
02:
37 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
