ABSTRACT
In one of the earliest critiques of T.H. Marshall’s theory of citizenship, Michael Mann charged him for being basically Anglo-centric and evolutionist. Michael Mann (1987: 339) instead proposed a comparative historical understanding of diverse strategies for ‘the institutionalization of class conflict’ (of which citizenship is a political manifestation) – namely, ‘liberal, reformist, authoritarian monarchist, Fascist, and authoritarian socialist.’ For these varied types of sociopolitical formations, Mann highlighted the decisive role of ruling classes and ancien regimes (vis-à-vis bourgeoisie and proletariat) and the overruling influence of geo-political events (vis-à-vis the internal efficiency of the above sociopolitical formations). 2 While Mann’s alternative categories of sociopolitical formations do not properly cover the historical situations of many non-Western countries, his emphasis on the importance of dominant conservative forces and international political conditions for the emergence and transformation of various sociopolitical formations (or citizenship regimes) is irrefutable. As to be shown in this chapter, the South Korean case is particularly instructive.
