Civil Society: fact or fiction?
Not easily defined, a civil society's meaning can be gleaned by listening to the words of those who advocate the development of a civil society

Peter Mcknight
Vancouver Sun

Saturday, April 05, 2008

U.S. Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama bowls in Altoona, Penn., as part of his six-day 'Road to Change' bus tour. In highly polarized environments, like those that now exist in North America, voluntary associations often serve to decrease trust among members of society. In his book titled Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital, Robert Putnam distinguishes between associations that promote 'bonding social capital' and those that encourage 'bridging social capital.'
CREDIT: Alex Wong, Getty Images
U.S. Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama bowls in Altoona, Penn., as part of his six-day 'Road to Change' bus tour. In highly polarized environments, like those that now exist in North America, voluntary associations often serve to decrease trust among members of society. In his book titled Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital, Robert Putnam distinguishes between associations that promote 'bonding social capital' and those that encourage 'bridging social capital.'

Visit the Vancouver Sun's Civil Society web site for videos, sound-offs, and a full collection of related "civil society" stories.



In our highly polarized political environment, where politicians and members of the public disagree vehemently about both the ideals to which society should aspire and the means we should use to achieve them, it's comforting to know there's something about which everyone agrees.

Perhaps this is why the term "civil society" has become so popular in recent years. People from across the political spectrum, who agree on virtually nothing else, all wholeheartedly support the development of civil society.

One has to wonder, though, whether this agreement is purely illusory, whether people appear to agree because each is supplying his or her own definition of the term "civil society." If so, then "civil society" means just about everything -- and hence it also means nothing.

The first task, then, is to define precisely what we mean by the term. This is no simple undertaking since "civil society," now one of the most popular concepts in the political and social sciences, is frequently left undefined. Nevertheless, we can glean the meaning or meanings of the term by listening to the words of those who advocate the development of civil society.

In Vancouver, we're abundantly familiar with the term thanks to Mayor Sam Sullivan's Project Civil City. Project Civil City is "a framework for action to address the issue of public disorder."

This is a very limited definition, as it restricts itself to the reduction of public disorder. However, it does seem in keeping with the intuitive definition of a civil city (society) as a civilized city (society). Indeed, The Vancouver Sun similarly defined civil society as "a society that feels cooperative, respectful, orderly and compassionate."

According to this definition, a civil society is therefore a specific type of society. That seems a reasonable enough definition, yet it is not how the vast majority of political and social scientists define the term. Instead, academics generally use the term to refer to a part of society -- specifically, that part which is separate from the state and the market.

For example, one of the predominant think tanks devoted to assessing the concept, The Centre for Civil Society at the London School of Economics, defines the term thusly:

"Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market ... Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's organizations, faith based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups."

The Centre therefore provides a definition of civil society that differs markedly from those provided by Sam Sullivan and The Sun. But can we reconcile these definitions?

A brief look at the history of the term might help us in this regard. The concept of "civil society" stretches back at least to Aristotle, and originally referred to a type of society -- a good or decent good society -- much like that envisioned by Sullivan and The Sun.

Hence, unlike today's academic definition, there was no distinction between a civil society and the state. That changed in the early 19th century, with the 1820 publication of German philosopher Georg Hegel's Philosophy of Right, in which he argued that civil society occupied a position in between the family and the state.

A few years later, Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer of American culture, published the two-volume Democracy in America (1835 and 1840), in which he marvelled at Americans' tendency to form voluntary associations separate from the state. And more importantly, Tocqueville thought that tendency was crucial to the viability of early American democracy because it allowed for the inculcation of shared values.

Tocqueville seemed therefore to be saying that a civil society -- the existence of myriad voluntary associations -- was necessary for the development of a civil society -- a society characterized by cooperation and respect -- which neatly relates our two disparate definitions.

Nevertheless, the concept of civil society fell out of favour in the early 20th century. But, as London School of Economics political scientist Mary Kaldor explains, it returned with a vengeance in the 1970s and 1980s, thanks largely to developments in Eastern Europe.

The fight against totalitarian regimes was conducted, obviously, by non-governmental associations such as Poland's Solidarity movement, and therefore solidified the notion that civil society was not only separate from the state, but often acted in opposition to the (mis)use of state power.

Voluntary associations did, therefore, play a crucial role in the development of democracy in Eastern Europe, which seems to support Tocqueville's sentiments. Yet in more mature democracies, there is normally no common enemy to fight against, and hence voluntary associations don't always serve to unite people.

Indeed, in highly polarized environments, like those that now exist in North America, voluntary associations often serve to decrease, rather than increase, trust among members of society.

For example, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam distinguishes between associations that promote "bonding social capital" and those that encourage "bridging social capital."

The former organizations involve people with similar beliefs, values and backgrounds and therefore often serve to reinforce those values, including prejudices. Extremist groups are the most obvious examples of such organizations, but many groups associated with promoting particular political values also tend to increase distrust of people who don't share those beliefs.

Suffice it to say then, that we must be on guard against automatically assuming that the mere existence of voluntary associations -- civil society -- is necessarily conducive to promoting civilized society.

But organizations that promote bridging social capital, such as neighbourhood associations, can and do provide a unique service by improving mutual understanding among individuals and by allowing people to negotiate with each other and with the state about how best to create a truly civil society.

In this sense, then, our two definitions of civil society do indeed mesh with each other. Or as Michael Edwards, director of the Ford Foundation's Governance and Civil Society Program put it, "civil society is simultaneously a goal to aim for, a means to achieve it and a framework for engaging with each other."

 pmcknight@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2008