Civil Society

For the past two decades, the concept of civil society has been embraced and used by a diverse range of actors including academics, activists, representatives of local and national governments, and international organizations whose interests vary from economic development to democratic governance. The possibility of presenting the idea of civil society to broad audiences transcending group and geographical boundaries is given in the normative character of the concept, that is, a set of value orientations that define what constitutes a good social order. In this respect, there is no doubt that values such as civility, tolerance, pluralism, freedom, justice, and individualism are generally seen as conducive to the production and maintenance of stable, harmonious societies. This is precisely why civil society discourse continued after the end of the Cold War, when divisions between totalitarian communist regimes and Western liberal democracies were replaced with divisions created by new forms of repression based on extreme nationalism, enduring authoritarianism, or religious fundamentalism.

But for such norms of civil discourse to become embedded in any social order, institutions are needed. This leads to a second dimension of the concept of civil society, a sociological one. Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato include in their definition of civil society four arenas of social life that are distinct from both economic society and political society: an intimate sphere (primarily the family), associations, social movements, and forms of public communications. The associations of civil society, generally voluntary organizations, are extremely diverse and embrace professional, civic, educational, and cultural activities. In addition, there are issue-oriented associations that represent the interests of specific groups, such as women, youth, and sexual minorities, or embrace a specific agenda, for example, the environment. This diverse spectrum of associations points toward one of the essential features of civil society, its pluralistic nature, since no group claims to represent the interests of the whole. Various forms of public communication also represent an important component of this definition of civil society and facilitate the flow and circulation of ideas and information. Other authors (e.g., Ernest Gellner, Victor Pérez-Díaz) give an even broader definition of civil society by adding economic markets and sociopolitical institutions.

The difficulty in analyzing civil society lies in grasping, conceptually and empirically, the circumstances under which it takes shape. Jeffrey Alexander argues that civil society can be empirically studied as a sphere of solidarity at the level of social motives, social relations, and social institutions. He further states, however, that one paradox of civil society lies in its inability to openly engage its opponents in dialogue. From a sociological point of view, then, the idea of civil society appears either vague or incomplete. A review of the history of civil society and how it has been conceptualized can provide some further clarification of the concept and at the same time reveal its complexity.

The roots of the ideas can be traced to the 17th century and are associated with the Protestant Reformation in England, which released new ideas of individualism and implied that social or civil relations could not simply be taken for granted as some undefined area beneath the level of the state. To a different extent, philosophers such as Adam Smith and George W. Hegel emphasized the role of individualism in shaping social order. But it was only in the 18th century in Europe, under conditions created by modernity—the rise of long-distance trade, changes in the means of communication, and the creation of a mass print culture—that the existence of an active civil society can be acknowledged. Jürgen Habermas, in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, captured this historical moment as well as its implications for the capitalist order of the late 20th century. According to Habermas, the public sphere of civil society was conceived in the mid-18th century, especially in Great Britain, by the bourgeoisie on the basis of the emerging bourgeois constitutional state. During this period, major institutions of the public sphere—coffeehouses, salons—brought together members of the bourgeoisie, intellectuals, and the wider strata of the rising middle class. An important characteristic of these institutions was that they gathered people together not as members of certain social groups but as citizens to engage in critical debates about important social issues. However, Habermas's account of civil society, from these hopeful beginnings to the context of late capitalism and the welfare state, is rather pessimistic since as he saw it, the development of a mass culture of consumption leads to a degradation of the public sphere and the erosion of civil society.

...