Talk:Civil society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Law.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Civil society, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] comment

so what if it starts out as stub? better than nothing

[edit] Militia

I find the reasoning behind the recent revert woefully inadaquate, and will need to see far better explanation if it is to stand, rather than refering to "most definitions". Sam Spade 23:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

It took me about 30 second of research to find this. Sam Spade 23:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
So some guy with a website thinks we should arm civil society (implying that it isn't right now...).
That doesn't change the fact that civil society is a real analytical term, used widely in politics, international development, and especially the social sciences. And while there is great disagreement as to precisely how it should be defined, civil society is almost universally understood to be situated relative to the state (defined by Weber as an entity which successfully establishes a monopoly on the legitimate use of force), rather than a challenge its legitimacy. Hence, armed actors are typically excluded from the category, because they implicity or explicitly present just such a challenge.
All of this is part of a broader scholarly conversation which should be covered in an expanded article on the subject that I plan to work on when I get the chance (and which would need to cover the alternative Gramscian view, too complex to summarize here). But lacking that, simply listing militias as part of civil society, when most definitions of the term actually exclude them, seriously misleads the reader.
RadicalSubversiv E 01:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Where are these most definitions? Sam Spade 01:33, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Most of the modern understanding of the term flows from Hegel's Philosophy of Right, in which he described civil society as a sort of mediating sphere between the family and the state. The major modification since has been towards focusing on voluntary associations (owing to Tocqueville) to the exclusion of the market. Notable contemporary theorists include Michael Walzer and Robert Putnam. (I happen to have in front of me The Civil Society Reader, eds. Virginia A. Hodgkinson and Michael W. Foley, which gives a pretty good sampling.) The definition given in the article is a fairly typical one, and would exclude any militia which makes claims to using force or otherwise contesting state power. RadicalSubversiv E 03:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I follow you right up until "would exclude any militia which makes claims to using force or otherwise contesting state power". A militia doesn't necessarilly contest state power nor make claims of using force. Also, assuming that it did (some do) I would still want to see some documentation (a quote might suffice) for this subtlety in the definition which excludes potential use of force. Sam Spade 05:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm with Radical on this. And I don't think it's a question of subtelty: "civil" is built right into the term. What more do you need? There have been some times in history when civil society became violent -- the French and American revolutions, for example -- but these are notable precisely because the moment of taking arms marked the moment when the civil society broke down. So while there are times when civil society groups become militias, it is misleading to the reader to state that militias are parts of civil society. Badams 14:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Just speculation...if "supporting the legitimacy of the established government" is a general criteria, the Minuteman movement and others of the American Colonies could be part of the civil society of the Continental Government...i.e. any partisan movement on behalf of a government (most likely in exile). ~ Dpr 03:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The moral of all this is that the meaning and boundaries of civil society are subject to contention, just as civil society is a space for contention. In the end, the article should reflect that violence may or may not be part of civil society, depending on the circumstances of the violence and whose interpretation of civil society one is using. We don't need to decide here if CS contains violent groups or not. Just that some say yes, and some say no. If editors can identify some of the players and the nuances of their positions, then kudos to them. nstamp 10:28, August 10, 2006

[edit] Church

Why isn't church included? Sam Spade 05:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

This one is subtle. Religious organizations are not normally included becuase, historically, the modern idea of civil society was created in explicit opposition to the Catholic Church. In some societies, religion remains a monolithic institution against which people create alternative social organizations. However, in other societies -- including the US -- religious groups have all the qualities and roles of civil society and rightfully belong in that category. A proper discussion of civil society (which I'm not prepared to do, but maybe Radical will provide) will show how civil society historically precluded relgion, but in later cases, especially during the liberation movements in Africa and Latin America, relgious groups took a leading role in civil society; and is now basically judged on case-by-case basis. Badams 16:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
As I understand it, church has been a part of civil society as long as our modern conception of CS has been around. Locke would have considered the church to be CS. So would Furgeson. And then later when Hegel pulled CS and the State into two categories, the church would have been very important as a mediator between family and state. Then of course, Gramsci characterizes the CS-State dichotomy as a dichotomy between church and state, or in other words between force and consent. And certainly today in our associational understanding of CS, church is very much a part of CS. So Mr. Spade, I totally agree with you, that church institutions deserve a place here. Few, if any of the leading theorists would disagree. nstamp Aug. 10, 2006

[edit] Ambiguity

"reference to sources of resistance to and the domain of social life" I didn't fix this mistake for lack of certainty as to the intended meaning. Is it supposed to read "to and from the", or "to the"?

[edit] Civil society needs to be protected against globalization?

Who says this? I've never heard it, and I live in DC where everyone says everything. I would imagine that civil society would be a natural defense against the forces of globalization, if necessary. However, I'm sure it depends on the vitality of a given civil society and the nature of the government it petitions for protection.

Can anyone provide some cites/quotes in support of the idea that globalization is a danger to civil society? (Also, are we talking third world/global south here?) --Dablaze 21:08, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
One hypothetical meaning could be a "brainwashing" of the respective civil socities of various countries by "global culture" or MTV/McDonalds/mass consumerist culture...just pure speculation though. ~ Dpr 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Bowling alone"

Can someone add anything about the influential conceptualization "bowling alone"? Thanks ~ Dpr 03:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who is this?

Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone explain who "Neera Chandoke, a scientist from India" is? Or at least provide a footnote providing the source? 203.87.116.93 13:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, a simple Google search reveals that the spelling was incorrect and that she is professor of political science at the University of Delhi.
More searching however produced this, where she seems to say the opposite of what the article claims she says. She seems to be positing the existence of other additional citizens' movements and activities outside of and critical of "civil society". She seems to use "civil society" in the sense of that part of civil society that has been accepted by the state; very confusing. Whoever produced the article's part about her ideas should provide a link or a direct quote and a verifiable reference. In any case, a Google search with "countervailing power" and her name produces only 2 hits, so this is hardly her idea. --Espoo 18:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Quoted from the above link:

"The problem is that when we import a concept from a different historical context, it comes with lots of baggage. Since civil society had mobilised against the state in Eastern and Central Europe in 1989 and sparked thereby a ‘velvet revolution’, civil society it was generally felt was necessarily autonomous of the state, even poised against it. In the 1990s scholar after scholar authored tomes, each of which not only hailed the autonomy of civil society, but saw it as counteracting the totalising tendencies of the state. In the process, the state, civil society, and often the market came to be neatly bounded off, even insulated from each other. The problem however is that civil society can hardly be autonomous. For, somewhat ironically, the very state that civil society supposedly positions itself against enables the latter inasmuch as it provides the legal and political setting for the sphere to exist and maintain itself. The shadow of Hegel who had suggested that the state is a precondition for the existence of civil society looms large here. ...

"New groups in the country have mobilised for social and economic justice since the onset of independence: the peasants’ movement, the movement for land rights, the women’s movement, the anti-caste movement, the environmental movement, the movement against displacement on account of large projects, and the radical Naxalite movement. Whereas the struggle of Naxalite groups is grounded in a strong redistributive ethos, the feminist movement demands a restructuring of patriarchal power. Whereas the anti-caste movement demands that the balance of power that has consistently favoured the upper castes for centuries be reversed in favour of those who have been consistently marginalised from history, the environmental movement and the movement against big development projects argues that local communities have the first right over resources that have traditionally been exploited by and for the rest of society. In sum, most of these movements challenge power as conceptualised by the state and by civil society."

[edit] alternate and better terms

The beginning is ambiguous. Is "Civil society or civil institutions refers to..." supposed to mean "Civil society institutions or civil institutions are terms used to refer to.."? Or is it supposed to mean "The term civil society and the term civil institutions are used to refer to..."? Also, the terms "civil society organizations" and "civil society organiSations" are much more common than "civil society institutions". Google has 2.3 million vs. 123,000 hits! --Espoo 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academia

I'd suggest this term might be changed to Public education or Compulsory education, or add one of those 2 terms in addition to it. thanks. --Quiddity 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community (based) organizations

Under "Examples of civil society institutions," is there a reason for listing both "community-based organizations" and "community organizations?" --Jjorgensen 06:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes; no-one's bothered to check it! Thanks --Robdurbar 07:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] civic community

Sorry not to do it myself, but wouldn't it be good to have a hint on the relationship of "civil society" and "civic community", because some of the mentioned authors under "civil society" use the second phrase?

163.1.60.141 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Michael

[edit] Where is the definition of GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION...???

I have noticed that any political party assemblies are not mentioned by Civil Society, which prompts me to ask if they belong to the governmental organization. Unfortunately the wikipedia does not have an equivalent article to address the definition of GOs either. The closest info I can get from this site is Public ownership, to which it can be redirected from the search string of government organization. Now I'm wondering that where these political parties fit to. If these of elected parties possibly belong to the governmental organizations, then how about those of non elected parties? I have tried to google these questions without success. Any gurus of political scientists please shed me light here.

[edit] All of democracy is by default part of civil society if you go by wiki's definitions

The article says "Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system) and commercial institutions." But that's a contradiction, because in a truly democratic system all of the government's organizations and institutions exist only because the general population has agreed they should exist.

For example:

Charity groups exist only because people voluntarily give them money - thus it's a civil organization. Welfare programs exist only because people voluntarily elect politicians that will give our tax dollars to the needy - thus it's a civil organization.

Consumers/consumer organizations are groups who voluntarily monitor and defend against abuse of consumers - thus it's a civil organization. The Federal Trade Commission is a group we voluntarily voted to create to monitor and defend against abuse of consumers - thus it's a civil organization.

Wiki's article really needs a more clear distinction between why a societal group that's formed due to voluntary efforts and funding is a civil group, and why democratically created governmental groups that we voluntarily formed and support with our tax dollars is not a civil group. Both were created and continue to hold sway because we voluntarily chose them to be created and because we continue to voluntarily choose to support them with our money.

Where is the distinction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.30.40 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)