Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Re-conceptualizing Civil Society: Towards a Radical Understanding

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article examines problematic aspects of contemporary theoretical thinking about civil society within a Western liberal-democratic context. The impact of neo-liberalism upon narratives of civil society, the assumption that civility resides more conspicuously within the world of associational life, and the tendency to conflate ‘civil society’ with the ‘third sector’ are areas critically discussed. Such conceptual incongruities, it is argued, obscure the path to a more radical theoretical understanding of civil society. In the second part of the article an alternative model of civil society is proposed. Supporting Evers premise that ‘every attempt to narrow down civil society to the third sector seriously impoverishes the very concept of civil society’ (Evers, Voluntary Sector Review 1:116, 2010), it is argued that civil society is best understood as a normative political concept, as being contingent in nature and distinct from the third sector.

Résumé

Cet article examine les aspects problématiques de la pensée théorique contemporaine sur la société civile dans un contexte démocratique et libéral occidental. Nous discutons de façon critique l’impact du néo-libéralisme sur les représentations de la société civile, l’idée selon laquelle la civilité serait plus manifeste dans le monde de la vie associative, et la tendance à confondre « société civile » et « secteur tiers » . De telles incongruités conceptuelles, avançons-nous, obscurcissent la voie vers une compréhension théorique plus radicale de la société civile. Un modèle alternatif de la société civile est proposé en seconde partie de l’article. En soutenant la prémisse d’Evers selon laquelle « toute tentative de réduire la société civile au secteur tiers appauvrit sérieusement la notion même de société civile » (Evers 2010, p. 116), nous avançons que la société civile est mieux comprise comme un concept normatif politique, comme étant contingente par nature et distincte du secteur tiers.

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag untersucht die problematischen Aspekte der gegenwärtigen theoretischen Denkansätze zur Bürgergesellschaft in einem westlichen, liberalen demokratischen Kontext. Der Einfluss des Neoliberalismus auf die Narrationen der Bürgergesellschaft, die Annahme, dass die Bürgerlichkeit im Vereinsleben deutlicher präsent ist und die Tendenz, die „Bürgergesellschaft“mit dem „Dritten Sektor“zu verschmelzen sind kritisch betrachtete Themen. So wird behauptet, dass derartige begriffliche Unvereinbarkeiten den Weg zu einem radikaleren theroretischen Verständnis der Bürgergesellschaft verfinstern. Im zweiten Teil des Beitrags wird ein alternatives Bürgergesellschaftsmodell vorgeschlagen. In Anlehnung an die von Evers aufgestellte Voraussetzung, dass „ein jeder Versuch, die Bürgergesellschaft auf den Dritten Sektor zu beschränken, eben das wesentliche Konzept der Bürgergesellschaft äußerst stark schwächt“(Evers 2010, S. 116) wird die Ansicht vertreten, dass die Bürgergesellschaft am besten als ein normatives politisches Konzept verstanden werden sollte, das in seiner Natur bedingt ist und sich vom Dritten Sektor unterscheidet.

Resumen

El artículo examina aspectos problemáticos del pensamiento teórico contemporáneo sobre la sociedad civil en un contexto democrático liberal occidental. El impacto del neoliberalismo sobre las narrativas de la sociedad civil, la suposición de que el civismo reside más conspicuamente dentro del mundo de la vida asociativa, y la tendencia a mezclar la “sociedad civil” con el “tercer sector” son áreas debatidas de forma crítica. Dichas incongruencias conceptuales, se argumenta, oscurecen el camino hacia una comprensión teórica más radical de la sociedad civil. En la segunda parte del artículo, se propone un modelo alternativo de sociedad civil. Apoyando la premisa de Evers de que “cada intento de reducir la sociedad civil al tercer sector empobrece seriamente el propio concepto de sociedad civil” (Evers 2010, p. 116), se argumenta que la sociedad civil se comprende mejor como un concepto político normativo, como dependiente en naturaleza y diferente del tercer sector.

摘要

本文调查在西方自由民主背景下,公民社会现代理论思维存在的相关误区。本文批判新自由主义对公民社会的影响、社团生活领域中的文明更为明显这一假设,以及将“公民社会”与“第三部门”合并的趋势。本文认为,这种概念上的不一致使人们无法对公民社会获得更深入的理论理解。本文的第二部门提出了公民社会的替代模型。Evers 提出,“每一次将公民社会压缩至第三部门的尝试严重掏空了公民社会的概念”(Evers,2010年,第116页),为支持这一假设,本文认为,将公民社会视为一个标准的政治概念是最佳的理解方式,因为公民社会具有偶发性且不同于第三部门。.

ملخص

يتناول هذا المقال بالدراسة الجوانب الصعب حلها للتفكير النظري المعاصر حول المجتمع المدني ضمن الديمقراطية الليبرالية الغربية. أثر الليبرالية الجديدة على السرد من المجتمع المدني، الإفتراض أن التحضر يقيم بشكل أكثروضوح في عالم حياة الجمعيات، والميل إلى خلط ‘المجتمع المدني’ مع ‘القطاع الثالث ̀مجالات مناقشة جدلية. التضارب المفاهيمي من هذا القبيل، وثمة من يقول، الطريق غامض إلى فهم نظري أكثر راديكالية للمجتمع المدني. في الجزء الثاني من هذا المقال تم إقتراح نموذج بديل للمجتمع المدني. دعم إفتراض إيفرز(Evers) أن “كل محاولة لتضييق المجتمع المدني للقطاع الثالث يفتقر بجدية لمفهوم المجتمع المدني(إيفرز(Evers)، 2010، ص116) ، ثمة من يقول أن المجتمع المدني مفهوم أفضل كمفهوم سياسي معياري، بإعتباره ممكن أن يحدث في الطبيعة ومتميز من القطاع الثالث.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock, P. (2010). A strategic unity: defining the third sector in the UK. Voluntary Sector Review, 1, 5–24.

  • Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan, P. (2013). Partnership, the big society and community organizing: Between romanticizing, problematizing and politicizing community. Community Development Journal, 48(1), 119–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, E. (2003). Roots for radicals. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. L. (1999). American civil society talk. In R. Fullinwider (Ed.), Civil society, democracy and civic renewal. Lanham, MD/Boulder, CO/New York, NY/Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

  • DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R., & Shragge, E. (2010). Contesting community: The limits and potential of local organizing. New York: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. (2010). Civil society (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A. (2010). Observations on incivility: blind spots in third sector research and policy. Voluntary Sector Review, 1, 113–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Femia, J. (2001). Civil society and the Marxist tradition. In S. Kaviraj & S. Khilnani (Eds.), Civil society: History and possibilities. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

  • Garrett, P. M. (2009). Transforming children’s services? Social work, neo-liberalism and the ‘modern’ world. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasman, M. (2010). Society not state: The challenge of the big society. Public Policy Research, 17(32), 59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, ed. and trans.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (T. McCarthy, trans.). Cambridge, MA: Polity.

  • Hadl, G. (2004). Civil society media theory: Tools for decolonizing the lifeworld. Ritsumeikan Social Sciences Review, 40, 12, 77–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, M. (2003). Global civil society: An answer to war. Cambridge, MA: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khilnani, S. (2001). The development of civil society. In S. Kaviraj & S. Khilnani (Eds.), Civil society: History and possibilities. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

  • King, M. L., Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham city jail. In J. M. Washington (Ed.), A testament of hope—The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S., & McNamara, N. (2006). Analysing institutional partnerships in development: A contract between equals or a loaded process? Progress in Development Studies, 6(4), 321–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2002). Politics and passions: The stakes of democracy. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, V. (2002). A critique of social capital. International Journal of Health Services, 32(3), 423–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, F. (2007). The politics of civil society: Neoliberalism or social left. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. London: W.W.Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinohara, Hajime. (2004). Shiminno seijigaku- tougi demokurashi to wa nani ka (Citizens’ political science—what is deliberative democracy). Tokyo: Iwanami.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1984). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Bunyan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bunyan, P. Re-conceptualizing Civil Society: Towards a Radical Understanding. Voluntas 25, 538–552 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9352-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9352-y

Keywords

Navigation