Advertisement

Knowing and Governing: The Mapping of the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector as Statecraft

  • Patricia Mooney Nickel
  • Angela M. Eikenberry
Original Paper

Abstract

Recent debate in Voluntas and elsewhere has paid a great deal of attention to the subject of mapping the nonprofit sector. However, very little attention has been paid to the ways in which the practice of mapping is a political mode of knowing and the ways in which knowing is governing. In this essay, we turn to critical theory and political anthropology in order to demonstrate how mapping as it is currently practiced is a mode of knowledge inquiry that facilitates statecraft. In light of these interdisciplinary perspectives, we wrestle with the implications of knowing—and thereby governing—voluntary collective organization in this manner. We conclude that this approach potentially disciplines the qualitative dimensions of democratic associational life and misrepresents the possibilities of social change.

Keywords

Knowledge production Qualitative methods Civil society 

Résumé

Le récent débat dans la revue Voluntas et ailleurs a accordé beaucoup d’attention à la question d’une cartographie du secteur à but non lucratif. Toutefois, on parle peu de la manière dont la pratique de la cartographie est un mode politique de connaissance et de la façon dont la connaissance est au pouvoir. Dans cet essai, nous nous tournons vers la théorie critique et l’anthropologie politique afin de démontrer comment la cartographie, telle qu’elle est pratiquée actuellement, est un mode d’examen de la connaissance qui facilite l’art de gouverner. En raison de ces perspectives interdisciplinaires, nous nous attaquons aux implications de la connaissance – au pouvoir – de l’organisation collective bénévole de cette manière. Nous concluons que cette approche nuit potentiellement aux dimensions qualitatives de la vie associative démocratique et dénature les possibilités de changement social.

Zusammenfassung

Das Thema Mapping des gemeinnützigen Sektors erhielt in jüngsten Diskussionen in Voluntas und anderswo große Aufmerksamkeit. Allerdings wurde die Art und Weise, in der die Praxis des Mapping einen politischen Wissensmodus darstellt und die Art und Weise, in der Wissen Steuerung ist, kaum angesprochen. In dieser Abhandlung greifen wir auf die Kritische Theorie und die politische Anthropologie zurück, um zu demonstrieren, wie das Mapping in seiner derzeitigen Praxis ein Modus der Wissenssammlung ist, die die Staatskunst ermöglicht. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser interdisziplinären Perspektiven ringen wir mit den Implikationen des Wissens über - und somit der Steuerung von - gemeinnützigen kollektiven Organisation auf diese Weise. Wir kommen zu dem Schluss, dass dieser Ansatz die qualitativen Dimensionen des demokratischen Vereinslebens potenziell diszipliniert und die Möglichkeiten des sozialen Wandels falsch darstellt.

Resumen

Debates recientes en Voluntas y en otras partes han prestado una gran atención al tema de cartografiar el sector de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. Sin embargo, se ha prestado muy poca atención a las formas en las que la práctica de la cartografía es un modo político de conocer y las formas en las que conocer es gobernar. En el presente ensayo, volvemos a la teoría crítica y a la antropología política con el fin de demostrar como la cartografía tal como se practica actualmente es un modo de investigación del conocimiento que facilita el arte de gobernar. A la luz de estas perspectivas interdisciplinarias, lidiamos con las implicaciones de conocer - y por lo tanto de gobernar - organizaciones colectivas voluntarias de esta manera. Concluimos que este enfoque sanciona potencialmente las dimensiones cualitativas de la vida asociativa democrática y malinterpreta las posibilidades de cambio social.

Chinese

最近在Voluntas和其他地方的争议极大关注着绘制非盈利领域的主题。然而,对绘制实践的关注很少,其中绘制是了解的政治模式以及管理了解的方式。在本文中,我们转向关键理论和政治人类学,以展示当时实践的绘制如何成为促进治国才能的知识探索模式。有鉴于这些跨学科角度,我们努力克服以这种方式了解——从而管理——志愿集体组织的含义。我们的结论是,这种方法潜在规定民主社团生活的定性维度,并歪曲社会变化的可能性。.

Japanese

ボランティアと部外者との近年の議論においては、非営利組織のマッピングの対象に注目が集まっている。しかしマッピングの実践では、政治的モードの知識と知識の支配の方法はほとんど注目されていなかった。本論文では、現在実践されているマッピングがどのように国政府を促進する知識調査のモードとなるかを示すために、重大な理論および政治人類学から考察する。これらの学際的視点に照らして、知識の暗示つまりその結果としての支配、さらにボランティアの集団的な組織を検討する。結論として、このアプローチは、潜在的に民主主義の協同生活における質的な特質と社会の変化における可能性の虚偽表示を管理するといえる。.

Arabic

إهتم النقاش الأخير في الإرادة وأماكن أخرى إهتمام كبيربموضوع وضع خطط للقطاع الغير ربحي. مع ذلك، فقد تم أخذ إهتمام قليل جدا˝ للسبل التي فيها ممارسة وضع الخطط هي الوضع السياسي للمعرفة والطرق التي بها المعرفة تحكم. في هذا المقال ننتقل إلى النظرية النقدية والأنثروبولوجيا السياسية من أجل شرح كيفية وضع الخطط كما تمارس حاليا˝ هي وضع للإستفسارللمعرفة التي تسهل فن الحكم. على ضوء هذه وجهات النظرالمتعددة التخصصات، نحن نتصارع مع الآثار المترتبة على المعرفة - وبالتالي التحكم - التنظيم الجماعي التطوعي بهذه الطريقة. نستنتج أن هذا النهج يحتمل أن يكون إنضباط للأبعاد النوعية لحياة الجمعيات الديمقراطية ويشوه إمكانيات التغيير الاجتماعي.

References

  1. Adorno, T. W. (2000). Introduction to Sociology. In: Godde, C. (Ed.), (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Appe, S. (2011). Civil society mappings by government: A comparison of Ecuadorian and Colombian cases. Journal of Civil Society, 7(2), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appe, S. (2012). What about who is mapping and its implications? Comments on Brent Never’s “The case for better maps of social service provision”. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organization, 23, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appe, S. (2013). Deconstructing Civil Society “Maps”: The Case of Ecuador. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashcraft, K. L. (2000). Feminist organizing and the construction of “alternative” community. In Gregory J. Shepherd & Eric W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 79–110). Mahway: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Breeze, B. (2010). How donors choose charities: Findings of a study of donor perceptions of the nature and distribution of charitable benefit. Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy, Occasional paper 1. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from: http://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/philanthropy/documents/%20How%20Donors%20Choose%20Charities%2018%20June%202010.pdf.
  7. Center for Civil Society Studies. (2013). The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/.
  8. Chandhoke, N. (2002). The limits of global civil society. In Global Civil Society 2002 (Ch. 2).Google Scholar
  9. Chandoke, N. (1995). State and civil society: Explorations in political theory. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, K. (2009). Enabling Creative Chaos: The organization behind the burning man event. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CIVICUS. (2012). The Civil Society Rapid Assessment (CSI-RA)” ABOUT CSI 04 September 2012. http://www.civicus.org/.
  12. Crampton, J. W. (2003). The political mapping of cyberspace. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: “development,” depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1980). In C. Gordon (Ed.). Power/Knowledge: Selected writings and other interviews 19721977. New York: Random House, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect; Studies in governmentality; with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 87–104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  17. Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of Western sociology. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Hope Consulting. (2010). Money for Good: The US market for impact investments and charitable gifts from individual donors and investors. Retrieved from: http://www.hopeconsulting.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MoneyForGood_I.pdf.
  20. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1989). Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, trans. John Cumming. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. Human Rights Watch. (2014). Russia: “Foreign Agents” Law Hits Hundreds of NGOs: Updated July 21, 2014. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/russia-foreign-agents-law-hits-hundreds-ngos-updated-july-21-2014.
  22. Never, B. (2011). The case for better maps of social service provision: Using the Holy Cross dispute to illustrate more effective mapping. Voluntas, 22, 174–188.Google Scholar
  23. Nickel, P. M. (2012). Public Sociology and Civil Society: Governance, Politics, and Power. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Roeger, K. L., Blackwood, A. S., & Pettijohn, S. L. (2012). The nonprofit almanac 2012: Chapter Highlights. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press. http://www.urban.org/books/nonprofit-almanac-2012/index.cfm. Accessed October 19, 2013.
  25. Rothschild, J. (2009). Workers’ cooperatives and social enterprise: A forgotten route to social equity and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1023–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roudebush & Brudney. (2012). Making policy without parameters: obtaining data on the nonprofit sector in a local community, Nonprofit Policy Forum. 3(1).Google Scholar
  27. Salamon, L. M. (2010). Putting the civil society sector on the economic map of the world. Annals of Public and Comparative Economics, 81, 167–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland southeast asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sending, O. J., & Neumann, I. B. (2006). Governance to governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, states, and power. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 651–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Soteri-Proctor, A., & Alcock, P. (2012). Micro-mapping: What lies beneath the third sector radar? Voluntary Sector Review, 3 (3), 379–398.Google Scholar
  32. Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  33. Titmuss, R. M. (1974). Social policy: An introduction. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the third sector. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  35. Van Til, J. (2009). A paradigm shift in third sector theory and practice: Refreshing the wellsprings of democratic capacity. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner, A. (2012). ‘Third sector’ and/or ‘civil society’: A critical discourse about scholarship relating to intermediate organisations. Voluntary Sector Review, 3, 299–328.Google Scholar
  37. Wainwright, J., & Bryan, A. (2009). Cartography, territory, property: postcolonial reflections on indigenous counter-mapping in Nicaragua and Belize. Cultural Geographies, 16, 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. World Bank. (2005). Issues and options for improving engagement between the World Bank and civil society organizations. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Mooney Nickel
    • 1
  • Angela M. Eikenberry
    • 2
  1. 1.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.University of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations