Conclusion

Abstract

Over the course of the preceding chapters, I have combined theoretical arguments and empirical material to support the following three claims. First, NGOs have to be understood as forces that foster the international society of states instead of transcending it; this is true, even though activists tend to treat states and the membership of individuals in states as harmful abstractions and as barriers to genuine solidarity across borders. NGOs may think of themselves as harbingers of a post-sovereign “global civil society,” but that is at best a necessary illusion. Second, although NGOs are an offshoot of the moral climate and the resources of liberal-capitalist societies, they are not a tool of Western elites attempting to remodel the whole world in their image. Instead, I have preferred to describe them metaphorically as active intermediaries and “benign parasites” in private and public networks of power into which they slip information and legitimacy in exchange for reputation, funds, and social contacts. What makes them different from mere tools is that they alter the behavior of those to whom they are attached. Third, the common theme underlying the various streams of organized moral activism is the struggle for recognition on behalf of individuals and groups who are perceived as victims of harm and injustice. The advantage of the vocabulary of recognition is that it encompasses both law-based and law-transcending forms of mutual respect: recognition of basic rights, but also “love” and “care” as well as social esteem and just rewarding for contributions made to the reproduction of society.