Abstract
This study investigated the question of how civil society groups cross political, cultural, social, economic, and language boundaries to find common ground and to act collectively in coalitions to effect international change. A set of constituents emerged in answer to the research question; Complementarity, Speed and Democracy, Rules of Engagement, Contingent Alliance, and Convergence. Convergence emerged as a central and unifying construct. Convergence is the uniting of people who are different, or even opposed, around a common cause. It is based on the presumption that diversity is critical to coalition success and that it needs be employed to leverage its many potential benefits. The analyses led to the conceptualization of the Convergence System, a model that employs global civil society (GCS) diversity to discern complementarity within GCS coalitions, to discover Points of Convergence, and to facilitate collective action toward shared objectives, thus enabling efficacious action by GCS within the international polity.
Résumé
Cette étude examine comment les groupes de la société civile traversent les frontières politiques, culturelles, sociales et économiques pour trouver un terrain d’entente et agir collectivement en coalitions afin d’apporter des changements au niveau international. Un groupe constitué des parties prenantes a vu le jour pour répondre à la question objet de la recherche, à savoir : complémentarité, vitesse et démocratie, règles d’engagement, alliance des délégations et convergence/points communs. La convergence s’est révélée être une notion centrale et fédératrice. Elle est la réunion de personnes différentes, voire adverses, autour d’une cause commune. Elle est basée sur la supposition que la diversité est indispensable pour le succès de la coalition et qu’elle doit être utilisée pour tirer parti de ses nombreux avantages potentiels. Les analyses ont ouvert la voie à la modélisation d’un « système de convergence » , modèle qui utilise la diversité culturelle de la société civile internationale (SCI) pour discerner la complémentarité au sein des coalitions de la SCI, découvrir des points de convergence, et faciliter l’action collective en direction d’objectifs partagés, permettant ainsi une action efficace par la SCI dans le cadre de la politie internationale.
Zusammenfassung
Diese Studie untersuchte die Frage, wie zivilgesellschaftliche Gruppen politische, kulturelle, soziale, ökonomische und sprachliche Grenzen überwinden, um Gemeinsamkeiten zu finden und gemeinsam in Koalitionen agieren, um Änderungen auf internationaler Ebene zu bewirken. In Beantwortung der Forschungsfrage sind eine Reihe Komponenten zu Tage getreten: Complementarity (Komplementation), Speed and Democracy (Geschwindigkeit und Demokratie), Rules of Engagement (Einsatzregeln), Contingent Alliance (Eventualbündnis) und Convergence (Konvergenz). Konvergenz stellte sich als zentrales und vereinigendes Konstrukt heraus. Konvergenz ist die Vereinigung von unterschiedlichen oder auch gegensätzlichen Leuten um eine gemeinsame Sache herum. Sie basiert auf der Annahme, dass Vielfältigkeit kritisch für den Erfolg einer Koalition ist und dass sie genutzt werden muss, um viele ihrer möglichen Vorteile wirksam einzusetzen. Die Analysen führten zur Konzeptualisierung des Konvergenzsystems, ein Modell, dass die Vielfältigkeit der globalen Zivilgesellschaft (GCS) nutzt, um Komplementation innerhalb von GCS-Koalitionen zu erkennen, Konvergenzspunkte zu entdecken und gemeinsame Aktion in Richtung gemeinsame Ziele zu vereinfachen und dadurch wirksame Aktionen der GCS in der internationalen Gemeinschaft möglich macht.
Resumen
Este estudio investiga cómo los grupos de la sociedad civil atraviesan barreras políticas, culturales, sociales, económicas y lingüísticas para encontrar un terreno común y actuar juntos en coaliciones que propicien cambios internacionales. Como respuesta a la cuestión del estudio surgieron un conjunto de elementos constitutivos: la complementariedad, la velocidad y la democracia, las reglas de compromiso, la alianza de contingentes y la convergencia. La convergencia surgió como un elemento central y unificador. La convergencia es la unión de personas distintas o incluso opuestas en torno a una causa común. Se basa en la idea de que la diversidad es vital para el éxito de una coalición y que es necesaria para aprovechar numerosas ventajas potenciales. Este análisis nos ha conducido a la conceptualización del Sistema de Convergencia, un modelo que emplea la diversidad de GCS para discernir la complementariedad dentro de las coaliciones de GCS, para descubrir puntos de convergencia y para facilitar las acciones colectivas hacia unos objetivos compartidos, permitiendo así una acción eficaz por parte de GCS dentro de la política internacional.
摘要
本论文对如何使各个公民社会团体跨越政治、文化、社会、经济和语言界限发现彼此的共同点并共同联合实现国际变革的问题进行了研究,在回答这一研究问题时出现了一系列要素:互补、速度与民主、相处法则、暂时联盟和凝聚。凝聚是以集中和统一的概念出现的,凝聚是指围绕一项共同的事业将不同、甚至互相对立的民众团结在一起,它基于以下条件,即:差异性对于联合的成功是至关重要的,需要用于平衡很多潜在利益。这一分析导致了凝聚体系的概念化,即:一种使用GCS差异性来了解GCS联合中的互补性、发现凝聚点、推动朝着共同的目标采取一致行动,从而使GCS能够在国际政体内采取有效行动的模式。
ملخص
هذه الدراسة حققت في كيفية أن مجموعة المجتمع المدني عبرت الحدود السياسية، الثقافية، الإجتماعية، واللغة لإيجاد أرضية مشتركة والعمل الجماعي في تحالف للتأثيرعلى التغيير الدولي. هناك مجموعة من المقومات ظهرت في الإجابة على سؤال البحث ؛ التكامل والسرعة والديمقراطية ، وقواعد الاشتباك ، وحدات التحالف والتقارب. التقارب برز بوصفه بناء مركزي و موحد. التقارب هو توحيد الناس المختلفون ، أو حتى الذين يعارضون ، حول قضية مشتركة. أنه يقوم على افتراض أن التنوع أمر حاسم لنجاح قوات التحالف ، وأنه يحتاج أن يعمل على الإستفادة من العديد من الفوائد المحتملة. التحليلات أدت إلى وضع تصور لنظام التقارب ، نموذج يستخدم نظام التقارب العالمي(GCS) المتنوع لفهم التكامل داخل إئتلافات نظام التقارب العالمي(GCS)، لإكتشاف نقاط التقارب، وتيسير العمل الجماعي نحو أهداف مشتركة، مما يتيح اتخاذ إجراءات فعالة من نظام التقارب العالمي(GCS) داخل النظام السياسي الدولي.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anheier, H., Glasius, M., et al. (Eds.). (2005). Global civil society 2004/5. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Bandy, J., & Smith, J. (2005). Factors affecting conflict and cooperation in transnational movement networks. In J. Bandy & J. Smith (Eds.), Coalitions across borders: Transnational protest and the neoliberal agenda. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.
Brassard, M., & Ritter, D. (1994). The memory jogger II: A pocket guide of tools for continuous improvement & effective planning. Salem, NH: GOAL/QPC.
Brown, L., Khagram, S., Moore, M., & Frumkin, P. (2000). Globalization, NGOs, and multisectoral relations. In J. Nye & J. Donahue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (2001). Mechanistic and organic systems. In J. M. Shafritz & J. S. O. Belmont (Eds.), Classics of organization theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Burstein, P., Einwohner, R., & Hollander, H. (1995). The success of political movements: A bargaining perspective. In J. C. Jenkins & B. Klandermans (Eds.), The politics of social protest: Comparative perspectives on states and social movements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bystydzienski, J., & Schacht, S. (Eds.). (2001). Forging radical alliances across difference: Coalition politics for the new millennium. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cartwright, T. (1991). Planning and chaos theory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(1), 44–56.
Centre for Global Studies. (2006). Voice of civil society. In Voice of global civil society conference (pp. 86). Waterloo, ON: Centre for Global Studies, Centre for International Governance Innovation.
Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Clark, A. (1995). Non-governmental organizations and their influence on international society. Journal of International Affairs, 48(2), 507–525.
Coleman, W., & Wayland, S. (2005). The origins of global civil society and non-territorial governance: Some empirical reflections. Working Paper Series, GHC 05/1. Toronto, Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition, Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement.
Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Davis, G., McAdam, D., Scott, R., & Zald, M. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (Eds.). (2005). Transnational protest and global activism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Dryzek, J. (1999). Transnational democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(1), 30–51.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1998). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(1), 6–28.
Edwards, M., & Zadek, S. (2003). Governing the provision of global public goods: The role and legitimacy of nonstate actors. In I. Kaul, P. Conceição, K. Goulven, & R. Mendoza (Eds.), Providing global public goods: Managing globalization. New York: United Nations Development Program.
Ehrenberg, J. (1999). Civil society: The critical history of an idea. New York: New York University Press.
Fayol, H. (2001). General principles of management. In J. Shafritz & S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (pp. 48–60). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.
Fox, J. (2002). Assessing binational civil society coalitions: Lessons from the Mexico-U.S. experience. In D. Brooks & J. Fox (Eds.), Cross-border dialogues: U.S. Mexico social movement networking. La Jolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California-San Diego.
Friedman, E. J., Hochstetler, K., & Clark, A. M. (2005). Sovereignty, democracy and global civil society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Galtung, J. (2000). Alternative models for global democracy. In B. Holden (Ed.), Global democracy: Key debates. London: Routledge.
Gamson, W. (1990). The strategy of social protest (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gouldner, A. (1959). Organizational analysis. In R. K. Merton, L. Broom, & L. S. Cottrel (Eds.), Sociology today. New York: Basic Books.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Hall, B. (2000). Global civil society: Theorizing a changing world. Convergence, 33(1–2), 22–32.
Hudock, A. (1999). NGOs and civil society: Democracy by proxy? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kaldor, M. (2003). Global civil society: An answer to war. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keane, J. (1998). Civil society: Old images, new visions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Keane, J. (2003). Global civil society? Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Khagram, S., Riker, J., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (2002). Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (Vol. 14). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Krut, R., Howard, K., Howard, E., Gleckman, H., & Dannielle, P. (1997). Globalization and civil society: NGO influence in international decision-making. Discussion paper no. 83. Retrieved July, 2005, from http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/toc83.htm.
Levi, M., & Murphy, G. (2004). Coalitions of contention: The case of the WTO protests in Seattle. Department of Political Science, University of Washington.
Magis, K. (2006). The voices of global civil society: Final report. Paper presented at The Voices of Global Civil Society, Victoria, BC.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: Confronting global collapse, envisioning a sustainable future. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green.
Mertes, T. (2004). A movement of movements: Is another world really possible? New York: Verso.
Meyer, D., & Corrigall-Brown, C. (2004). Coalitions and the political context: The movements against wars in Iraq. Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance: Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piven, F., & Cloward, R. (1979). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Vintage Books.
Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ritchie, C. (1996). Coordinate? Cooperate? Harmonise? NGO policy and operational coalitions. In T. Weiss & L. Gordenker (Eds.), NGOs, the UN, & global governance. London: Lynne Rienner.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robinson, M. (1992). NGOs and rural poverty alleviation: Implications for scaling-jp. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme (Eds.), Making a difference: NGOs and development in a changing world. London: Earthscan.
Rooy, A. (2004). The global legitimacy game: Civil society, globalization, and protest. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosenau, J. (1990). Turbulence in world politics: A theory of change and continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scholte, J. A. (1999). Global civil society: Changing the world? Working Paper. University of Warwick, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation.
Scholte, J. A. (2001). The IMF and civil society: An interim progress report. In M. Edwards & J. Gaventa (Eds.), Global citizen action. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Smith, J. (1997). Characteristics of the modern transnational social movement sector. In J. Smith, C. Chatfield, & R. Pagnucco (Eds.), Transnational social movements and global politics. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Smith, J., Pagnucco, R., & Chatfield, C. (1997). Social movements and world politics: A theoretical framework. In J. Smith, C. Chatfield, & R. Pagnucco (Eds.), Transnational social movements and world politics: Solidarity Beyond the state. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Snow, D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464.
Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1992). Ideology, frame reference and participant mobilization. In D. Snow & R. Benford (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tarrow, S. (1992). Mentalities, political cultures and collective action frames: Constructing meanings through action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, F. W. (2001). The principles of scientific management. In J. M. Shafritz & J. S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (5th ed., pp. 61–72). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Wapner, P., & Ruiz, L. (2000). Principled world politics: The challenge of normative international relations. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Weber, M. (1924). The theory of social and economic organization (A. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, T., & Gordenker, L. (Eds.). (1996). NGOs, the UN, and global governance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Willetts, P. (2000). From ‘consultative arrangements’ to ‘partnerships’: The changing status of NGOs in diplomacy at the UN. Global Governance, 6(2), 191–213.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Magis, K. Convergence: Finding Collective Voice in Global Civil Society© . Voluntas 21, 317–338 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-9107-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-9107-y