The Definition of Civil Society

[SYOUNTCHI@hotmail.com (YOUNTCHI; SUZANNE MARIE)]

In the discourse on democracy, liberalism, modernization, and political legitimacy, the concept of civil society is one of great significance.  Although "package-like" definitions of civil society can be found throughout these discussions, the term is actually "…ambiguous and politically loaded" (Bellin, p. 509).  A topic of debate is whether it is the notion "group feeling", or the ability to freely form networks of associations, that defines civil society.   In order to illustrate these competing concepts of civil society, I first describe the debate over the notion that kinship and religion constitute "group feeling" and thus, civil society.  Second, I present the counter argument that associations must form freely in order to define civil society.  Finally, I discuss the importance of commerce and economics to the definition of civil society.  
According to Ibn Khaldoun's historical account of the Bedouin civilization in his Muqaddimah, a sort of social organization or "group" was evident, although the population was ruled by one ruler or dynasty (Khaldun, 91).  Khaldun emphasizes that these individuals formed a group based on the notion of "group feeling" or "Asabiya".  Kinship or blood ties, as well as tribes, facilitated this group feeling (Khaldun, 98).  Khaldun also argues that religion is what gives group feeling its power and strength. (Khaldun, 126-128).   Contrasting Khaldoun's Asabiya to the development of Western civil society, one can start to draw a parallel between the Bedouins Islam and way that the Puritan's used religion to create their associations.  However, unlike Khaldun, other writers, such as Bryan Turner and Yahya Sadowski argue that Islam, being a despotic culture, cannot facilitate civil society since there is an institutional gap between the private individual and the public state (Turner, 26-27; Sadowski, p. 15).  Thus, while "Asabiya" may give the notion of "group feeling" it is only the underlying notion, not an actually association or institution.  Alexis de Tocqueville also argues that in civil society, religion is only the underlying drive to form groups, but that in America, where there are diverse cultures, identities, and religion, one uniform religion would never be able to mobilize the population into civic participation (Tocqueville, Vol. 2, Part II, Ch. 5). Thus, as religion is able to stay separate from the state, these associations are able to act as the buffer between the state and society, and prevent a "tyranny of the majority" (or the overthrowing of a government or dynasty).  Ernest Gellner also notes a similar trend when using his metaphor of the "modular man".  Using Hume's discourse on  "Superstition and Enthusiasm," Gellner argues that at first religions are fierce, but then become gentler and moderate (Gellner, p. 37). Man is then able to adjust to the changing environment yielding a civil society which can compete with its rivals in the long-run (Gellner, 54). Clearly, only with an underlying notion of religion, rather than religion being at the core of associational development, can civil society be possible and lasting because of its ability to adjust to changes in the societies make-up, aims, and ideals. 
As Sami Zubaida then describes, on the one hand there are the voluntary associations, and on the other hand there are "primordial organizations" of kinship, tribe, village or religious community (Zubaida, 4).  Robert Putnam makes the distinction when he observes that "kinship ties" or "bonds of blood" are comparable to horizontal ties of civic engagement.  He argues that networks of civic engagement nourish wider cooperation, and hence civil society (Putnam, 175). Putnam describes this phenomenon not literally as "civil society" but in terms of the citizens' civic engagement, a form of social capital (173).  Putnam's observation coincides with Tocqueville's discussion on the importance of associations when he also argues that the freedom to associate defines civil society.  Furthermore, as observed in America, these associations are essential to making democracy successful, (Tocqueville, Vol. 2, Part II, Ch. 5).   
  At this point, it is important to discuss the significance of economics to the definition of civil society.  Putnam however, de-emphasizes the importance of economics to defining civil society.  For example, he states that  "…civic norms and networks are not simply froth on the waves of economic progress" (Putnam, 162). But Putnam does observe that civic engagements contributes to economic prosperity and are in turn reinforced by that prosperity (Putnam, 180).  Likewise, Khaldun and Serif Mardin discuss how the notions of civil society play out in the economic or commercial dynamics of the state.  Khaldoun's commercial observations focus on the impact of excessive taxation and how this can lead to the demise of the dynasty (Khaldun, 232).  He does argue though that "[c]ivilization and its well-being as business prosperity depend on productivity and people's efforts in all directions in their own interest and profit"(Khaldun, 238)".  Therefore, the individual's economic interest will play out in their participation in society.  Likewise, Mardin also argues that commercial activity contribute to the core of civil society, as civil society emerges from the city, the center of commerce.  Mardin discusses how the development of the merchants and commerce gave way for the development of city government in Western urban history.  However, it is the notion that "…political rights and obligations stemmed from property" that is important to note here (Mardin, 280-281).  Rather than having a single ruler to dictate commercial dynamics, these capitalist interests played out in the civic participation or self-government of the individual, giving rise to civil society's "political legitimation" (Mardin, 282).  
It is obvious, that the concept of "civil society" cannot be limited to a two-line definition used in the opening paragraph of scholarly discourse.  Obviously, civil society is not just "one concept", but the harmony of many.  However, it is clear that throughout history scholars have debated the significance and construction of the network of institutions and associations to democracy and political legitimacy.  As we begin our journey into the question of civil society in cultures where such networks are argued to be based on culture, identity, and blood ties, we begin to see the importance of our definition to take on even greater importance. 


-----------
Remote host: