Definitions of civil society

[anne.w@mail.utexas.edu (WOMER; ANNE K.)]

Various Definitions of Civil Society

	There seem to be two major, competing definitions of civil society.  The first is that it is a system of voluntary organizations that empowers the people of a society to stand up to the government, as well as to each other.  The second definition focuses on informal organization such as kinship ties and patron-client relationships as the glue that holds society together and allows it to function smoothly.  Although there are variations among the details of their theories, most of the authors we have read examine civil society from one of these two perspectives.  
	Robert Putnam wrote extensively on his definition of civil society.  He believed that in a healthy civil society, citizens are active in public affairs.  They form associations, which do not necessarily have to be political.  Whether people join a bowling league or work for a political cause, the important thing is that they cooperate and interact.  It is this interaction which leads to the development of “horizontal bonds of fellowship,” which are characteristic of healthy civil society.  Putnam specifically excludes kinship ties from his definition of civil society, believing that these “vertical bonds of authority” cause people to look inward toward their own family rather than outward toward society as a whole.  Society becomes stagnant if its different groups do not interact with each other.  Putnam also excludes religion for this reason, at least as it is practiced in Italy; Roman Catholicism is organized hierarchically and is an “alternative to civic community” rather than a part of it.  The purpose of this strong civil society is to produce effective government.
	In his article about the development of civil society in Egypt, Sami Zubaida examines the views of Saad Eddin Ibrahim.  Ibrahim defines civil society similarly to Putnam.  He believes that voluntary associations are essential to enabling people to assert their rights against the government.  He also rejects “primordial organizations” such as kinship ties, believing them to be just as oppressive as the state. 
	As an observer of nineteenth century American civil society, Alexis de Tocqueville noted the importance of voluntary associations.  Like Putnam, he pointed out the need for cooperation in order for people to achieve their goals.  An individual in a democratic society is powerless, but a group of people may have much greater influence.  Tocqueville also points out that these voluntary organizations give people the power to stand up to the “tyranny of the majority,” as well as to the state.  While Tocqueville examines political and non-political organizations separately, I believe they are both included in his view of civil society.  He seems to feel that any organization which requires people to work toward a common goal strengthens American society, because “the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal influence of men upon one another.”
	The theme of civil society as a buffer between the state and the individual is continued by Ernest Gellner, who straightforwardly describes civil society as “diverse non-governmental institutions strong enough to counterbalance the state, and, whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role as a keeper of the peace and arbitrator between major interests, can nevertheless prevent the state from dominating and atomizing the rest of society.”  Like Putnam and Ibrahim, Gellner excludes kinship ties from his definition, describing them as “tyranny of cousins.”  Gellner stresses the need for a fluid civil society, in which people are “modular” and may move from one association to another with ease.  He believes that such a society must be culturally homogenous, so that people may easily communicate and associate with each other.  
	The Orientalist view of civil society, presented in Bryan S. Turner’s “Orientalism, Islam, and the Islamists” seems to be the broadest definition of civil society, probably because it encompasses the views of many Western thinkers.  According to Turner, Western scholars view civil society as any institution that acts as a mediator between and individual and the state and protects the individual’s rights against infringement by the state.  This includes “church, family, tribe, guild, association, and community.” The Orientalists also believed that there should be a healthy spirit of capitalism in the middle class.  This seemed to be lacking in the East, where they viewed trade as being dominated by minorities.  Putnam also places importance on trade as a means of developing the social capital necessary for strong civil society.   Where the Orientalists diverge from the Putnam/Ibrahim model is in their belief that family and tribe are components of civil society.
	Of the authors we read, no one focuses on the kinship ties as much as Ibn Khaldun.  In fact, he believed that kinship ties and similar patron-client relationships were the very basis of civil society.  These relationships are embodied in his term “group feeling,” and it was this group feeling that kept society functioning smoothly.  He viewed tribes and client relationships as protection from the state and other potential dangers.  He also felt that religion contributed to this group feeling.  
	 One final definition of civil society is offered by Tariq al-Bishri (as presented by Sami Zubaida).  Al-Bishri sees civil society as an “informal network of relationships.”  He believes that “social relations of reciprocity” are what make a society strong, and his focus is on property and business transactions.  While one could argue that in this way his views are similar to Putnam, it seems that he put more emphasis on the informality of the dealings.  This often leads to a patron-client relationship, which would be the “vertical bond of authority” that Putnam  seeks to avoid. 
	While I understand that kinship ties may be an effective means of support against state oppression, I do not believe that they are an effective measure of civil society.  They do not involve the cooperation that seems so important in a functioning society. Voluntary organizations on the other hand are a way for individuals to empower themselves against the tyranny of the state and of the majority.  Some people, such as Putnam exclude religious groups in their definition, but I think that in certain circumstances, it would be acceptable.  It would depend on the extent to which the association networked with outside groups as well as whether its goals were goals of the individuals (as opposed to goals of the church).  Thus, I would not include an evangelical organization; however, I would include the Christian Women’s Bird-watching Association.  I support a definition of civil society that combines the ideas of Putnam, Ibrahim, and Tocqueville.  Civil society is the collection of non-governmental organizations that protects and empowers the individual against the state and the majority.  These include any associations that foster cooperation among members of society.  It is this cooperation that leads to a better society and better government.


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