After exploring thirteen different conceptions of civil society, I concluded only that its definition is chameleonic- changing hues, often in tune with the author’s perception of its purpose. Hoping to discover patterns within the variations, I broke down each definition in terms of the author’s description of civil society, as well as his or her ideas about its function. Descriptions of which organizations and institutions are included in its structure are sometimes vague and include dramatic variations, here including an institution- like the Church- which elsewhere is vociferously rejected. Fortunately, ideas about the purpose of civil society are a bit more contained, often even overlapping. In this paper, I will tackle these aspects separately, and then attempt to illustrate any correlations which emerge and help to define civil society.
Eva Bellin is most astute when she points out that, historically, civil society has "signified everything from…peaceable society under the protection of a leviathan state, to the stratum of private associations (in a state)…to the constellation of cultural institutions." Our authors, at various points, include not only the ‘state’(in the form of local govt. or, arguably, political parties), private associations and cultural institutions- but also expand the definition to include something as broad as the autonomous economic sphere (Zubaida) or elements as indefinite as clientelistic familial networks (al-Bishri). However, the profound clash of descriptions is based more on what is pointedly excluded. Social theorists like I.Khaldun, S.Zubaida, and R.Putnam all make a clear distinction between bureaucratic/governmental spheres and civil society; however, other authors include minority political parties or lobbying organizations (Tocqueville, Sadowski) or even local governments (Sadowski, Zakaria) under the umbrella of groups belonging to civil society. Other disputes are quietly revealed in the inclusion or rejection of religious organizations, patronage networks, professional unions- hierarchical structures in general. Observing these differences led me to question the issues behind their origins. I believe the differences to be symptomatic of the authors’ varying personal ideologies. Such differences carve away at a vague notion like civil society- defining its function in terms of their ideals.
For example, whether one points to kinship ties and vertical associations as a desirable aspect of civil society seems related to broader conceptions concerning issues like the importance of personal liberties.
Khaldun praises the ‘fortitude’ of the Bedouins- he sees nothing wrong with their primary loyalties being afforded to, and power derived from, a hierarchical, tribal group whose bonds are familial or clientelistic. Similarly, Tariq al-Bishri defines civil society as "an informal network of relationships", which also involves vertical structures. Separating these authors from R.Putnam, E.Gellner, and S.Ibrahim (who exclude vertical religious and social institutions from their definitions necessarily) is the belief of the latter group in the role of civil society as guardian of ‘individual rights’- rights which are threatened by potentialities like ‘tyrannical centralization’ and despotism. Individual rights are said to be necessary to prepare men for the broader ideal- liberal democracy. Religious, as well as kin-based, institutions and hierarchies mean to subvert individualism with their cookie-cutter norms and social pressure. This creates a servile, rather than participatory, populace who enable authoritarianism.
On the other hand, all of our authors balk at the prospect of an intrusive, centralized state. Eleven out of thirteen authors (excluding R.Putnam and F.Zakaria- who both write in the context of an existent democracy) suggest that the relevance of civil society rests in its power to counter the state. It might do so by usurping the moral authority of the ruling party (Tocqueville), or simply by "curbing the power of the state" (Sadowski)- perhaps it achieves success by "protecting the individual from total political control" with its powers of mediation. In case of democracy, civil society keeps the citizens in a trusting state of civic virtue- ensuring against a slide backward into despotism. The civil associations supported by Islamists provide an alternative to the corruption bred by the state. Perhaps it even, ‘guarantees’ for them "the ideological hegemony of the ruling class" - i.e. the theocracy they hope to install. In every case, civil society should perform as a safeguard against a monstrous state, whatever form it might take. In every case, that is, save for two. Interestingly, only two of our authors complete the definition of civil society with remarks on its potential dangers. S.Berman locates civil society outside of politics, in voluntary associations. She reminds us, using the Weimar republic as an example, that these associations may serve the interests of revolutionary, extremist groups in the case of states that are weak, and which fail to satisfy the basic desires of their citizens. Tocqueville also warns of the potential role of civil society in fomenting chaos and revolution. Minority parties, he claims, might "think they are strong enough in themselves to contend against (the majority party)…(their) object is not to convince, but to fight."
Given all of these variations, and those left unmentioned, how does the novice define civil society? Looking through this list, one can say conclusively that it is comprised of organizations in society which are not affiliated with a centralized government, and that it should protect against despotism. To proceed beyond this skeletal definition is to enter one’s own ideals into the equation. Should civil society seek to protect the Umma from corruption? Or should it protect the everyday man from the pressures of the religious community? Must it protect the ideal of individual liberties from power-hungry authoritarian leaders? Once in place, will it guarantee that the voice of the minority is clear amidst the rumble of the majority? Or will it instead facilitate fascism and incite bloody revolution?
Good and bad, all of these scenarios have been presented as potentially attributable to civil society. Thus, I feel compelled to draw any more specific description of civil society from the general consensus. The majority of authors do not include political parties and local governments in their descriptions. They do, however, tend to include religious groups. This is in accordance with the perceived role of civil society as existing mostly to counter the state on behalf of the special interests of its citizens- be they professional, religious or more personal. The division is fairly even, though, on whether or not to include patronage based networks. I would argue to exclude them, citing the fact that entrenched networks have been shown to obstruct the establishment of democracy, which the majority of our authors cite or assume is the goal.
This leaves my civil society comprised of spheres and organizations that exist independent of the government, and are not based on patronage. This civil society serves to protect minority interests within the citizenry from being stifled or tyrannized by the power of governmental authority in all its forms. Namely, by keeping the balance of power between the government and the governed in check. Certainly this definition allows space for context to adjust its form, and perhaps- given the diversity of situations societies are eager to create for our confusion- this is as it should be.