Mid-Term Question: "Civil Society" and the Power to Define (Part I)
Adrian Johnston (rdm9298@jeeves.la.utexas.edu)
Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:35:17 -0500
Opening with a very broad question, "what is 'civil society?'" Is
this phrase the transparent signifier of an objective, concrete entity
that exists independently of the discourse(s) that seeks to decribe it?
Or, is "civil society" a mobile term that only has meaning within certain
discursive structures (structures associated with specific power interests,
normative systems of social valuation, etc.)?
These two questions represent a sharp dichotomy within the body of
political literature concerned with "civil society" (Schwedler herself
presents the grounds for debate as such also); some argue that "civil
society" is a real object independent of descriptive/proscriptive language,
while others warily view it as a manipulable linguistic "tool of hierarch-
ization" for reinforcing the hegemony of certain societies over others
(western powers devalue the Middle East by claiming that they lack "civil-
ity"- Said comes to mind here). Which side of this conflict is "correct?"
Are the only options for viewing/defining "civil society" either to make it
an independent, transcendental signified, or to swing to the other extreme
and relegate it to a purely discursive existence?
It seems that there can be some middle ground between the two sides
of the debate over the nature of "civil society." While the plethora of
usages of the term "civil society," along with the constant squabbles over
its meaning(s), appear to mark it as mainly a discursive phenomena (if it
were an objective entity, why is it so hard to agree on what it is?), it
still must be acknowledged that such "discursive phenomena" are themselves
quite capable of producing extra-discursive effects in the "real world."
Putnam, along with his work on civil society, is noted as having a definite
influence on Washington's thinking and policy-making. US A.I.D. documents,
which linguisticaly prescribe concrete aid practices, impact what is con-
sidered to be a world beyond the literature itself. Such documents also
cite "civil society" theorists such as Tocqueville. Several authors,
including Said, point out that the western, discursively-created images of
"Islamic Fundamentalists" have themselves been adopted by many individuals
and groups in the Middle East in response to these stereotypes; such
adoptions of subjective definitions (what is an "Islamic Fundamentalist?")
undeniable generate effects in the world outside of discourse. So, what is
the point of all these examples? In searching for a definition of "civil
society" (which is the task outlined by the mid-term question), this
analysis will tentatively propose that "civil society" is a discursive tool
(both subjective and inevitably suceptible to investments of power
interests by the definer) for normatively evaluating entire societies that
simultaneously, while being "discursive," is essential to governing con-
crete, extra-discursive practices (ex.- foreign aid programs, military and
diplomatic relations, economic exchanges, etc.). In other words, "civil
society" is a term traversed by an indeterminate number of conceptual
paradigms that each have the potential to affect relations between entire
societies. As this class itself implicitly emphasizes, how "civil society"
is defined and the paradigms employed in doing so have a significant effect
on the ways in which the U.S. comports itself towards the Middle East.
Secondly, in its existence as a discursive term, "civil society"
only takes on meaning(s) in relation to a grouping of other concepts.
"Civil society" means nothing unless there are present such corresponding
notions as "individual," "State," "civility," etc. Authors such as Putnam
see civil society as a buffer-space of social-equality/fraternalism that
exists between individuals as autonomous actors and the State as a
potentially unchecked force or power. One reading of Tocqueville could see
him as illustrating civil society as a common public foundation of assoc-
iations on which the State is supported; unlike Putnam, who ironically
cites him, Tocqueville sees a symbiotic interrelationship between the
individual, civil society, and the State as the political order. For Ibn
Khaldun, civil society (i.e.- asabiya/group-feeling) is a powerful shared
feeling between individuals that can both give rise to governments and
bring them down (a type of "nomadic war machine"- see Gilles Deleuze and
Felix Guattari's "A Thousand Plateaus" [an interesting book well worth
reading, especially in relation to some of the topics in this course]);
Khaldun's state is granted its space only within the larger scope of the
various asabiyas, each arising from networks of individuals. Perhaps then
"civil society" is part of a larger spatial metaphor that is used to order
the plane on which multi-leveled social interactions occur.
Given that in their "raw reality" macro-level social phenomena
present one with such a blinding array of complexities that one feels
immobilized (nobody can ever so completely transcend their individual
contextual position so as to gain a complete and total grasp of the social
whole that can account for every complexity possible), maybe "civil
society" and its related terms are metaphorical tools (reductions of in-
comprehensible/paralyzing complexites) that enable each person who defines
them from their own perspective to gain enough of a handle on their social
environment so that they feel empowered to act in a capacity beyond their
own discourse. Perhaps academics and scholars are the least active outside
of the literature on "civil society," in the "real world," because they are
the ones who don't allow themselves to arrive at a comfortable metaphor
that acts as a springboard to concrete practices. If one continually
attempts to accomodate higher and higher levels of refined social analysis,
the difficulties, ambiguities, and anomolies might be what overpowers the
confidence to "act" (maybe this serves as a link to what Dr. Henry talked
about in his "personal experiences" posting and what Said says in
criticizing contemporary intellectuals for their obscurities, inactivity,
and contentment in marginalization/specialization- the ones who endlessly
try to re-frame the discourse on civil society become overwhelmed by its
complexity as an issue and thus can't act as easily as those who adopt a
certain definition and don't question it any further).
*I must stop here since I have to attend another class. I've already spent
one-and-a-half to two hours on this paper (the time that an in-class mid-
term exam would have taken), but I'm still not sure if I dealt with
specific authors in enough detail. I feel like I stayed at too broad a
theoretical level, but, nonetheless, what I wished to do was to navigate
the fundamental split in the civil society literature that I see as crucial
-discursive term versus ontological form. Dr. Henry, if I need to go into
greater detail with specific authors, then tell me and I'll attach a
supplement to t
-----------
Remote host: smf-j12.facsmf.utexas.edu