Mid-Term Remarks (Part II)
Adrian Johnston (rdm9298@jeeves.la.utexas.edu)
Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:23:35 -0500
I wanted to make several remarks in order to support my initial
paper in a more substantial way, and to clarify my position (I feel that
my basic stance was slightly misconstrued in Monday's discussion, although
I may be mistaken).
To begin with, I don't exclusively hold that "civil society" is
merely a touchy-feely phrase used solely to denigrate "the Orient." I do
argue that this is one of its possible uses as a multivalent/nebulous term
that can be transported in and out of various discourses with their para-
digmatic support-networks. The observable fact alone, that "civil society"
isn't a phrase whose meaning everybody unarguably agrees upon, seems to
strengthen the notion that it functions in a variety of capacities given
the context of its usage. One of my main points is that there isn't a
single, univocal definition of "civil society." For me to argue that
"civil society" only means marginalization of non-western cultures (which
it seems that I have been construed as doing), I would have to agree with
one side of the literature (which I attempt not to do by trying to decon-
struct the opposition of "form" versus "discourse"). I would be claiming
that "civil society" is either representational of ontologically true power
relations "out there in the real world," or I would be arguing that it is
marginalization that exists only at a discursive level. But, I am, in
actuality, taking neither of these routes. Instead of saying that "civil
society" "is" either an objective entity (Putnam, for example) or a dis-
cursive maneuver by western imperialists (Said- note that this viewpoint,
which it felt to me like people took me as unquestionably adopting, also
limits/defines "civil society" as just one thing in and of itself; I am
trying to avoid the trap of reducing such a dynamic term to a single
value), I claim that it can contain/mark a variety of values/interests
depending on the manner and context of its use.
Secondly, I wanted to detail, with authorial examples, my point
in the mid-term essay where I argue that the mode in which "civil society"
is defined has extra-discursive impacts on the practice of inter-society
relations (towards the bottom of page 1). First of all, Huntington's de-
finition (each society is a monolithic cultural block, in conflict with its
others) would obviously lead to a type of neo-containment in U.S. policy
towards the Middle East. Although it's a discursive move itself (Hunting-
ton himself calls his definition a "paradigm"), such a definition, if
adopted/integrated into the practices of foreign policy, would have
significant impacts outside of the discourse in which it was developed
(military build-ups, armed conflicts, strategic embargoes, etc.). Now,
take authors who actually have had an influence on U.S. policy-making
paradigms. With Putnam, the notion that "civil society" consists of hori-
zontal, non-political, secular associations has played a definite role in
shaping U.S. interactions with the Middle East. As outlined by the U.S.
A.I.D. document we read for class, Washington believes that its aid efforts
in the region must be focused on non-Islamic groups that have no overt
political function. Islam tends to be condemned as a force oppossed to the
"progress of development" (i.e.- democratization/westernization). Again,
discursive formulations of "civil society" have influenced the course of
events "in the real world." Finally, turning to Tocqueville, we can ask,
"what impact has his definition of 'civil society' had?" Putnam and A.I.D.
cite him, but this seems a little ironic. Tocqueville saw the common basis
of a shared religion as an integral element in America's early success as
an emerging democracy. And yet, Putnam and A.I.D. see Islam, the common
religious base of the Middle East, as a threat to their versions of what
democracy/"civil society" is. Tocqueville, interpreted and transported
into our current context, may support the practice of supplying U.S.
foreign aid to Islamic groups as well as the others. He might see in the
Islamic associations the same type of religious foundation for a demo-
cratic community that he saw with the European Puritans. All that I'm
attempting to accomplish is to emphasize the inter-connectedness of both
discourse and practice (perhaps to consequently blur their distinctive
borders) that are involved-in and surround the phrase "civil society."
-----------
Remote host: smf-l4.facsmf.utexas.edu