------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BE7A5A.80AB2E20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Civil Society in the Modern Age
Upon delving into the literature on civil society, the most immediately =
striking matter is the lack of a definition. Academic upon academic has =
expounded on the virtue, insignificance, essence, or primacy of the =
concept without ever fully explaining what it is they are expounding =
upon. Even those adventurous souls that do proffer a definition do so =
with trepidation, for its nature is elusive and its defining =
characteristics are multi-faceted. For some, it is the degree of public =
participation in social organizations; for others, it is the sum of =
mutual trust among a people. I submit that civil society is the =
unhindered, open interaction of people on a social basis that serves to =
reveal, and subsequently further, common causes, sympathies, and =
persuasions of a society.
Definitions of civil society that are predicative of democratic =
institutions offer a view of civil society that can only be accepted in =
theory. Proponents of the argument that organized civil society is =
requisite to the establishment of stable democracy often overlook the =
context of their examples in their rush to declare themselves correct. =
Robert Putnam's survey of Italy, for example, presumes that by measuring =
the opinions of the Italian people about their regional governments, in =
conjunction with an analysis of the football clubs and social groups of =
the regions, one can draw the conclusion that such institutions =
propagate democracy. But the inverse can be argued: that a well-formed =
democracy allows for the establishment of such recreational =
organizations. Also, Putnam marginalizes the significance of the =
variance of industrialization in the different regions. Although he =
presents a great deal of compelling data and figures, Professor Putnam's =
argument presents a restrictive view of civil society as dependent on =
sports clubs and the like. But this view is not sufficient to apply =
broadly in an ever-changing world.
The Economist article entitled "The Solitary Bowler" laments that =
"league bowling-the scene of 'social interaction and even occasionally =
civic conversations over beer and pizza'-has shrunk by 40%." The =
academic literature on the subject of civil society almost universally =
decries the drop in membership among organizations such as the PTA, Elks =
Lodge, and Kiwanis Club. But such alarms are unnecessary, since they =
hinge on paradigms of civil society that are no longer appropriate for =
modern times. While it is true that people no longer flock to the =
bowling alleys in droves for social interaction, they have found other =
means of fraternizing.
The social liberation of the 1960s resulted in a general disdain for =
organization and structure. Willingness to join organizations on which =
basic assumptions on civic participation were gauged dramatically =
decreased, thereby giving the impression that civil society was at risk, =
and by extension, so was democracy. But since man is by nature a social =
creature, he simply redirected his social energy elsewhere. =
Coffeehouses, informal interest clubs, and casual meetings with groups =
of likeminded people replaced the more structured groups of the past. =
This interaction was even more greatly decentralized with the advent of =
greater communications technology.
The internet in particular proves to be the death knell to older =
paradigms of civil society. Where people were once forced to join =
organizations or meet at the bowling alley in order to socialize, they =
can now interact with people from the comfort of their own homes. And =
unlike local meetings, the internet offers an opportunity to share ideas =
with people around the world. If one is capable of meeting a hundred =
people through the local bowling league, one is now able to meet =
literally millions of people through the convenience of a modem. Sitting =
before the entrancing display and beckoning keyboard, the world is quite =
literally at your fingertips. Establishing personal relationships and =
exploring unifying themes is even somewhat easier using the internet =
since the constraints of bias against gender, race, or social background =
are removed-a truly democratic society emerges from the digital ones and =
zeroes of the internet.
Most importantly, since interaction over the internet is, for the most =
part, instantaneous, chances of censorship are decreased. This open =
communication is something that a hundred bowling leagues could not =
create. Whether the mode of interaction is e-mail, real-time chatting, =
or posting to a message board, the internet allows for the kind of =
exchange that fosters civic involvement by facilitating the =
identification of common interests and encouraging discussion on topics =
of mutual concern.
With the dramatic changes in communications technology, the world's =
societies have undergone significant changes of their own. We can no =
longer divide the world into neat compartments, as Samuel Huntington =
supports in his "Clash of Civilizations". The intense frequency of the =
exchange of information across the world blurs those lines to an extent =
that they can no longer be clearly seen. Civil society no longer relies =
on clearly defined rules as it has in the past. New methods of =
interaction have taken the place of structured activity. Though more =
difficult to empirically measure, there is no reason to presume that the =
stability and future of civic participation are at risk. Social capital =
is as strong as ever; it's just harder to see.
------=_NextPart_000_0096_01BE7A5A.80AB2E20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Civil Society in the Modern Age
Upon delving into the literature on civil society, the most = immediately=20 striking matter is the lack of a definition. Academic upon academic has=20 expounded on the virtue, insignificance, essence, or primacy of the = concept=20 without ever fully explaining what it is they are expounding upon. Even = those=20 adventurous souls that do proffer a definition do so with trepidation, = for its=20 nature is elusive and its defining characteristics are multi-faceted. = For some,=20 it is the degree of public participation in social organizations; for = others, it=20 is the sum of mutual trust among a people. I submit that civil society = is the=20 unhindered, open interaction of people on a social basis that serves to = reveal,=20 and subsequently further, common causes, sympathies, and persuasions of = a=20 society.
Definitions of civil society that are predicative of democratic = institutions=20 offer a view of civil society that can only be accepted in theory. = Proponents of=20 the argument that organized civil society is requisite to the = establishment of=20 stable democracy often overlook the context of their examples in their = rush to=20 declare themselves correct. Robert Putnam’s survey of Italy, for = example,=20 presumes that by measuring the opinions of the Italian people about = their=20 regional governments, in conjunction with an analysis of the football = clubs and=20 social groups of the regions, one can draw the conclusion that such = institutions=20 propagate democracy. But the inverse can be argued: that a well-formed = democracy=20 allows for the establishment of such recreational organizations. Also, = Putnam=20 marginalizes the significance of the variance of industrialization in = the=20 different regions. Although he presents a great deal of compelling data = and=20 figures, Professor Putnam’s argument presents a restrictive view = of civil=20 society as dependent on sports clubs and the like. But this view is not=20 sufficient to apply broadly in an ever-changing world.
The Economist article entitled "The Solitary Bowler" laments = that=20 "league bowling—the scene of ‘social interaction and even = occasionally civic=20 conversations over beer and pizza’—has shrunk by 40%." The = academic literature=20 on the subject of civil society almost universally decries the drop in=20 membership among organizations such as the PTA, Elks Lodge, and Kiwanis = Club.=20 But such alarms are unnecessary, since they hinge on paradigms of civil = society=20 that are no longer appropriate for modern times. While it is true that = people no=20 longer flock to the bowling alleys in droves for social interaction, = they have=20 found other means of fraternizing.
The social liberation of the 1960s resulted in a general disdain for=20 organization and structure. Willingness to join organizations on which = basic=20 assumptions on civic participation were gauged dramatically decreased, = thereby=20 giving the impression that civil society was at risk, and by extension, = so was=20 democracy. But since man is by nature a social creature, he simply = redirected=20 his social energy elsewhere. Coffeehouses, informal interest clubs, and = casual=20 meetings with groups of likeminded people replaced the more structured = groups of=20 the past. This interaction was even more greatly decentralized with the = advent=20 of greater communications technology.
The internet in particular proves to be the death knell to older = paradigms of=20 civil society. Where people were once forced to join organizations or = meet at=20 the bowling alley in order to socialize, they can now interact with = people from=20 the comfort of their own homes. And unlike local meetings, the internet = offers=20 an opportunity to share ideas with people around the world. If one is = capable of=20 meeting a hundred people through the local bowling league, one is now = able to=20 meet literally millions of people through the convenience of a modem. = Sitting=20 before the entrancing display and beckoning keyboard, the world is quite = literally at your fingertips. Establishing personal relationships and = exploring=20 unifying themes is even somewhat easier using the internet since the = constraints=20 of bias against gender, race, or social background are removed—a = truly=20 democratic society emerges from the digital ones and zeroes of the = internet.
Most importantly, since interaction over the internet is, for the = most part,=20 instantaneous, chances of censorship are decreased. This open = communication is=20 something that a hundred bowling leagues could not create. Whether the = mode of=20 interaction is e-mail, real-time chatting, or posting to a message = board, the=20 internet allows for the kind of exchange that fosters civic involvement = by=20 facilitating the identification of common interests and encouraging = discussion=20 on topics of mutual concern.
With the dramatic changes in communications technology, the = world’s societies=20 have undergone significant changes of their own. We can no longer divide = the=20 world into neat compartments, as Samuel Huntington supports in his = "Clash of=20 Civilizations". The intense frequency of the exchange of information = across the=20 world blurs those lines to an extent that they can no longer be clearly = seen.=20 Civil society no longer relies on clearly defined rules as it has in the = past.=20 New methods of interaction have taken the place of structured activity. = Though=20 more difficult to empirically measure, there is no reason to presume = that the=20 stability and future of civic participation are at risk. Social capital = is as=20 strong as ever; it’s just harder to see.