جامعه مدنی

جامعه مدنی به مجموع سازمان‌ها و نهادهای مدنی و اجتماعی داوطلبانه‌ای اشاره دارد که بنیان جامعه‌ای پویا را پی می‌ریزند و از نظر داوطلبانه‌بودن، در تضاد با ساختار تحمیلی حکومت (جدای از نوع حکومت) و موسسه‌های بازرگانی و بازار هستند.

محتویات [نمایش]
خاستگاه [ویرایش]

استفاده امروزی از این اصطلاح به آدام فرگوسن برمی‌گردد. فرگوسن کسی است که توسعه «دولت تجاری» را به‌عنوان روشی برای تغییر فساد نظام فئودالی و تقویت آزادی فردی بیان کرده‌است. در حالی‌که فرگوسن خط فاصلی بین دولت و جامعه مشخص نکرده‌است، هگل، فیلسوف آلمانی، این وجه تمایز را در «مبانی فلسفه حقوق» توضیح داده‌است. در این اثر، جامعه مدنی («burgerliche Gesellschaft» در آلمانی) مرحله‌ای در روابط دیالکتیکی بین متضادهای ملاحظه شده توسط هگل، کلان-جامعه (دولت) و خرده-جامعه (خانواده) می‌باشد.

اگر بخواهیم جامع‌تر سخن بگوییم باید بگوییم که این تعریف (مثل طرفداران خود هگل) به راست و چپ سیاسی تقسیم می‌شود. برای چپ این تعریف به عنوان پایه‌ای برای جامعه بورژوایی مارکس تبدیل شد و برای راست با توسعه سختی اقتصادی مارکسیسم به فرهنگ، جامعه، سیاست به‌عنوان تعریفی برای تمام جنبه‌های غیر دولتی جامعه معنا شد.

تعریف [ویرایش]

تعریف‌های بی‌شماری از «جامعه مدنی» وجود دارند. تعریف مدرسه اقتصاد لندن که مرکزی برای پژوهش در مورد جامعه مدنی است، گویاست:

«جامعه مدنی به بستری از کردارهای مشترک غیر تحمیلی، حول منافع، اهداف و ارزش‌های مشترک گفته می‌شود. قالب‌های نهادینه آن با دولت، خانواده و بازار متفاوت هستند. هرچندکه در عمل مرز میان دولت، جامعه مدنی، خانواده و بازار پیچیده، نامشخص و محل مناقشه است.

جامعه مدنی عموما تنوعی از فضاها، عاملان و قالب‌های نهادینه در خود دارد که در درجه‌های مختلفی از تشریفات، استقلال داخلی و قدرت قرار دارند. جامعه‌های مدنی اغلب به وسیله نهادهایی مثل موسسه‌های خیریهٔ ثبت‌شده، سازمان‌های غیردولتی توسعه، انجمن‌های گروه‌ها، سازمان‌های زنان، سازمان‌های عقیده‌محور، انجمن‌های متخصصان، اتحادیه‌های کارگری، گروه‌های خودیاری، حرکت‌های اجتماعی، انجمن‌های صنفی و ائتلاف‌ها پر می‌شوند.»

بهترین بررسی کوتاه این موضوع «جامعه مدنی» اثر مایکل ادواردز از انتشارات «پولیتی پرس» است.

جامعه مدنی و دموکراسی [ویرایش]

آبش‌خور اولیهٔ ادبیات راجع به پیوند جامعه مدنی و دموکراسی، نوشته‌های ابتدایی لیبرال‌هایی چون الکسی دو توکویل بوده‌است. هرچندکه به روش‌های مهمی توسط نظریه‌پردازان قرن بیست مثل «گابریل آلموند» و «سیدنی وربا» پیشرفت کرده‌است. آنان نقش جامعه مدنی را در نظم دموکراتیک حیاتی دانسته‌اند. آن‌ها در این رابطه بحث کرده‌اند که عنصرهای سیاسی بسیاری از نهادهای جامعه مدنی، هوشیاری بیشتر و شهروندی آگاه‌تر پدید می‌آورند. کسانی که به گزینه‌های بهتری در انتخابات رای می‌دهند، در سیاست مشارکت می‌کنند و در نتیجه حاکمیت را پاسخ‌گوتر نگاه می‌دارند.

اخیرا رابرت پوتنام حتی درباره حیاتی بودن نهادهای غیر سیاسی جامعه مدنی برای دموکراسی بحث کرده‌است. این از این روست که سرمایه اجتماعی (ارزش‌های مشترک و مورد اطمینان) در این سازمان‌ها ساخته می‌شود. این سرمایه اجتماعی به جو سیاسی منتقل شده و از طریق تسهیل درک به‌هم‌پیوستگی جامعه و منافع آن، به همبسته نگه‌داشتن جامعه کمک می‌کند.

با این وجود کسانی دیگر در رابطه با چگونگی جامعه مدنی دموکراتیک سؤالاتی داشته‌اند. بعضی خاطر نشان کرده‌اند که اکنون زعمای جامعه مدنی بدون آن که کسی آن‌ها را انتخاب یا انتصاب کرده باشد، قدرت سیاسی قابل توجهی به‌دست آورده‌اند.

جامعه مدنی و جهانی شدن [ویرایش]

در حال حاضر معمولاً عبارت جامعه مدنی توسط منتقدین و فعالان به عنوان منشا مقاومت و حوزه زندگی اجتماعی که نیاز به محافظت در برابر جهانی شدن دارد، مورد رجوع قرار می‌گیرد. این موضوع به علت آن است که دیده شده جامعه مدنی فراتر از مرزها و میان قلمروهای مختلف عمل کرده‌است.

هرچند از آن‌جا که بنا بر تعاریف بسیاری، جامعه مدنی می‌تواند شامل همان نهادها و بنگاه‌های اقتصادی که حامی جهانی شدن هستند هم باشد، چنین کاربردی برای این عبارت بحث‌انگیز است.

از سوی دیگر کسانی جهانی شدن را پدیده‌ای اجتماعی می‌دانند که ارزش‌های کلاسیک لیبرال را به ارمغان می‌آورد. این ارزش‌ها به ناگزیر به پررنگ شدن نقش جامعه مدنی می‌انجامند و هزینهٔ آن، نهادهای حکومتی مشتق شده‌است.

مثال‌هایی از نهادهای جامعه مدنی [ویرایش]

سازمان‌های غیر دولتی (اِن‌جی‌او)
سازمان‌های داوطلبانه خصوصی (پی.او.وی)
سازمان‌های خلقی
سازمان‌های اجتماع محور
سازمان‌های میانجی برای بخش داوطلب و غیرانتفاعی
بنیادهای اجتماعی
برنامه‌های توسعه رهبری اجتماع
باشگاه‌های شهری
اتحادیه‌های تجاری
گروه‌های جنسیتی، مذهبی، فرهنگی
خیریه‌ها
باشگاه‌های ورزشی و اجتماعی
تعاونی‌ها
گروه‌های زیست‌محیطی
انجمن‌های متخصصان
محیط‌های آموزشی وپژوهشی
نهادهای اقتصادی
نهادهای سیاسی
سازمان‌های مصرف‌کنندگان
رسانه‌ها
میلیشیای شهروندان
سازمان‌های مذهبی
گروه‌های شهری
سازمان‌های اجتماعی
باشگاه‌ها
این که تمام این نهادها عضوی از جامعه مدنی هستند، مورد بحث می‌باشد. از جمله «نیرا چاندهوک» که یک دانشمند هندی است، تنها نهادهای منتقد دولت را عضو جامعه مدنی می‌داند، درحالی‌که از نظر او بقیه، تنها حکومتی‌اند. دراین‌جا نکته کلیدی این است که هر نهادی یک «قدرت خنثی‌کننده» در برابر قدرت حکومت نیست.

بعضی پژوهشگران برجسته در مورد جامعه مدنی [ویرایش]

دانیل بل
رابرت .ان. بلا
دون ای ابرلی
مایکل ادواردز
جین بتکه الشتاین
آمیتای اتزیونی
فرانسیس فوکویاما
پیتر دوبکین هال
بری دین کارل
دیوید کورتن
کاتلین مک کارتی
فرانک مولارت
مایکل اونیل
الینور استروم
رابرت پوتنام
نانسی .ال. روزنبلوم
لستر. ام. سالامون
مایکل سندل
منابع [ویرایش]

ویکی‌پدیای انگلیسی
• Edwards, Michael. Civil Society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7456-3133-9.

• Alagappa, Muthiah. Civil Society and Political Change in Asia. Stanford: Standford University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8047-2097-1

جستارهای وابسته [ویرایش]

سازمان غیر دولتی
نافرمانی مدنی
حقوق مدنی
شهروندی
رده‌های صفحه: مردم‌سالاری جامعه جامعه مدنی اقتصاد اجتماعی علوم سیاسی جامعه‌شناسی جامعه‌شناسی
سیاسی
از ویکی پدیا
قس
توجد تعریفات متعددة لمفهوم المجتمع المدنی، تعبر عن تطور المفهوم والجدل حول طبیعته وأشکاله وأدواره.
محتویات [اعرض]
[عدل]تعریفات المجتمع المدنی

ثمة اجتهادات متنوعة فی تعریف مفهوم المجتمع المدنی. فالمعنى المشاع للمفهوم هو «المجتمع السیاسی» الذی یحکمه القانون تحت سلطة الدولة. لکن المعنى الأکثر شیوعاً هو تمییز المجتمع المدنی عن الدولة، بوصفه مجالاً لعمل الجمعیات التطوعیة والاتحادات مثل النوادی الریاضیة وجمعیات رجال الأعمال وجماعات الرفق بالحیوان، وجمعیات حقوق الإنسان ، واتحادات العمال وغیرها. أی أن المجتمع المدنی یتکون مما أطلق علیه إدموند بیرک الأسرة الکبیرة.
فی المقام الأول یهتم المرء بسبل عمله ومعیشته، لیکفی حاجته وحاجة أفراد أسرته بالغذاء والسکن وغیر ذلک من لوازم الحیاة. ولکن یوجد بجانب ذلک أشخاص کثیرون یهتمون بالمجتمع الذی یعیشون فیه، ویکونون على استعداد للتطوع وإفادة الآخرین. أی أن المجتمع المدنی ینمو بمقدار استعداد أفراده على العطاء بدون مقابل لإفادة الجماعة. هذا یعتبر من «الإیثار العام». وفی المجتمعات الدیموقراطیة تشجع على ذلک النشاط الحکومات.
[عدل]قضایا مثارة حول المفهوم ومصداقیته

یستخدم المجتمع المدنی عادة کمفهوم وصفی لتقییم التوازن بین سلطة الدولة من جهة، والهیئات والتجمعات الخاصة من جهة أخرى فالشمولیة مثلاً تقوم على إلغاء المجتمع المدنی، ومن ثم یوصف نمو التجمعات والأندیة الخاصة وجماعات الضغط والنقابات العمالیة المستقلة فی المجتمعات الشیوعیة السابقة بعد انهیار الحکم الشیوعی، توصف هذه الظواهر بعودة المجتمع المدنی.
ومع ذلک، یلتصق مفهوم المجتمع المدنی فی أغلب الحالات بدلالات معیاریة وأیدیولوجیة. فوفقاً للرؤیة اللیبرالیة التقلیدیة، یتسم المجتمع المدنی بأنه مجال تطوع الاختیار ، والحریة الشخصیة ،و المسئولیة الفردیة ، تجاه المجتمع الذی یعیش فیه المرء ویرید العطاء له بما لدیه من إمکانیات معرفة أو أمکانیات مادیة. أى أن المجتمع المدنی یتیح للأفراد المجال لتشکیل مصائرهم الخاصة ومساعدة الآخرین . ویفسر ذلک أهمیة وجود مجتمع مدنی قوى متسم بالحیویة فی صورة تأسیس جمعیات تطوعیة ومنتدیات وجمعیات خیریة کملمح أساسی للدیموقراطیة اللیبرالیة، والتفضیل الأخلاقی لدى اللیبرالیین التقلیدیین للمجتمع المدنی ،وهو ما یظهر فی الرغبة فی تعضید عمل الأجهزة التنفیذیة فی الدولة عن طریق النشاط فی المجال الخاص.
وعلى النقیض من ذلک، یوضح الاستخدام الهیجلی للمفهوم أبعاده السلبیة حیث یضع أنانیة المجتمع المدنی فی مواجهة الإیثار المعزز فی إطار کل من الأسرة والدولة، من ناحیة ثالثة، فإن المارکسیین والشیوعیین عادة ما ینظرون إلى المجتمع المدنی بصورة سلبیة حیث یربطونه بالهیکل الطبقی غیر المتکافئ والمظالم الاجتماعیة. وتبرر مثل هذه الآراء التخلص من الهیکل القائم للمجتمع المدنی کلیة، أو تقلیص المجتمع المدنی من خلال التوسع فی قوة الدولة ودورها التنظیمی. ولکن التاریخ یبین أن تلک السیاسات المارکسیة والشیوعیة والاستبدادیة قد فشلت.
[عدل]مراجع

ترجمة لتعریف مفهوم «المجتمع المدنی» من:
Heywood,Andrew.(2000).Key Concepts In politics".Basingstoke,England: Palgrave,P.17.
[عدل]اقرأ أیضا

حقوق الإنسان
قانون الحفاظ على الحیوان
جمعیة رعایة
جمعیة تطوعیة
دیموقراطیة حدیثة
هذه بذرة مقالة عن منظمة محلیة أو دولیة، أهلیة أو حکومیة تحتاج للنمو والتحسین، فساهم فی إثرائها بالمشارکة فی تحریرها.
تصنیفات: حقوق الإنسان سیاسة ثقافیةمنظمات مجتمع اقتصاد اجتماعی
قس
Tarih [değiştir]

Kavram ilk kez Platon ve Aristo'da ortaya çıktı. Devlet kavramıyla birlikte düşünüldü. Polis (şehir devleti) ortaya çıktı. Ortaçağda çağın özelliklerine paralel olarak her kavram gibi değişti. Jean Bodin devletle aile birliklerinin ayrı dünyaları olduğunu söyledi. Toplumsal sözleşmeciler, sözleşme anlayışını geliştirdi. Doğa durumu düşünürleri devleti üçüncü şahıs gibi algıladı, sivil toplum-politik toplum ikiliği doğdu. Hegel, Marx, Gramsci'de sivil toplum devlete göre tanımlandı.
20. yüzyılın sonlarındaki gelişmeler, Doğu Bloku'nun çökmesi, liberalizmin yükselişi, küreselleşme, muhalefet hareketlerinin tıkanması, sosyal demokrasinin gerilemesiyle sivil toplum kavramı üzerinde kuvvetli yargılar oluştu. Kavrama esas olan öğeler örgütlülük, kendi kendini üretme, devletten her alanda kopma, şiddete karşı olma, siyasal topluma ya müdahil olma yahut hiç karışmama gibi vurgular kazandı.
Sonuç [değiştir]

Kamusal alan tanımı netlik kazanmamakla birlikte, ister aile ister birey olsun, insanların gönüllü bir biçimde katıldığı, amaç açısından karmaşıklık içeren bir örgütlenmedir sivil toplum. Piyasa ve özel mülkiyetin, politik duruşların, hangi kuruluşların veya cemaatlerin sivil toplum olup olmadığı tartışılmaktadır.
Ayrıca Bakınız [değiştir]

Sivil Toplum Tanımları
Sivil Toplum Endeksi Projesi (STEP)Türkiye Ülke Raporu, 2006
Güncel Sivil Toplum Haberleri
Türkiye'de Sivil Toplum: Bir Dönüm Noktası STEP Ülke Raporu, 2011
Kategori: Sivil toplum
Oturum aç / hesap oluşturMaddeTartışmaOkuDeğiştirGeçmişi gör

Ana sayfa
Hakkımızda
İçindekiler
Rastgele madde
Seçkin içerik
Katılım
Bağış yapın
Deneme tahtası
İş birliği projesi
Köy çeşmesi
Son değişiklikler
Topluluk portali
Yardım
Yazdır/dışa aktar
Araçlar
Diğer diller
العربیة
Asturianu
Azərbaycanca
‪Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‬
Български
Bosanski
Català
Česky
Dansk
Deutsch
English
Español
فارسی
Suomi
Français
עברית
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Italiano
日本語
Қазақша
한국어
Lietuvių
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Shqip
Српски / Srpski
Svenska
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
中文
Bu sayfa son olarak 11 Ağustos 2011, 11:56 tarihinde güncellenmiştir.
Metin Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Lisansı altındadır; ek koşullar uygulanabilir. Ayrıntılar için Kullanım Koşullarına bakınız.
Gizlilik ilkesiVikipedi HakkındaSorumluluk ReddiMobil Görünüm
قس
Civil society is the arena outside of the family, the state, and the market where people associate to advance common interests.[1] It is sometimes considered to include the family and the private sphere and then referred to as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and business.[2] Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon defines civil society as 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government.[3] Sometimes the term is used in the more general sense of "the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society" (Collins English Dictionary).[3]
The term entered public discourse in the United States in the 1980s.[2] The term was however already coined in the 18th century by Adam Ferguson, the "father of modern sociology", and used in the title of his Essay on the History of Civil Society.
Volunteering is often considered a defining characteristic of the organizations that constitute civil society, which in turn are often called NGOs, or NPOs.
Contents [show]
[edit]Democracy

The literature on relations between civil society and democratic political society have their roots in early liberal writings like those of Alexis de Tocqueville.[4] However they were developed in significant ways by 20th century theorists like Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, who identified the role of political culture in a democratic order as vital.[5]
They argued that the political element of many voluntary organizations facilitates better awareness and a more informed citizenry, who make better voting choices, participate in politics, and hold government more accountable as a result.[6] The statutes of these organizations have often been considered micro-constitutions because they accustom participants to the formalities of democratic decision making.
More recently, Robert D. Putnam has argued that even non-political organizations in civil society are vital for democracy. This is because they build social capital, trust and shared values, which are transferred into the political sphere and help to hold society together, facilitating an understanding of the interconnectedness of society and interests within it.[7]
Others, however, have questioned how democratic civil society actually is. Some have noted that the civil society actors have now obtained a remarkable amount of political power without anyone directly electing or appointing them.[8][9] It has also been argued that civil society is biased towards the global north.[10] Partha Chatterjee has argued that, in most of the world, "civil society is demographically limited."[11] For Jai Sen civil society is a neo-colonial project driven by global elites in their own interests.[12] Finally, other scholars have argued that, since the concept of civil society is closely related to democracy and representation, it should in turn be linked with ideas of nationality and nationalism.[13]
[edit]Constitutional economics

Constitutional economics is a field of economics and constitutionalism which describes and analyzes the specific interrelationships between constitutional issues and functioning of the economy including budget process. The term “constitutional economics” was used by American economist – James M. Buchanan – as a name for a new academic sub-discipline that in 1986 brought him the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his “development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making.” Buchanan rejects “any organic conception of the state as superior in wisdom, to the individuals who are its members.” Buchanan believes that a constitution, intended for use by at least several generations of citizens, must be able to adjust itself for pragmatic economic decisions and to balance interests of the state and society against those of individuals and their constitutional rights to personal freedom and private happiness[14]. The standards of constitutional economics when used during annual budget planning, as well as the latter's transparency to the society, are of the primary guiding importance to the implementation of the rule of law. Also, the availability of an effective court system, to be used by the civil society in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of any previously authorized appropriations, becomes a key element for the success of any influential civil society.[15]
[edit]Globalization

Critics and activists currently often apply the term civil society to the domain of social life which needs to be protected against globalization, and to the sources of resistance thereto, because it is seen as acting beyond boundaries and across different territories.[16] However, as civil society can, under many definitions, include and be funded and directed by those businesses and institutions (especially donors linked to European and Northern states) who support globalization, this is a contested use.[17] Rapid development of civil society on the global scale after the fall of the communist system was a part of neo-liberal strategies linked to the Washington Consensus.[8] Some studies have also been published, which deal with unresolved issues regarding the use of the term in connection with the impact and conceptual power of the international aid system (see for example Tvedt 1998). On the other hand, others see globalization as a social phenomenon expanding the sphere of classical liberal values, which inevitably led to a larger role for civil society at the expense of politically derived state institutions.
[edit]History


This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Tagged since October 2008.
It may contain original research. Tagged since January 2012.
From a historical perspective, the actual meaning of the concept of civil society has changed twice from its original, classical form. The first change occurred after the French Revolution, the second during the fall of communism in Europe.
[edit]Western Antiquity
The concept of civil society in its pre-modern classical republican understanding is usually connected to the early-modern thought of Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. However, it has much older history in the realm of political thought. Generally, civil society has been referred to as a political association governing social conflict through the imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one another.[18] In the classical period, the concept was used as a synonym for the good society, and seen as indistinguishable from the state. For instance, Socrates taught that conflicts within society should be resolved through public argument using ‘dialectic’, a form of rational dialogue to uncover truth. According to Socrates, public argument through ‘dialectic’ was imperative to ensure ‘civility’ in the polis and ‘good life’ of the people.[19] For Plato, the ideal state was a just society in which people dedicate themselves to the common good, practice civic virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice, and perform the occupational role to which they were best suited. It was the duty of the ‘Philosopher king’ to look after people in civility. Aristotle thought the polis was an ‘association of associations’ that enables citizens to share in the virtuous task of ruling and being ruled.[18] His koinonia politike as political community.
The concept of societas civilis is Roman and was introduced by Cicero. The political discourse in the classical period, places importance on the idea of a ‘good society’ in ensuring peace and order among the people. The philosophers in the classical period did not make any distinction between the state and society. Rather they held that the state represented the civil form of society and ‘civility’ represented the requirement of good citizenship.[18] Moreover, they held that human beings are inherently rational so that they can collectively shape the nature of the society they belong to. In addition, human beings have the capacity to voluntarily gather for the common cause and maintain peace in society. By holding this view, we can say that classical political thinkers endorsed the genesis of civil society in its original sense.
The Middle Ages saw major changes in the topics discussed by political philosophers. Due to the unique political arrangements of feudalism, the concept of classical civil society practically disappeared from mainstream discussion. Instead conversation was dominated by problems of just war, a preoccupation that would last until the end of Renaissance.
[edit]Modern history
The Thirty Years' War and the subsequent Treaty of Westphalia heralded the birth of the sovereign states system. The Treaty endorsed states as territorially-based political units having sovereignty. As a result, the monarchs were able to exert control domestically by emasculating the feudal lords and to stop relying on the latter for armed troops.[20] Hencefore, monarchs could form national armies and deploy a professional bureaucracy and fiscal departments, which enabled them to maintain direct control and supreme authority over their subjects. In order to meet administrative expenditures, monarchs controlled the economy. This gave birth to absolutism.[21] Until the mid-eighteenth century, absolutism was the hallmark of Europe.[21]
The absolutist nature of the state was disputed in the Enlightenment period.[22] As a natural consequence of Renaissance, Humanism, and the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment thinkers raised fundamental questions such as “What legitimacy does heredity confer?”, “Why are governments instituted?”, “Why should some human beings have more basic rights than others?”, and so on. These questions led them to make certain assumptions about the nature of the human mind, the sources of political and moral authority, the reasons behind absolutism, and how to move beyond absolutism. The Enlightenment thinkers believed in the inherent goodness of the human mind. They opposed the alliance between the state and the Church as the enemy of human progress and well-being because the coercive apparatus of the state curbed individual liberty and the Church legitimated monarchs by positing the theory of divine origin. Therefore, both were deemed to be against the will of the people.
Strongly influenced by the atrocities of Thirty Years' War, the political philosophers of the time held that social relations should be ordered in a different way from natural law conditions. Some of their attempts led to the emergence of social contract theory that contested social relations existing in accordance with human nature. They held that human nature can be understood by analyzing objective realities and natural law conditions. Thus they endorsed that the nature of human beings should be encompassed by the contours of state and established positive laws. Thomas Hobbes underlined the need of a powerful state to maintain civility in society. For Hobbes, human beings are motivated by self-interests (Graham 1997:23). Moreover, these self-interests are often contradictory in nature. Therefore, in state of nature, there was a condition of a war of all against all. In such a situation, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Ibid: 25). Upon realizing the danger of anarchy, human beings became aware of the need of a mechanism to protect them. As far as Hobbes was concerned, rationality and self-interests persuaded human beings to combine in agreement, to surrender sovereignty to a common power (Kaviraj 2001:289). Hobbes called this common power, state, Leviathan.
John Locke had a similar concept to Hobbes about the political condition in England. It was the period of the Glorious Revolution, marked by the struggle between the divine right of the Crown and the political rights of Parliament. This influenced Locke to forge a social contract theory of a limited state and a powerful society. In Locke’s view, human beings led also an unpeaceful life in the state of nature. However, it could be maintained at the sub-optimal level in the absence of a sufficient system (Brown 2001:73). From that major concern, people gathered together to sign a contract and constituted a common public authority. Nevertheless, Locke held that the consolidation of political power can be turned into autocracy, if it is not brought under reliable restrictions (Kaviraj 2001:291). Therefore, Locke set forth two treaties on government with reciprocal obligations. In the first treaty, people submit themselves to the common public authority. This authority has the power to enact and maintain laws. The second treaty contains the limitations of authority, i. e., the state has no power to threaten the basic rights of human beings. As far as Locke was concerned, the basic rights of human beings are the preservation of life, liberty and property. Moreover, he held that the state must operate within the bounds of civil and natural laws.
Both Hobbes and Locke had set forth a system, in which peaceful coexistence among human beings could be ensured through social pacts or contracts. They considered civil society as a community that maintained civil life, the realm where civic virtues and rights were derived from natural laws. However, they did not hold that civil society was a separate realm from the state. Rather, they underlined the co-existence of the state and civil society. The systematic approaches of Hobbes and Locke (in their analysis of social relations) were largely influenced by the experiences in their period. Their attempts to explain human nature, natural laws, the social contract and the formation of government had challenged the divine right theory. In contrast to divine right, Hobbes and Locke claimed that humans can design their political order. This idea had a great impact on the thinkers in the Enlightenment period.
The Enlightenment thinkers argued that human beings are rational and can shape their destiny. Hence, no need of an absolute authority to control them. Both Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a critic of civil society, and Immanuel Kant argued that people are peace lovers and that wars are the creation of absolute regimes (Burchill 2001:33). As far as Kant was concerned, this system was effective to guard against the domination of a single interest and check the tyranny of the majority (Alagappa 2004:30).
G.W.F. Hegel completely changed the meaning of civil society, giving rise to a modern liberal understanding of it as a form of market society as opposed to institutions of modern nation state.[4] Unlike his predecessors, the leading thinker of the Romanticism movement considered civil society as a separate realm, a "system of needs", that is the, “[stage of] difference which intervenes between the family and the state.” [23] Civil society is the realm of economic relationships as they exist in the modern industrial capitalist society [24], for it had emerged at the particular period of capitalism and served its interests: individual rights and private property.[25] Hence, he used the German term "bürgerliche Gesellschaft" to denote civil society as "civilian society" – a sphere regulated by the civil code.[4] For Hegel, civil society manifests contradictory forces. Being the realm of capitalist interests, there is a possibility of conflicts and inequalities within it (ex: mental and physical aptitude, talents and financial circumstances). He argues that these inequalities influence the choices that members are able to make in relation to the type of work they will do. The diverse positions in Civil Society fall into three estates: the substantial estate (agriculture), the formal estate (trade and industry), and the universal estate (civil society). [26] A man is able to choose his estate, though his choice is limited by the aforementioned inequalities. However, Hegel argues that these inequalities enable all estates in Civil Society to be filled, which leads to a more efficient system on the whole.
[edit]Institutions

academia
activist groups
charities
citizens' militia
civic groups
clubs (sports, social, etc.)
community foundations
community organizations
consumers/consumer organizations
cooperatives
churches
cultural groups
environmental groups
foundations
intermediary organizations for the voluntary and non-profit sector
men's groups
non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
non-profit organizations (NPOs)
policy institutions
political parties
private voluntary organizations (PVOs)
professional associations
religious organizations
social enterprises
support groups
trade unions
voluntary associations
women's groups
[edit]Marxism and Socialism

Karl Marx was a Hegelian. For Marx, civil society was the ‘base’ where productive forces and social relations were taking place, whereas political society was the 'superstructure'.[4] Agreeing with the link between capitalism and civil society, Marx held that the latter represents the interests of the bourgeoisie.[27] Therefore, the state as superstructure also represents the interests of the dominant class; under capitalism, it maintains the domination of the bourgeoisie. Hence, Marx rejected the positive role of state put forth by Hegel. Marx argued that the state cannot be a neutral problem solver. Rather, he depicted the state as the defender of the interests of the bourgeoisie. He considered the state to be the executive arm of the bourgeoisie, which would wither away once the working class took democratic control of society.[28]
This negative view about civil society was rectified by Antonio Gramsci (Edwards 2004:10). Departing somehow from Marx, Gramsci did not consider civil society as coterminous with the socio-economic base of the state. Rather, Gramsci located civil society in the political superstructure. He underlined the crucial role of civil society as the contributor of the cultural and ideological capital required for the survival of the hegemony of capitalism.[29] Rather than posing it as a problem, as in earlier Marxist conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem-solving. Agreeing with Gramsci, the New Left assigned civil society a key role in defending people against the state and the market and in asserting the democratic will to influence the state.[30] At the same time, Neo-liberal thinkers consider civil society as a site for struggle to subvert Communist and authoritarian regimes.[31] Thus, the term civil society occupies an important place in the political discourses of the New Left and Neo-liberals.
[edit]Post-modernism

The post-modern way of understanding civil society was first developed by political opposition in the former Soviet block East European countries in the 1980s. From that time stems a practice within the political field of using the idea of civil society instead of political society. However, in the 1990s with the emergence of the nongovernmental organizations and the New Social Movements (NSMs) on a global scale, civil society as a third sector became a key terrain of strategic action to construct ‘an alternative social and world order.’ Henceforth, postmodern usage of the idea of civil society became divided into two main : as political society and as the third sector – apart from plethora of definitions.
The Washington Consensus of the 1990s, which involved conditioned loans by the World Bank and IMF to debt-laden developing states, also created pressures for states in poorer countries to shrink.[8] This in turn led to practical changes for civil society that went on to influence the theoretical debate. Initially the new conditionality led to an even greater emphasis on “civil society” as a panacea, replacing the state's service provision and social care,[8] Hulme and Edwards suggested that it was now seen as “the magic bullet.”
By the end of the 1990s civil society was seen less as a panacea amid the growth of the anti-globalization movement and the transition of many countries to democracy; instead, civil society was increasingly called on to justify its legitimacy and democratic credentials. This led to the creation by the UN of a high level panel on civil society [32]. Post-modern civil society theory has now largely returned to a more neutral stance, but with marked differences between the study of the phenomena in richer societies and writing on civil society in developing states.
[edit]See also

Portal:Politics
Associationalism
Civic association
Civics
Civic virtue
Civil affairs
Civil liberties
Anarchism
Civil religion
Civil societarianism
Civil and political rights
Communitarianism
Constitutional economics
Cultural hegemony
Democracy
Foucault–Habermas debate
Global civics
Global governance
Human rights
Judiciary
Liberal nationalism
Mass society
Non-state actor
Open society
Political science
Public interest litigation
Rule of law
Rule According to Higher Law
Social capital
Social economy
Social entrepreneurship
Social innovation
Sociology
Power
Voluntary sector
Yearbook of International Organizations
[edit]Civil-society scholars
Jeffrey C. Alexander
Helmut Anheier
Andrew Arato
Phillip Blond
Benjamin Barber
Daniel Bell
Robert N. Bellah
Walden Bello
Jean L. Cohen
Michael Edwards
Jean Bethke Elshtain
Amitai Etzioni
Francis Fukuyama
Ernest Gellner
Susan George (political scientist)
Jürgen Habermas
Peter Dobkin Hall
Mary Kaldor
Barry Dean Karl
John Keane
David Korten
John W. Meyer
Frank Moulaert
Michael Oakeshott (political theorist)
Michael O'Neill
Elinor Ostrom
Robert D. Putnam
Michael Sandel
Charles Taylor
Lori Wallach
[edit]Notes


Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (December 2011)
^ CIVICUS Civil Society Index Methodology - http://www.civicus.org/new/media/CSI_Methodology_and_conceptual_framework.pdf
^ a b What is Civil Society civilsoc.org
^ a b [1]
^ a b c d Zaleski, Pawel (2008). "Tocqueville on Civilian Society. A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality". Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte (Felix Meiner Verlag) 50.
^ Almond, G., & Verba, S.; 'The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes And Democracy In Five Nations; 1989; Sage
^ 'ibid'
^ Robert D. Putnam, Robert Leonardi, Raffaella Y. Nanetti; Robert Leonardi, Raffaella Y. Nanetti (1994). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-07889-0.
^ a b c d Pawel Zaleski Global Non-governmental Administrative System: Geosociology of the Third Sector, [in:] Gawin, Dariusz & Glinski, Piotr [ed.]: “Civil Society in the Making,” IFiS Publishers, Warszawa 2006
^ Agnew, John; 2002; 'Democracy and Human Rights' in Johnston, R.J., Taylor, Peter J. and Watts, Michael J. (eds); 2002; Geographies of Global Change; Blackwell
^ [2] Pithouse, Richard (2005) Report Back from the Third World Network Meeting Accra, 2005. Centre for Civil Society : 1-6.
^ The Politics of the Governed: Popular Politics in Most of the World, 2004
^ Paper: Interrogating the Civil. Engaging Critically with the Reality and Concept of Civil Society, 2010
^ Pollock, Graham.'Civil Society Theory and Euro-Nationalism' , Studies In Social & Political Thought, Issue 4, March 2001, pp. 31–56
^ Buchanan Entry at Nobel site
^ Peter Barenboim, Natalya Merkulova. "The 25th Anniversary of Constitutional Economics: The Russian Model and Legal Reform in Russia, in The World Rule of Law Movement and Russian Legal Reform", edited by Francis Neate and Holly Nielsen, Justitsinform, Moscow (2007).
^ Mann, Michael; 1984; The Autonomous Power of The State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results; European Journal of Sociology 25: pp185-213
^ United Nations: Partners in Civil Society
^ a b c Edwards 2004. p 6.
^ O'Connell 1999
^ Brown 2001:70
^ a b Knutsen 1997:80–118
^ Chandhoke 1995:88
^ Hegel, G. F. W. Philosophy Of Right, edited by Allen W. Wood (Cambridge University Press, 1991) §184
^ Stillman, Peter G. Hegel’s Civil Society: A Locus of Freedom, appearing in Polity, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Summer 1980) pp. 622 – 646. p. 623
^ Dhanagare 2001:169
^ Hegel, G. F. W. Philosophy Of Right, edited by Allen W. Wood (Cambridge University Press, 1991) §202
^ Edwards 2004:10
^ See Lenin, 2010, for a summary of Marx's thought on the State and an introduction to Marxist thought on the state up until 1917. For a detailed discussion of Marx's thought on the state and civil society see Draper, 1977 & 1986 (Volumes 1 and 2)
^ Ehrenberg 1999:208
^ Ibid:30
^ Ibid: 33
^ [3]
[edit]References

Alagappa, Muthiah. Civil Society and Political Change in Asia. Stanford: Standford University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8047-5097-1
Edwards, Michael. Civil Society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7456-3133-9.
Draper, Hal Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution (Volume 1: State and Bureaucracy, Volume 2: The Politics of Social Classes). New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977 & 1986.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. "Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society?, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 49, no. 2, June 1998, pp. 210–233.
Gosewinkel, Dieter: Civil Society, European History Online, Mainz: Institute of European History, 2011, retrieved: August 24, 2011.
Hemmati, Minu. Dodds, Felix. Enayati, Jasmin. and McHarry,Jan downloadable copy of Multistakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability:Beyond Deadlock and Conflict
Interface journal special issue on civil society and social movements
O'Connell,Brian.Civil Society: The Underpinnings of American Democracy.Medford, Mass:Tufts University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-87451-924-1.
Perlas, Nicolas, Shaping Globalization – Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefolding. ISBN 0-9583885-8-X .
Pollock, Graham.Civil Society Theory and Euro-Nationalism, Studies In Social & Political Thought, Issue 4, March 2001, pp. 31–56
Tvedt, Terje. Angels of Mercy or Development Diplomats. NGOs & Foreign Aid. Oxford: James Currey, 1998.
Whaites, Alan, Let's get civil society straight: NGOs and Political Theory, Development in Practice, 1996, [4][dead link]
Whaites, Alan, NGOs, Civil Society and the State: Avoiding theoretical extremes in real world issues,' Development in Practice 1998 [5][dead link]
Zaleski, Pawel, Tocqueville on Civilian Society: A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte Bd. 50/2008
[edit]External links

LSE Centre for Civil Society
UN and Civil Society
UNEP Global Civil Society Forum.
EU relations with Civil Society
UK DFID relations with Civil Society
Civicus – Worldwide Alliance for Citizen Participation
Global civil society (PCDF).
One World Trust Database of Civil Society Self-regulatory Initiatives
WiserEarth.org – World Index for Social and Environmental Responsibility – formerly www.civilsociety.org.
Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future engagement in UN stakeholder relations
International Society for Third-Sector Research
Bied-Charreton Marc and Requier-Desjardins Mélanie, 2007. Science and civil society in the fight against desertification. Les dossiers thématiques du CSFD. Issue 6. 40 pp.
100 years of trends in international civil society by the Union of International Associations
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

Submit ratings
Categories: Community buildingSocietyCivil societySocial economyDemocracy