Katie Pace
Civil Society and its Definitions
While generally acknowledged to consist of privately formed social
organizations, civil society remains an ambiguous conception prone to diverse
interpretations. As a Western idea, first made famous by Alexis de Tocqueville in his
analysis of American democracy, its application worldwide and in nations with differing
social, religious, economic and political backgrounds has created debate about what civil
society is and how civil society influences or is influenced by government.
Tocqueville first presented civil society to the West as voluntary, non-political
social organizations that strengthen democracy preventing a tyranny of the majority.
Associations, which can be “religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted,
enormous or diminutive”, protect diversity by uniting equal but weak individuals into
powerful groups. These associations prevent the fragmentation of society by forcing men
to consider the affairs of others and to work with their neighbors. According to
Tocqueville, the equality and individualism fostered by democracy convince men that
they need nothing from nor owe anything to their neighbors; thus, without civil society,
they would isolate themselves from the community. Finally, Tocqueville argues that civil
society fosters the social norms and trust necessary for people to work together and
teaches individuals to appreciate and effectively use their liberties. Consequently, civil
society promotes democracy and checks despotism.
Many Western writers wholeheartedly accepted Tocqueville’s definition of civil
society. In both his book, Making Democracy Work, and his article, Tuning In, Tuning
Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America, Robert Putnam treats civil
society, also called social capital, as “features of social life- networks, norms and trustthat enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives”.
Putnam argues that social capital influences citizen engagement in the community, which
in turn influences government. A developed civil society is necessary for democracy to
work well, for it relies on and develops the trust among individuals and the leadership
skills necessary for a representative government.
The author of the Solitary Bowler agrees that “the association-forming habit” is
“the stuff if civil society”. His discussion of the decline of civil society in America is
based on his Tocquevillean definition of civil society as a network of voluntary
associations. Though the author acknowledges that American civil society may simply
be undergoing metamorphosis and not disappearing, he holds fast to his Western view by
drawing the reader’s attention to new types of voluntary associations which fit snuggly
into his definition. The article, Bowling Alone, also focuses on new forms of social
capital, but it does not redefine social capital.
Other writers question Tocqueville’s definition and analysis of civil society. In
his article, The Importance of Being Modular, Ernest Gellner agrees that civil society is
“that set of diverse non-governmental institutions, which is strong enough to
counterbalance the state…whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper
of the peace and arbitrator between major interests”. However, he argues that this
definition is deficient because it includes elements of plural societies that should not be
considered examples of civil society. Gellner says a nation can have “a plural, noncentralized, but socially oppressive society” in which social order is maintained by local,
kin-defined, religious and stifling rituals that leave no room for individual autonomy.
Therefore, civicness cannot be determined by pluralism. Once must narrow the definition
of civil society and take a closer look at a society’s associations to see if they fall within
the new definition.
Sheri Berman attacks the traditional conception of civil society in, Civil Society
and the Collapse of the Wiemar Republic. Prior to the nazi’s rise to power, Germany
society was a plethora of social institutions. Due to the lack of responsive national
government and political parties, these associations fragmented society instead of uniting
it. Consequently, in an “inversion of neo-Tocquevillean theory”, civil society weakened
and eventually destroyed the Weimar Republic, replacing a democracy with a totalitarian
regime. Consequently, Berman argues that associations should be considered “a
politically neutral multiplier, dependent for its effects on the wider political context”.
Once the concept of civil society was applied to the East, more objections were
thrown at it. In his article, Orientalism, Islam and Islamists, Bryan Turner discusses the
role of relativism and ethnocentrism in western analysis of Middle Eastern society.
Turner defines the Western viewpoint of civil society as “that network of institutions
which lies between the state and individual and which simultaneously connects the
individual to authority and protects the individual from total political control.” The West
assumes that civil society is the main indication of social progress from a state of nature
to one of civilization and from despotism to democracy. Defined by the West, despotism
exists where “civil society is either absent or underdeveloped”. The western concept of
civil society is based on in individualism; thus, the West assumes there is “no established
tradition of legitimate opposition to arbitrary governments in Islam” because Islam is
“devoid of individual rights and individuality”. However, the West ignores similarities
between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Furthermore, the West accepts Islam’s lack of
social capital as the cause of its political instability and fails to examine other
possibilities.
Eva Bellin also questions the application of Tocqueville’s civil society to eastern
studies in her work, Civil Society: Effective Tools of Analysis for Middle East Politics?.
Bellin argues that the term itself has a range of definitions. The West has applied this
ambiguous term to the Middle East and determined that the region is “inhospitable to
civil society”. Yet, the West ignores the use of the term by Middle Easterners
themselves. Leaders call on civil society to promote projects of modernization. Islamists
employ the concept to gain influence in the public sphere. Intellectuals use the term to
increase individual liberty. Thus, civil society acquires elements of “secularism,
citizenship, civisme, civility, civil liberties”, most of which would destroy despotism.
Bellin concludes from this that the West should not dismiss the existence of civil society
in the Middle East.
Samu Zubaida also urges proponents of civil society to reexamine its definition in
his article, Islam, the State and Democracy. He defines two concepts of civil society.
The first, a secular-liberal definition, conceives of civil society as voluntary associations
that “foster individual autonomy and provide experience in the exercise of social and
political rights and responsibilities”. For such associations to exist, the state must
withdraw from economic and associational life while creating “legislation and
institutional mechanisms which provide the framework of rights and obligations for these
spheres”. The second definition of civil society is an Islamic-communal definition that
conceives of civil society as an “informal network of relationships” whose focus is
property and business.
Finally, Ibn Khaldun provides a conception of civil society that, while written
long before debates about social capital began, could enlighten the West about civil
society in the East. In The Maquaddimah, Khaldun’s civil society is based on group
feeling and religion. A leader acquires power and a society acquires stability if the
community is bonded by feelings of kinship and common descent and by connections
between clients and allies. Religion strengthens these bonds by eliminating jealousy and
discord as the community focuses its energy on important goals. Group feeling can exist
in harmony with an absolute ruler and its lack can destroy an empire, rendering a
community vulnerable to outside control.
The different approaches to civil society outlined above leave the reader with two
opposing definitions of civil society. The first is a Tocquevillean definition in which
civil society and democracy are assumed to complement each other. The second is a
Middle Eastern definition in which civil society does not consist of formal groups whose
existence is designed to achieve specific goals. Civil society is instead a series of
informal relationships based on religious, familial and clientele connections that can and
do exist under undemocratic governments, for they are entirely beyond the government’s
sphere. These relationships have existed throughout Islamic history and continue to exist
today.