Spring 2016
CGIS Knafel K108; Th 3-5 p.m.
Professor Susan J. Pharr
Office: CGIS S-238
Email: spharr@fas.harvard.edu
Phone: (617) 495-9992;
Office hours: Wed. 2-5pm or TBA
For appt., contact: Lauren Inch [linch@wcfia.harvard.edu]; office: S-240
GOVERNMENT 94gs: Globalization and Civil Society
This seminar deals with the surge of civil society worldwide and its many manifestations,
including social movements, interest associations, NGOs, and transborder networks, in a variety
of settings, democratic, quasi-democratic, and authoritarian. It looks at: the debates over civil
society; how the concept (and related concepts like public space) came into vogue; the forces
driving civil society’s rise historically; how civil society organizations relate to the state, market,
and family; “imperfect” civil societies; religious groups as civil society actors; the role of civil
society actors in political and social change; the variety of state responses to civil society claims;
how international NGOs and other transborder actors operate; and the transforming effect of
social media on civil society strategies and state responses. We examine a series of empirical
cases in Europe, the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China, and other parts of the world.
There are no prerequisites. Space permitting, students from Social Studies, EAS, and
other concentrations may join. Graduate students are not permitted to take Gov Department
junior seminars. Auditing is not permitted.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS: The grade is determined as follows: Participation 45% (including oral
presentation in final Workshop on work on progress); Short Paper 10%; and Long Paper, 45%.
A) PARTICIPATION (45%): This is based on (a) the quality of participation in the discussion and
the preparedness that the comments reflect; (b) an oral presentation in the final Workshop; and (c)
two Response Papers (2 pp. max) for designated weeks. Early in the semester we will divide up the
weeks and designate Response Paper writer(s) for each week. In a Response Paper, which should be
circulated electronically to class members by 5 p.m. on Wednesday before the seminar in which the
readings will be discussed, the student is asked to identify some of the key debates and issues in the
designated week’s readings. NOTE: Students are expected to attend all sessions of the seminar; if a
session is missed for other than a serious medical reason, the student must submit an additional
Response Paper for the missed session, which should be turned in before class time by email
attachment.
2
B) SHORT PAPER (10%): one paper, 5-6 pages in length, double-spaced and in 12 point font, based
on one of the weeks’ readings. It must be turned in by Thursday, March 10 (Week 7). The short
paper should draw on at least three of the readings, and should be based on a topic sparked by the list
of questions listed on the syllabus for that week’s readings.
C) LONG PAPER (45%): This is a research paper 20 pages in length (double-spaced in 12 font,
including notes and bibliography), to be submitted to the instructor in hardcopy (in Room S240) and
electronically, copied to Lauren Inch, by May 2.
A one-page prospectus (double-spaced, with a half-page bibliography) is due electronically, copied to
Lauren Inch by Thursday, March 24 (Week 8). A revised and extended version of the prospectus and
bibliography is due electronically by Thursday, March 31 (Week 9).
The long paper should explore a puzzle relating in some way to civil society. It may examine this
puzzle in the context of one country, several countries, or an international context. Or it may be
conceptual/thematic (e.g., Is there an Islamic conception of civil society?), and draw examples from a
number of countries. Your papers should define key terms and draw on, and demonstrate your
understanding of, the ideas in the course, and should take into account the assigned readings where
relevant. As a rough guideline, good papers rarely use fewer than 20 sources, at least half of them
books and academic articles that provide depth to the paper and help frame the topic.
COLLABORATION POLICY: Discussion and the exchange of ideas are essential to academic work. For
written assignments in the course, it is fine to discuss your ideas with classmates and others. For the final
paper in the course, it’s fine to consult with your classmates and others on the choice of your paper topic and
on your ideas for the paper, and you may share sources with classmates. However, any written work you
submit for evaluation must be yours and yours alone, based on your own reading and research, and it should
reflect your own approach to the topic. For the final paper, you must adhere to standard citation practices
and properly cite any books, articles, websites, lectures, and so on, that you use in your paper. In the case of
the short paper, which is based on the assigned readings, full citations referencing the readings are
unnecessary; use shorthand form (e.g., Brown, p. 6) in the text of your paper, and there is no need for a
bibliography. If you received any help with your papers (feedback on drafts, etc.), from anyone other than
the instructor, you should acknowledge this assistance in the paper, e.g., in a footnote.
READINGS: Required readings are available on the course site, either as PDFs or as links. In some cases,
links also appear directly in the syllabus. To access the site, go to https://canvas.harvard.edu/courses/9836
and enter your Harvard ID and PIN. Click on “Modules” on the left-hand side to see the readings organized
by week. During shopping period, any student may access the available readings for this class. However,
once enrollment is set (Study Card day), only those students enrolled in Government 94gs will be able to
access the course’s readings.
3
WEEK 1 – Class does not meet (1/28)
WEEK 2 -- INTRODUCTION (2/4)
WEEK 3 – THE IDEA OF CIVIL SOCIETY (2/11)
What is civil society? What have leading thinkers meant by the term, and where do they agree and disagree.
Historically speaking, when and why did the concept come into vogue, fall out of favor, and then regain
traction? According to key scholars, what types of groups and activities are included in conceptions of civil
society, and which should be excluded? Are there conditions prerequisites for a country to be considered to
have a civil society? Look closely at concepts such as “modularity,” the “tyranny of cousins”, and the
notion of “enemies” of civil society. How is the concept of public sphere related to the idea of civil society,
and what are the problems inherent in the notion of there being a single public sphere in any given country?
Keane, John. (1988). Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives. London: Verso, Introduction,
pp. 1-29.
Hall, John A. (1995). In Search of Civil Society. In Hall, John A. (Ed.), Civil Society: Theory, History, and
Comparison. Cambridge, Mass.: Polity Press, pp. 1-27.
Gellner, Ernest. (1995). The Importance of Being Modular. In Hall, John A. (Ed.), Civil Society: Theory,
History, and Comparison. Cambridge, Mass.: Polity Press, pp. 32-55.
Gellner, Ernest. (1994). Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals. Allen Lane, Penguin Press, pp.
211-215. (Note: only these pages)
Fraser, Nancy. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Emerging
Democracy. In Calhoun, Craig (Ed), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 109-137). Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
WEEK 4 – DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY (2/18)
What is the relationship between civil society and democracy? Is civil society a precondition for democracy,
or must democracy come first? Can civil society harm democracy, and if so, under what conditions could
this occur?
Schmitter, Philippe C. (1997). Civil Society East and West. In Diamond, Larry et al, (Eds), Consolidating the
Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 239259.
Diamond, Larry. (1999). Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press. pp. 218-260.
Berman, Sheri. (1997). Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics 49 (3), pp.
401-429.
Przeworski, Adam. (1995). Sustainable Democracy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 53-64.
4
WEEK 5 – ROBUST OR ILL? CIVIL SOCIETY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN AMERICA (2/25)
What are the fundamental disagreements that exist among scholars about the nature of civil society in
America, past and present, and how can we account for them? Looking at the American experience, how do
war, ethnicity, and the nature of the state configure the civil societies we get, and affect how they change
over time?
Skocpol, Theda. (2003). Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life.
University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 20-57.
Putnam, Robert D. (1993). “Tracing the Roots of Civic Community.” Making Democracy Work. Princeton
University Press, pp. 121-148.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone: Civic Disengagement in America and What To Do About It.
Simon and Schuster, pp. 48-62; 78-79; 80-92. (Note: Only these pages)
Schudson, Michael. (1992). “Was There Ever a Public Sphere?” In Craig Calhoun (Ed) Habermas and the
Public Sphere. MIT Press, pp.143-161.
Putnam, Robert. (2007). “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century: The
2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2), pp. 137-50. (Note: Only these
pages)
Sander, Thomas H. and Robert D. Putnam. (2010). “Still Bowling Alone? The Post-9/11 Split.” Journal of
Democracy, 21(1), pp. 9-16.
WEEK 6 --THE RISE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN EUROPE (3/3)
REMINDER: You need to turn in the Short Paper by Week 7.
What were the critical conditions/junctures in the rise of civil society in key countries in Western Europe,
and in the 1970s and 1980s, East and Central Europe. Are there distinct pathways in the development of
civil societies, and if so, identify and characterize several from the readings. In the same way that there are,
arguably, varieties of capitalism, are there varieties of civil societies, and if so, on what dimensions do they
diverge? “The idea of a ‘public sphere’ is a lot of hype. It can just mean tyranny by another name.” What is
the basis for such a claim, and do you agree or disagree, and why?
Nord, Philip and Nancy Bermeo, eds. (2000). Introduction. Civil Society before Democracy. Rowman and
Littlefield, pp. xiii-xxxiii.
Levy, Jonah D. (1999). Tocqueville’s Revenge: State, Society, and Economy in Contemporary France.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. “Introduction: The Search for Civil Society,” pp.1-16 and
excerpt from Chapter 7: “The Statist Two-Step: Dilemmas of Institutional Reform in Post-Dirigiste France,”
pp. 284-292.
5
Archambault, Edith. (2009). “The Third Sector in Europe: Does it Exhibit a Converging Movement.” In
Enjolras, Bernard and Karl Henrik Sivesind (Eds) Civil Society in Comparative Perspective, Comparative
Social Research. Vol. 26. Emerald. pp. 3-24.
Kubik, Jan. (2000). “Between the State and Networks of ‘Cousins’: The Role of Society and Noncivil
Associations in the Democratization of Poland.” In Nancy Bermeo and Philip Nord (Eds) Civil Society
before Democracy. Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 181-201.
Gasior-Niemic, Glinski. (2007). “Europeanization of Civil Society in Poland.” Rev. Soc. Polit. 14(1), 29-45.
WEEK 7 – THE EMERGENCE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN ASIA: JAPAN (3/10)
REMINDER: You need to turn in a prospectus by Week 8.
To what extent did prewar Japan have something that could be considered a civil society, and how has
Japan’s particular civic legacy shaped the nature of civil society in today’s Japan? By many measures Japan
is one of the most highly educated, prosperous, and post-postmodern of societies on the face of the globe,
and yet its civil society has numerous distinct features. How do we account for this variation?
Garon, Sheldon. (2003). From Meiji to Heisei: The State and Civil Society in Japan. In Schwartz, Frank and
Susan J. Pharr, (Eds.), The State of Civil Society in Japan. Cambridge University Press, pp. 42-62.
Pharr, Susan J. (2003). Targeting by an Activist State: Japan as a Civil Society Model. In Schwartz, Frank
and Susan J. Pharr, (Eds.), The State of Civil Society in Japan. Cambridge University Press, pp. 316-36.
Pekkanen, Robert. (2006). Neighborhood Associations and Local Civil Society. Japan’s Dual Civil
Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 85-129. *(Read pages 102-108 first)*
Freeman, Laurie Anne. (2003). Mobilizing and Demobilizing the Japanese Public Sphere: Mass Media and
the Internet in Japan. In Schwartz, Frank and Susan J. Pharr, (Eds.), The State of Civil Society in Japan.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 235-43. (Note: only these pages)
Hardacre, Helen. (2003). After Aum: Religion and Civil Society in Japan. In Schwartz, Frank and Susan J.
Pharr, (Eds.), The State of Civil Society in Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 135-44; 152-53. (Note: only these pages)
Okimoto, Daniel I. (1988). Japan, the Societal State. In Inside the Japanese System, ed. Daniel I. Okimoto
and Thomas P. Rohlen. Stanford University Press, pp. 211-215.
**SPRING BREAK—3/12- 3/20**
WEEK 8 – CIVIL SOCIETY IN DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS: KOREA AND TAIWAN (3/24)
In both nations, various citizens’ groups were on the scene at the time of the countries’ respective
democratic transitions in 1987, but their role in the changes that occurred differed significantly by most
accounts. Why? How does the nature of civil society and of the state affect outcomes? How does pretransition civil society affect post-transition civil society?
Koo, Hagen. (1993). Strong State and Contentious Society. In State and Society in Contemporary Korea, ed.
Hagen Koo. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 231-239.
Hsiao, Hsin-Huang Michael and Hagen Koo. (1997). The Middle Classes and Democratization. In
Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives, ed. Larry Diamond, et al. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 312-29.
Han, Sang-Jin. (1997). The Public Sphere and Democracy in Korea: A Debate on Civil Society. Korea
Journal 37 (4): 84-87.
Kim, Sunhyuk. (2004). South Korea: Confrontational Legacy and Democratic Contributions. In Muthiah
Alagappa (Ed), Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space.
Stanford University Press, pp. 138-160.
Cheng, Tun-jen, and Eun Mee Kim. (1994). Making Democracy: Generalizing the South Korean Case. In
The Politics of Democratization: Generalizing East Asian Experiences, ed. Edward Friedman. Westview
Press, pp. 125-143.
Fan, Yun. (2004). Taiwan: No Civil Society, No Democracy, In Muthiah Alagappa (Ed), Civil Society and
Political Change in Asia: Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space. Stanford University Press, pp.
164-186.
Hsiao, Hsin-Huang Michael and Ming-sho Ho. (2010) “ Civil Society and Democracy-making in Taiwan:
Reexamining the Link.” In Yin-wah Chu and Siu-Lun Wong (Eds) East Asia’s New Democracies.
Routledge, pp. 43-53; 58-60.
Siemon-Netto, Uwe. (11 July 2002). Korea, a Christian Success Story. United Press International website.
Retrieved 18 Jan 2009. http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2002/07/11/Korea_-_a_Christian_success_story/UPI-61631026424010/
WEEK 9–CIVIL SOCIETY IN CHINA (3/31)
What could be the basis for a claim that China today has a civil society in the making, and if so, how can we
account for its rise? What are the counterarguments?
Wakeman, Frederick. (1993). “The Civil Society and Public Sphere Debate: Western Reflections on Chinese
Political Culture.” Modern China 19(2): 108-34.
Gallagher, Mary. (2004). “China: The Limits of Civil Society in a Late Leninist State.” In Muthiah Alagappa
(Ed), Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space. Stanford
University Press, pp. 419-443.
Qiang, Xiao. (2011). “The Battle for the Chinese Internet.” Journal of Democracy 22(2), pp. 47-60.
Ma, Qiusha. (2002). “The Governance of NGOs in China Since 1978: How Much Autonomy?” Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31(3): 305-24.
6
McCormick, Barret, Xiao Xiaoming, and Su Shaozhi. (1992). “The 1989 Democracy Movement: A Review
of Prospects for Civil Society in China.” Pacific Affairs 65(2): 182-202.
Yang, Guobin. (2003). “The Internet and Civil Society in China: A Preliminary Assessment.” Journal of
Contemporary China 12(36), pp. 453-475.
Ho, Peter. (2001). “Greening Without Conflict? Environmentalism, NGOs and Civil Society in China.”
Development and Change 32, pp. 913-918. (Note: only these pages.)
Shieh, Shawn. “The Power of the Mob vs. the Power of NGOs.” Weblog entry. NGOs in China. Sept. 18,
2012. Retrieved from http://ngochina.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-power-of-mob-vs-power-of-ngos.html
Hua, Yu. (2014, February 4). “The Censorship Pendulum.” The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/yu-hua-chinas-censorship-pendulum.html
(2013, November 8). “Document 9: A ChinaFile Translation. How Much Is a Hardline Party Directive
Shaping China’s Current Political Climate?” China File. Retrieved from
http://www.chinafile.com/document-9-chinafile-translation
Optional Readings:
Perry, Elizabeth J. (2012). “The Illiberal Challenge of Authoritarian China.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy
8(2), pp. 3-15. http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0802/003-016.pdf
Richter, James and Walter Hatch. (2013). “Organizing Civil Society in Russia and China:
A Comparative Approach.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, pp 1-22.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10767-013-9148-5#page-2
Yan, Xiaojun. (2012). “Where Have All the People Gone? Some Reflections on Civil Society and Regime
Stability in the People’s Republic of China.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 8(2), pp. 17-24.
http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0802/017-024.pdf
Saich, Tony. (2004). China’s New Social Challenges and the Provision of Welfare. In Geither, Peter F. et
al (Eds.), Diaspora Philanthropy and Equitable Development in China and India. (pp.1-27). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, Ching Kwan and Shen, Yuan. (2011). “The Anti-Solidarity Machine? Labor Nongovernmental
Organizations in China.” In Sarosh Kuruvilla, Ching Kwan Lee, and Mary E. Gallagher (Eds) From Iron
Rice Bowl to Informalization: Markets, Workers, and the State in a Changing China. Cornell University
Press, pp. 173-187.
MacKinnon, Rebecca. (2011). “China's ‘Networked Authoritarianism’.” Journal of Democracy 22(2), pp.
32-46.
Morozov, Evengy. (2011). “Whither Internet Control?” Journal of Democracy 22(2), pp. 62-74.
Weller, Robert P. (1998). Horizontal Ties and Civil Institutions in Chinese Societies. In Democratic Civility:
The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Modern Political Ideal, ed. Robert W. Hefner. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, pp. 229-247.
7
Johnson, Ian. (2003). The Death and Life of China’s Civil Society. Perspectives on Politics 1(3): 551-554.
WEEK 10 – INGOS, DOMESTIC NGOS, AND THE EMERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL CIVIL
SOCIETY (4/7)
Is a global civil society emerging, and if so, who are its “citizens” and to whom are they accountable? What
is an NGO in relation to conceptions of civil society? What are the comparative advantages of, and limits on,
INGOs as agents of change?
Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. (1998). Transnational Advocacy Networks and the Movement
Society. In The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century, ed. David Mayer and
Sidney Tarrow. Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 217-238.
Pei, Minxin. (2000). Rights and Resistance: The Changing Contexts of the Dissident Movement” In Chinese
Society: Change, Conflict, and Resistance, ed. Elizabeth J. Perry and Mark Selden. Routledge, pp. 20-40.
Diamond, Larry. (2010). “Liberation Technology.” Journal of Democracy 21(3), pp. 69-83.
Mazlish, Bruce. (2005). “The Global and the Local.” Current Sociology 53(1), pp. 93-109.
Hulme, David and Michael Edwards, eds. (1997). NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort?
Macmillan, pp. 3-15.
Sperling, Valerie. (1999). International Influences on the Russian Women’s Movement. In Sperling,
Organizing Women in Contemporary Russia: Engendering Transition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 22056.
WEEK 11 – SPECIAL SESSION: “SOCIAL MEDIA AND CIVIL SOCIETY” (4/14)
Plans for this session to be announced later. Below are some preliminary background readings.
Ayres, Jeffrey M.. (1999). “From the Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Diffusion of Contention,” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science , pp. 132-143.
Beissinger, Mark. (2013). “ ‘Conventional’ and ‘Virtual’ Civil Societies in Autocratic Regimes.” Manuscript, pp1-27.
Bellin, Eva. (2011). “Lessons From the Jasmine and Nile Revolutions: Possibilities of Political Transformation in the
Middle East?” Brandeis University. Crown Center for Middle East Studies. Middle East Brief, No. 50, pp. 1-7.
http://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB50.pdf
Bennett, W. Lance and Alexandra Segerberg. (2013). “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital media and the
personalization of contentious politics.” Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), pp. 739-762.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” The New Yorker, October 4, 2010.
pp. 1-9. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
8
Rafael, Vincente L. (2003). “The Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary
Philippines,” Public Culture 15(3), pp. 399-425.
WEEK 12 -- Class does not meet; use this week to move forward with research on your long paper. (4/21)
WEEK 13— WORKSHOP (student presentations based on work in progress) (4/28) LAST CLASS
Note: Final papers are due by 4 p.m. on Monday, May 2. Email to the instructor (cc: Lauren Inch), and
submit in hardcopy at the office of Lauren Inch, CGIS South, Room S240.
9