civil society models

7/28/2019 Civil Society Models

1/10

From Confrontation to Collaboration: Contemporary Discourse on theState-Civil Society Relational Models1

Dr. Tanvir Anjum

Abst ract

In the contemporary development discourse, the concept of civilsociety is as much popular as debated and contested by activistsand development practitioners as well as scholars andacademicians. Presently, there are multiple and often conflictingunderstandings of civil society, especially in relation to the state,which have brought to the fore a wide range of state-civil societyrelational models. The present paper is aimed at identifying thecharacteristic features of these models. The study is an attempt toexplore the varied strands and patterns in the relationshipbetween the state and civil society, which impact on the functionsand nature of both the sectors.

Civil society is considered to be one of three spheres that together constitute thetriadic paradigm of social order, the other two spheres being the state (theupholder of legal values) and the market (the economy or exchange values).Since the state and the market are referred to as the first and the second sectorsrespectively, civil society is referred to as the third or independent sector. Theconcept of civil society has been employed to identify, locate and explain varioussocial structures and institutions, which impact upon the relations between thestate and society. Presently, non-government organizations or NGOs, alsoreferred to as civil society organizations or CSOs, are identified as expressions ofcivil society. The term civil society has become a catchword in the contemporarydiscourse on development, liberalism and modernism. The theory and concept ofcivil society is as much popular as debated among activists and development

practitioners as well as scholars and academicians. It has variously been used indiverse theoretical positions and political agendas.

In the contemporary discourse, the conceptual construct of civil society ischaracterized by much theoretical ambiguity as well as complexity in its usageand application. There are multiple understandings of it, with difference inemphasis on its characteristics and nature, and hence no single model of it.Sometimes the concept of civil society is understood as a sphere of polity havingan oppositional relationship with the state, and sometimes viewed in constructiveand co-operational relationship with the state. It is also perceived as anintermediate institutional space, or a mediating sphere between an individual anda state, as well as a sphere completely autonomous from the state, neither

having conflict nor collaboration or association with it. In addition, it is alsoenvisioned as a sphere which counter-balances the states hegemony and

The author is Assistant Professor at Department of History, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad Pakistan.


2/10

From Confrontation to Collaboration

94

domination, and sometimes seen as a means of delivering services to people,which a state is ideally supposed to deliver.

Recent European and European-inspired literature on civil society offers itssyncretic and contradictory typologies. According to Adam Seligman, forinstance, in contemporary times, the concept of civil society is being used as: (i)a political slogan for criticizing various government policies at the hands of

activists; (ii) a normative philosophical concept and utopian ethical idealguaranteeing good life; and (iii) an analytical tool or model to explain varioussocio-political phenomena.2 For Wayne Hudson, currently civil society is beingidentified with a philosophical concept, a political slogan, a set of institutions, asector (third or non-government sector), a space for action in which socialgroups can exist and move; and a realm of civil solidarity, cooperation and trust.3

The contemporary literature on the subject reveals that there is little common invarious definitions and understandings of the concept of civil society. For thisvery reason, it has been suggested that civil society cannot be seen as a staticconcept, rather as a concept in flux, with changing meanings, norms, actors andadversaries.4 None the less, despite its multiple understandings, the concept of

civil society is relevant in analytical terms, as it raises a wide array of researchquestions pertaining to the relationship of various social groups and institutionswith the state and political authorities.

Keeping in view the multiple and often conflicting understandings and functionsof civil society, a number of state-civil society relational models have beenbrought to the fore, which can broadly be classified under the following fourheads: (i) Confrontational Model; (ii) Collaborative/Associational Model; (iii)

Autonomous Model; and (iv) Mediational Model of Civil Society. The presentpaper is aimed at identifying some of the contested understandings of theconcept of civil society by highlighting the characteristic features of the above-mentioned state-civil society relational models. The study is an attempt to explore

the varied strands and patterns in the relationship between the state and civilsociety, which impact on the functions and nature of both the sectors.

In contemporary times, there are multiple conceptions of civil society in Euro-American intellectual tradition, which are contested on a number of counts. Thetheory of civil society is said to have acquired conceptual polymorphousness,5owing to its several forms and strands, as well as its ever fluctuating conceptualfrontiers. Not only the state-civil society relationship ranging from opposition tocollaboration, and from mere distinction to complete autonomy of civil societyfrom the state is being contested, the relationship of civil society with the marketand the society at large is also being debated.


3/10

J ournal of Political Studies

95

State-Civil Society Relational Models

As pointed out above, four broad state-civil society relational models can beidentified in the contemporary discourse. The characteristic features of thesemodels are discussed hereunder:

1. Confrontational Model of Civil Society

As earlier discussed, the Enlightenment era in Europe during the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries was characterized by the emergence of modern statesystem along with highly centralized and absolute monarchical rule. As aresponse and reaction to the political developments of the times, the concept ofcivil society emerged as a critique to absolutism or monarchy. In particular, thewritings of Montesquieu and Kant projected civil society as a sphere meant tocontain and check the arbitrary powers of monarchical rulers.6 In fact, theconcept of civil society is defined through its opposition to the state in the entireliberal tradition of European political philosophy. Liberal European politicalthinkers have assigned polar positions to the state and civil society.

Continuing the intellectual traditions of the Enlightenment era, from 1970sonwards, the political and academic discourse on civil society became morefocused on the differentiation of civil society from the state. In other words, theundercurrent of the modern idea of civil society is the accent on the separationbetween the state and civil society, and therefore the characteristic to be non-state is deemed as the most crucial marker of a civil society. Not only this, forsome the state-civil society dichotomy is characterized by opposition andcontradiction between the two. The state-civil society dichotomy is much morepronounced in the writings of continental thinkers than Anglo-American scholars.In fact, in the neo-conservative tradition, civil society is understood in oppositionto the state, and seen as a depoliticized sphere of market activity and other

activities including those relating to religion and family.7

In short, theconfrontational model of civil society views it in opposition to the state.

Vaclav Havel, a dissident socialist intellectual and political activist, for instance,sees the relationship between the state and civil society as oppositional andcontradictory. To him, civil society represents the domain of anti-politics; it was avision of society not simply independent of the state but opposed to it.8 This isbecause civil society is perceived as a sphere of social order that providesdefense against the atomization of society by the state.

According to the confrontational model, civil society is also a counter-balancingmechanism vis--vis the state. In view of Ernest Gellner, civil society is a set of

diverse non-governmental institutions, which counter-balance the state but do notprevent the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of the peace and arbitratorbetween major interests. Civil society prevents a state from dominating and


4/10


96

atomising the society.9 Some other theorists such as erif Mardin also perceivecivil society as a set of equilibrating social mechanisms.10

The confrontational model of civil society which sees it as an expression ofsocietal self-organization in opposition to the state is said to have a negative viewof civil society. Countering this negative view, theorists have attempted to focusmore on its positive functions. John Hall, for instance, brings out the positive

characteristics of civil society, as he defines it as a complex balance ofconsensus and conflict.11 In a similar manner, Hann and Dunn also argue for amore inclusive usage of civil society, in which it is not defined negatively, inopposition to the state, but positively in the context of the ideas and practicesthrough which cooperation and trust are established in social life.12

2. Autonomous Model of Civil Society

The confrontational model of civil society is based on the assumption ofinveterate opposition between the civil society and the state. This dichotomousview of civil society vs. the state is the basis of the modern conception of civilsociety, but it has been challenged by many theorists. Neera Chandhoke and

Judith Tendler contend that the two sectors cannot be delinked as separate andcompletely exclusive spheres at conceptual level.13 To Bjrn Beckman, thisdichotomous view obscures the dialectics of their relationship as it focuses onseparateness, rather than on interrelatedness. Moreover, this analytical biasagainst the state is associated with an anti-statist ideological agenda.14Therefore, many of the contemporary civil society theorists have avoided takingsuch a dichotomous view of state and civil society, and instead highlighted thedistinction between them. For them, civil society is merely distinct from the state,and not necessarily in conflict and opposition to it. Such a position has beentaken by Robert Hefner,15 Keith Tester,16 David Anderson,17 and Jean Cohen and

Andrew Arato.18 These civil society theorists view the autonomy of civil societyfrom the state as a defining characteristic of civil society, and consider it as an

autonomous sphere independent of control by political institutions. Others whosupport the autonomous model of civil society include Charles Taylor, LarryDiamond, Gordon White, John A. Hall and He Baogang.

Taylor, for instance, contends that civil society exists in a minimal sense wherethere are free associations which are not under state tutelage and in a strongersense only where society as a whole can structure itself and co-ordinate itsactions through such associations that are free of state tutelage.19 Taylors viewis also shared by other civil society theorists and scholars such as Larry Diamondand Gordon White.20 Hall considers societal self-organization as the mostimportant characteristic of civil society, which is the ability of people to regulatetheir affairs without interference from the state.21 Baogang also assumes

autonomy from the state to be a necessary condition for the existence of civilsociety.22


5/10


97

This view of civil society as an autonomous sphere from the state has beenshared by the voluntary social movements paradigm, but here this sphere isconceptualized as a politicized arena,23 unlike the neo-conservative paradigmwherein civil society is seen as a depoliticized sphere. However, the theoreticalposition of civil societys autonomy is not without conceptual problems, whichhave been pointed out by critics. While urging for broadening the concept of civilsociety, Beckman argues that the boundaries between state and civil society may

get blurred in practice, and the autonomy of civil society organizations is variableor changeable. Moreover, in addition to autonomy in relation to the state, civilsociety may also be independent of other interest groups.24 A similar argument isforwarded by Tendler, who observes that the assumed neatly drawn boundarybetween the government and non-government sectors is quite blurred in actual.25

The autonomous model of civil society is considered to be in line with the neo-traditionalist and communitarian view of civil society, which is characterized bythe collective rights and autonomy of communities.26 It suggests that civil societyis based on a shared set of values which are embedded in public and civicinstitutions within a pluralistic framework.27 In addition, the role of community hasbeen stressed in the autonomous model of civil society.

3. Collaborative/Associational Model of Civil Society

At a theoretical level, in recent years the role of civil society has been viewed asexpanding beyond confrontation with the state, and collaborative models of stateand civil society, wherein they both collaborate with each other to overcomeproblems like poverty, have come up. Theoretically, the collaborative model ofcivil society is more in line with the welfare state view of civil society, which doesnot pose challenge to the state. Deemphasizing the political dimension of civilsociety in conceptual terms, the state-civil society collaboration is also in line withthe neo-conservative paradigm wherein civil society is understood as adepoliticized sphere. Therefore, in practice, the collaborative or associational

model of civil society is increasingly being adopted by NGOs and CSOs aroundthe world.28 As a result, civil society and the governments in many countries haveevolved a broad range of ways to collaborate and complement each othersactivities. A number of models and approaches to it have developed ranging fromcomplementary partnership with considerable degree of autonomy of civil societyorganizations from government, to financial support of the latter to the formerwith regulatory mechanisms.

In some cases, the collaborative model is considered to be better than theconfrontational model; rather seen as a preferred model so that civil society couldsurvive and be able to carry out its function.29 Empirical evidence suggests that incontrast to most of Europe, the state in Asia has often played a pivotal role in

establishing civil society.30

Though the state has the power to contain civilsociety, sometimes the state itself concedes space to civil society groups in orderto stay in power and pursue its own goals.31 Many empirical studies suggest that


6/10


98

civil society is not necessarily a realm in opposition to the state; it may also be asphere of interaction, cooperation and compromise with the state. The studies byP. C. C. Huang and H. B. Chamberlain on civil society in China, for instance,prove this point.32 The studies by Robert Weller and Hsin-huang Michael Hsiaoreveal the complex forms of interlocking of civil society with different forms ofstate power, and suggest that despite these ties, civil society can exert atransformative power in politics.33

In a similar manner, Said Amir Arjomands study on the institution of charitabletrusts as the mode of agency of civil society in premodern Persia, reveals thecomplex and at times complementary relationship between the state and civilsociety in premodern Muslim polities since there existed the historical tradition ofthe involvement of public authorities in philanthropy. He views the involvement ofpublic authorities as a source of empowering civil society and strengthening itsautonomous agency.34

4. Mediational Model of Civil Society

Transcending the state-civil society dualism implicit in the debate on civil society,

some theorists conceive of it as a mediating sphere between the state andsociety or an intermediate institutional space between them. In voluntary socialmovements paradigm, civil society is understood as an intermediate institutionalspace between private and public.35 Many civil society scholars and theoristsadvocate the meditational model of civil society. For instance, Augustus R.Norton considers civil society as a mediating structure between the society andstate, which acts as a buffer between the state and citizen.36 According to lkaySunar, civil society is the intermediate domain between the state and theindividual, in which deliberation and association take place without constraint andcoercion.37 Isagani R. Serrano, who identifies voluntary organizations with civilsociety, defines them as groups, organizations and movements freely formed bycitizens not for profit, but to advance groups interests or the common good. They

mediate between the private citizens on the one hand and state and corporatestructure on the other. They are building blocks of sense of belonging anddevelop solidarity with others.38

As mentioned earlier, Anderson, Cohen and Arato have stressed on theautonomy of civil society from the state. To them, it is this characteristic featureof civil society that enables it to perform a meditational function. Therefore,

Anderson refers to the mediating institutions of civil society,39 while Cohen andArato define it as a sphere of associations (especially voluntary ones), socialmovements, and forms of public communications that mediate betweeneconomy, state and society.40

It is important to note that the meditational model of civil society assumes civilsociety to be distinct both from the state and society. As pointed out above, thedistinction of civil society from the state has been asserted in both the


7/10


99

confrontational and autonomous models of civil society. The distinction betweencivil society and the society at large which is implicit in the meditational modeldistinguishes it from other models. None the less, it may be argued that civilsociety is not something apart or completely distinct from society. Civil societymay be seen as something internal to society. In other words, it is comprised ofpolitically conscious sections of a society which organize and regulatethemselves in order to contain and resist the high-handedness of the state.

The contemporary discourse on civil society not only reveals the shiftingemphasis on the varied characteristics and functions of civil society, it alsobetrays the multiple understandings of civil society in relation to the state. In thelight of these contested understandings, four state-civil society relational modelscan be discerned, namely the confrontational, collaborative/associational,autonomous and mediational models of civil society. The study proves that thevaried strands and patterns in the relationship between the state and civil societyimpact on the functions and nature of both the sectors.


8/10


100

References

1 The author acknowledges her gratitude to the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan,for awarding Post-doctoral Fellowship, which enabled her to undertake research onvarious aspects of the concept of civil society at the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill, USA, during 2007-08.2 Adam B. Seligman, The Idea of Civil Society (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. 201.3 Wayne Hudson, Problematizing European Theories of Civil Society, in Civil Society in

Asia, eds. David C. Schak and Wayne Hudson (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003), p. 12.4 Krishan Kumar, Civil Society: An Inquiry into the Usefulness of an Historical Term,British Journal of Sociology, vol. 44 (1993), pp. 375-95.5 Robert W. Hefner, On the History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Democratic Ideal,in Democratic Civility: The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Modern PoliticalIdeal, ed. Robert W. Hefner (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1998),p. 7. Reichardt also considers the term polymorphic. Sven Reichardt, Civility, Violenceand Civil Society, in Civil Society: Berlin Perspectives, ed. John Keane (New York:Berghahn Books, 2006), p. 141.6 M. Richter, Montesquieu and the Concept of Civil Society, The European Legacy, vol.3, no. 66 (1998), pp. 33-41. The notion of brgerliche Gesellschaft or civil society in theworks of Kant is understood as an arena or sphere that is beyond the political order butmeant to restrain the absolute power of the ruler. H. Islamoglu, Civil Society, Concept

and History of in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds.Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, vol. 3 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001), p. 1893.7 This is the model of self-regulating civil society of non-profit voluntary associationsreminiscent of the eighteenth-century Scottish Enlightenment. Islamoglu, Civil Society,Concept and History of, in International Encyclopedia of the Social and BehavioralSciences, p. 1895.8 Vaclav Havel, Anti-political Politics, in Civil Society and the State: New EuropeanPerspectives, ed. John Keane (London and New York: Verso, 1988), pp. 381-98.9 Ernest Gellner, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals (London: HamishHamilton, 1994), p. 5.10 erif Mardin, Civil Society and Islam, in Civil Society: Theory, History andComparison, ed. John Hall (Cambridge: Polity, 1995), p. 296, n2.11 John Hall, In Search of Civil Society in ibid., p. 6.12

Chris Hann, Introduction, in Civil Society: Challenging Western Models, eds. ChrisHann and Elizabeth Dunn (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 21-22.13 Judith Tendler, Good Government in the Tropics (Baltimore and London: The JohnHopkins University Press, 1997), 151-57; and Neera Chandhoke, A Critique of theNotion of Civil Society as the Third Sector, in Does Civil Society Matter?: Governancein Contemporary India, eds. Rajesh Tandon and Ranjita Mohanty (New Delhi: SagePublications, 2003), pp. 27-58. See also Neera Chandhoke, State and Civil Society:Explorations in Political Theory (New Delhi and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,1995).14 Bjrn Beckman, Explaining Democratization: Notes on the Concept of Civil Society, inCivil Society, Democracy and the Muslim World, eds. Elisabeth zdalga and SunePersson, Papers read at a conference held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul28-30 October, 1996 (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 1997), p. 3.15 Hefner, On the History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a Democratic Ideal, in inDemocratic Civility, pp. 15-19. Hefner also stresses the need of a state for civil society tofunction effectively.


9/10


101

16 Tester defines civil society clearly distinct from the state, which entails all societalrelationships. However, these relationships exclude familial relations and politicalrelations of state. Keith Tester, Civil Society, (London and New York: Routledge, 1992),p. 8.17 David Anderson, Bringing civil society to an uncivilised place: Citizenship regimes inRussias Arctic frontier, in Civil Society: Challenging Western Models, p. 112.18 Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato, Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge: The MIT

Press, 1992), p. ix.19 Charles Taylor, Modes of Civil Society, Public Culture, vol. 3. no. 1 (1990), p. 111.20 Larry Diamond, Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolidation, Journalof Democracy, July (1994), p. 5; and Gordon White, Civil Society, Democratization andDevelopment (I): Clearing the Analytical Ground, Democratization, vol. 1, no. 3 (1994),p. 379.21 John A. Hall, Genealogies of Civility, in Democratic Civility, pp. 54-55.22 Baogang sees the interaction and compromises of civil society with the state in Chinaas a sign of its being nascent, and for this reason, he labels it as semi-civil society. HeBaogang, The Making of a Nascent Civil Society in China, in Civil Society in Asia, pp.131-33; for details see pp. 114-39.23 Islamoglu, Civil Society, Concept and History of, in International Encyclopedia of theSocial and Behavioral Sciences, p. 1896.24

Beckman, Explaining Democratization: Notes on the Concept of Civil Society, in CivilSociety, Democracy and the Muslim World, pp. 4-5, 6.25 Tendler, Good Government in the Tropics, p. 146.26 Shalini Randeria, Entangled Histories: Civil Society, Cast Solidarities and legalPluralism in Post-colonial India in Civil Society: Berlin Perspectives, p. 225.27 Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: Americas Declining Social, Capital, Journal ofDemocracy, vol. 6 (1995), pp. 65-78.28 Ezra Mbogori and Hope Chigudu, Civil Society and Government: A Continuum ofPossibilities, in Civil Society at the Millennium (West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press incooperation with CIVICUS, 1999), p. 115; for a detailed discussion on the relationship ofstate and civil society, see pp. 109-22.29 Helen James, Introduction, in Civil Society, Religion and Global Governance:Paradigms for Power and Persuasion, ed. Helen James (London and New York:

Routledge, 2007), 5.30 David C. Schak and Wayne Hudson, Civil Society in Asia in Civil Society in Asia, p. 3.31 See Chua Beng-Huat, Non-Transformative Politics: Civil Society in Singapore in ibid.,p. 36.32 P. C. C. Huang, Public Sphere, Civil Society in China? : The Third Realm betweenState and Society, Modern China, vol. 19, no. 2 (1993), pp. 216-40; and H. B.Chamberlain, On the Search for Civil Society in China, Modern China, vol. 19, no. 2(1993), pp. 199-215.33 Robert Weller and Hsin-huang Michael Hsiao, The Transformation of Chinese Civil

Associations in Taiwan, Hong Kong and South China, in Civil Society in Asia, 160-79.34 Said Amir Arjomand, Philanthropy, the Law, and Public Policy in the Islamic Worldbefore the Modern Era, in Philanthropy in the Worlds Traditions, eds. Warren FrederickIlchman, Stanley Nider Katz and Edward L. Queen II (Bloomington, Ind.: IndianaUniversity Press, 1998), pp. 109-132, see esp. p. 127.35 Islamoglu, Civil Society, Concept and History of, in International Encyclopedia of theSocial and Behavioral Sciences, p. 1896.


10/10


102

36 Andrew Richard Norton, Introduction, in Civil Society in the Middle East, ed. AndrewRichard Norton, vol. I, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), p. 7.37 lkay Sunar, Civil Society and Islam in Civil Society, Democracy and the MuslimWorld, p. 9.38 Isagani R. Serrano, Civil Society in the Asia-Pacific Region (Washington D.C.: Civicus,1994), p. 3.39 David Anderson, Bringing Civil Society to an Uncivilised Place: Citizenship Regimes in

Russias Arctic Frontier, in Civil Society: Challenging Western Models, p. 115.40 Cohen and Arato, Civil Society and Political Theory, p. ix.

civil society models

Documents