Civil  society  is contested  idea with several  authors and actors proffering  multiple, conflicting, conceptions  of its norms, forms, functions, spaces,  etc. Craft a 4-5-page essay enunciating your  own conception of civil society and its primary role(s)

Civil society through the ages

Civil society is the association of people with a common interest, gathered outside of their private life. Sitting between the family and the state, civil societies make a distinction of an association due to personal reasons – such as religious practices – and interests. While the definition and what it encompasses is both contested and controversial, authors tend to agree on the practical aspect of it: people gathering to advance an interest. This interest might vary in nature and topic, but it should never be concerned with seeking power through economic reasons (making money out of the participation) or political reasons (looking to participate in the state as opposed to hold it accountable). The associational life is possible through the law, but it also holds the law accountable. It seeks to influence politicians by advocating for the public interest, but it does not seek to control them. For all intents and purposes, civil society can be compared to a lawyer in court: a defender, a representative of a group, advocating for their needs and interests, catering to an authority for their arguments to be respected and be taken seriously

According to L. Diamond, there are seven types of civil societies: economic (commercial associations), cultural (religious, ethnic, communal associations), informational and educational (for the production and dissemination of knowledge), interest-based (advance the interest of the group’s members), developmental (advance the quality of life of the community), issue-oriented (movements for action/causes), and civic(for democracy). Beyond their interests and means, there is debate around whether ascriptive groups should also be considered civil societies. On one hand some scholars argue that, due to their shared identity and pull towards a common goal, ascriptive groups are civil societies in practice: they gather voluntarily outside of their private life, without intents of power in the state, sharing an interest and a goal. Others, however, make a distinction on voluntarily and involuntary association: the fact that a person engages in an activity with member not in their family does not necessarily mean that it is outside their private life. In a religious context, for example, attending mass is a private activity, and so should not be considered part of a civil society. However, forming part of a group that advances religious interests, such as a pro-life movement, does engage with the public sphere, therefore being a civil society.

Traditionally, civil societies are seen as the hallmark of democracy by making use of and representing its core aspects: freedom of speech, of movement and participation, and the opportunity to contribute to society in a meaningful way. It is no surprise, therefore, that they are frequently judged and qualified according to democratic values and their associated characteristics. Outside of western countries, this approach has the tendency to result in a clear division between civil and ‘uncivil’ societies, where the later is used to describe groups with non-democratic values or methods, such as nationalism, populism or violence. On a western context, it makes sense, as these are traits that are not seen as part of a ‘good’ society and have not led to positive outcomes; in most other places, where democracy is an introduced concept and not a native one, it does not translate quite as easily. In post-communists societies, for instance, most civil societies would be considered uncivil due to their clearly nationalist/populist tones. What this definition fails to encompass, however, is that these ‘undemocratic’ values are nothing but: it was the nationalist movement in Eastern Europe what prompted the rejection of communism in favor of self-governance through democracy. Moreover, these characteristics are born out of need (such as the post-communist example), and have been observed to ‘die-out’ or self-regulate once their usefulness is done. Nationalism is useful to join a country; once united, it becomes an afterthought, focused instead of how to keep together through other mediums, such as tolerance and inclusion. If this associations would have been crossed out from the start, this development would not have been observed.

The distinction between civil and uncivil society is useless in practical terms, and is only justified for differentiating between the type of methods employed in an academic, analytical sense. Saying that one value is good in one moment but bad in another is an entirely empirical observation that cannot be analyzed outside of an imposed, arbitrary view. Forcing developed democratic values instead of letting them develop on their own is harmful both for the concept of democracy and for the society, as the concept degenerates from ‘the will of everyone’ to ‘what they told us we want’. This is true of any imposed system, not just democracy, and it’s a common problem in post-colonial states where the power gap tends to be filled by other powerful democratic countries with their own agendas and interests. For the state to have a proper democracy, whatever version or interpretation of it, these values should develop on their own, not be forced by other actors.

In the digital age, as with many other things, civil societies are different from its traditional conception. The rise of social media and the internet gave way to an incredible level of interconnectedness, resulting in a huge rise of all types and sizes of organizations and associations. Where interactions have been historically limited to physical spaces and face-to-face conversations, computers and smartphones have made distance communication instant and easier to perform, resulting in relationships and communities that would not have been seen normally. Due to its inherent anonymity, associations in the internet may have members of all ages, religions, genders and countries, without anyone being aware of it at a glance. This exposure is excellent for community building and communication, but it is also a prime ground for conflict. By not associating an interaction with a physical person or identify (and, at times, even then), behaviors and opinions that are normally frowned upon in mainstream society have a place to flourish in the cover of anonymous and private interactions. These ‘trolls’ – people who voice and incite violence, discrimination and other unsavory characteristics – have been part of the internet since its start. The phrase ‘don’t feed the trolls’ alludes to the thought that these people are not really violent, but rather they are attention seekers that want to get a rise and reaction out of people. With every passing day we see, however, that ignoring the problem only made it worse

For the past two decades, most of the world has moved some – if not most – of its business infrastructure into the internet. The existence of something intangible, without physical costs or repairs to make, the opportunity to automate and control are extremely attractive to multiple groups. And so, most of the cumbersome aspects of life have been automated and simplified for the sake of commodity, with the help of the internet: digital currencies and cash-free transactions, self-checkout/in, government forms, homework submission, grade reporting, etc. The possibilities and applications are endless. The unintended side effect of this, however, is a decrease in human interaction, as people recognize that it is easier to get a machine do something for them than to talk to the cashier, to the pizza deliverer, or anything that does not hold intrinsic value for them. Thus, with less interactions, the differences between people become more prominent, as there is no grounds for common interests or characteristics to emerge or be identified. Identities become more secular. Groups are shrunk and by consequence, cross-cutting environment cease to exist, which are vital for recognizing fellow citizens as such and give them a value as a person (as opposed to one of the crowd, or ‘the other’), which in turn gives way to mistrust and stereotypization. All of this is possible outside of the internet, and indeed is a common understanding in times of war, where association is limited intentionally, but in modern times it has been exacerbated by it. It is not a coincidence, then, that we see the brunt consequences of the resulting isolation, in the internet itself – and in real life too.

Social media ‘changed the game’ for many things, including but not limited to distance communication, information sharing, keeping in touch with loved ones, news feed, among others. As mentioned above, this is incredible for community building, but also prone to misuse. Due to the shrinking of physical social spaces and the resulting isolation of identity groups, black and white thinking has become normalized and has resulted in a clear misuse of social media, where people with differing opinions and identities attack each other, both in the platforms used and in real life. Death threats, ‘doxxing’ – the act of revealing a person’s identity by associating their internet persona with personal information – and bullying are increasingly more common in arguments that in a physical interaction would never lead to such animosity. And so social media becomes a double-edged sword, where communities gather for both good and evil.

What we conceive as civil societies has changed over the course of the years, both in academic terminology and practical means. What was once thought to be purely democratic has been shown to be used for non-democratic ends, or through non traditionally democratic means. The rise of the internet, changing the world and the conception of space, also changed civil societies. At its core, however, it remains unchanged: people gathering for a cause, freely. It matters not if it is in a park, or a house, or a chat room, so long as conversation is engaged, and a interest is met.

References: