Tag Archives: civil society

Civil Society.

Posted on by
Reply

            “The order [halting government payments to external bodies] sparked chaos at universities, charities, local government, and other bodies reliant on federal funding,…”[1]  Sort of an off-the-cuff statement that arouses no alarm unless your ox is one of those getting gored.  Still, it’s worth thinking about a little bit. 

            One way of thinking about the issues is the following.  Jurgen Habermas (1929– ) is a brilliant German philosopher.[2]  OTOH, so was Karl Marx.  What did that get us?  “Boiler suits, prison camps, and a damn long march to nowhere.”[3]  One of the many interesting ideas propounded by Habermas, on the basis of deep learning in a host of areas, is the distinction between the “public sphere” and the “private sphere.”  He defined the “public sphere” as “made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state.”  The “private sphere,” in contrast, the place where “an individual enjoys a degree of authority and tradition, unhampered by interventions from governmental, economic or other institutions.”  Religion, family life, sexual relations in private are current examples of this “private sphere.”[4]   Taken together, they create “civil society.”  By “civil society” is meant “1) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government or 2) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that advance the interests and will of citizens.”[5] 

            In recent-for-me times, the Czech writer and dissident (even when he was in power), Vaclav Havel[6] used the term civil society to describe all the groups menaced by Communism’s relentless drive to subordinate every person and group into conformity with the state’s wishes. 

            Here’s the thing: “universities, charities, local government, and other bodies” is pretty much an operational definition of “civil society.” 

            The institutions of civil society are supposed to be “individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government.”  The fact that they are “reliant on federal funding” indicates just how deeply the institutions of “civil society” have been penetrated and compromised by the State.  With the money comes regulations, requirements, audits. 

 Yet, “the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions” are supposed to “advance the interests and will of citizens.”  They are supposed to engage in discussion and even confrontation.  Hard to do when you’re the hired help. 

None of this is the product of a sinister conspiracy.[7]  It’s just convenience, then inertia. 

[1] “Trump orders cause whiplash in Washington,” The Week, 7 February 2025, p. 4. 

[2] Jürgen Habermas – Wikipedia

[3] Jim Prideaux in John Le Carre, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1974).    

[4] However, these things can shift over time.  For the Greeks and for Europeans in the Reformation, religion was a public concern that required continual and public assent, but the authorities didn’t much care if you whacked your kid.  “Boys have always been beaten and it would be a bad day for the world if boys ceased to be beaten.”  C.S. Forester, Lieutenant Hornblower.  The statement is made during the run-up to the murder of a sadistic Navy captain.

[5] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society  NB: I reversed the order of the terms because I want to consider a particular point. 

[6] Guy reminds me a bit of Roger Williams.  Turn left when everyone else turns right.  Turn left because everyone else turns right.  “Let us honor if we can the vertical man, though we value none but the horizontal one.”—W.S. Auden. 

[7] Regardless of what Republican or Democratic activists may believe. 

Civil Society.

Posted on by
Reply

            What is the relationship between the Individual and Government?  In the Western tradition of political thought, the answer to that question has been “civil society.”  However, the term “civil society” has meant different specific things at different times.  For the Greeks, it was the achievement of the “good life” through the “polis” (city-state); for the Romans of both the Republic and the Empire, the state and civil society were identical.  For Western Europeans of the Middle Ages, the term had no meaning in the decentralized system of feudalism and the social-economic system of serfdom.  During the Early Modern Period (c. 1500-1750), Absolute Monarchy became the ideal political form, even if reality rarely matched the ideal.  However, Absolute Monarchy’s ever-advancing claims to regulate aspects of life, provoked a reaction.  The most important thinker of this reaction was John Locke, who elaborated the existing “social contract” theory of politics as a check on absolutism. 

A bunch of thinkers then piled-on to Locke’s argument.  Hegel, De Tocqueville, and Marx all argued, in their various ways, that civil society meant the limiting of government power by the spontaneous creation and functioning of independent groups in a society.  The Nineteenth Century Liberal ideal of a small state rested, in part, on a faith in “voluntarism”[1] in a healthy society.  Massive population growth, industrialization, and political conflicts transformed the context of this argument.  In particular, the rise of the modern dictatorships between the two World Wars expanded the reach of government into private and associational life.[2]  The Nazis and the Soviets, in particular, either subordinated or destroyed and replaced with their own creations all independent social organizations. 

In theory, the emergence of “problem-solving” representative governments in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries should not produce the same collapse of civil society.  Yet, at least in the United States, that seems to have happened in the years since 1950.  More than twenty years ago, Robert Putnam argued that the long stretch of years after the Second World War witnessed a grievous decline in associational activities.[3]  Putnam’s explanations for this decline do not include the expansion of government substitutes.  However, Republicans have not hesitated to treat state expansion beyond certain limits as pathological.[4] 

Regardless of the cause of as social atomization, the atomization seems real.  One result is a “crisis of loneliness.”[5]  Democrats and Republicans may differ over whether the answer is to be found in government action or in private initiative.  The health of both private individuals and of democracy may be at stake in finding the right answers. 

[1] “See a problem, solve a problem.”  So, youth groups, sports groups, church groups, professional associations, trade unions, civic associations, hobby clubs.  NB: Night clubs and strip clubs don’t count. 

[2] On the Fascist dictatorships, see Victoria de Grazia, The Culture of Consent: Mass Organizations of Leisure in Fascist Italy, (Cambridge UP, 1981); Julia Timpe, Nazi-Organized Recreation and Entertainment in the Third Reich, (Palgrave Macmillan UK 2016).  For the Soviet Union, see the photographic exhibit of Peter Marlow, Recuperation and Recreation in Soviet Russia: Holidaying Behind the Iron Curtain • Peter Marlow • Magnum Photos   

[3] Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000). 

[4] This is particularly the case for federal welfare policies pursued since the “Great Society” of the Sixties.  However, the deluge of government spending during and after the Covid pandemic has become a prime target for Republicans who criticize dependence upon government payments.  In their eyes, it undermines self-reliance and self-respect. 

[5] John Leland, “How Loneliness Is Damaging Our Health,” New York Times, 20 April 2022; and Vivek Murthy, “Addressing the Public Health Crisis of Loneliness,” Addressing the public health crisis of loneliness – Bing video