This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
The comment you are replying to does not exist.

Reply to comment

edwarmi@hotmail.com

21 March 2005 - 3:28pm

Neera Chandhoke reproduces an unfaithful copy of the argument I actually make. Here’s what Chandhoke has to say: “Civil society”, Edwards argues, “is the story of ordinary people living extraordinary lives through their relationships with each other, driven forward by a vision of the world that is ruled by love and compassion, non-violence and solidarity.” The implication is that this is yet another starry-eyed account of a deeply-suspicious concept. And here is the actual quotation in full: “At its best, civil society is the story of ordinary people living extraordinary lives through their relationships with each other, driven forward by a vision of the world that is ruled by love and compassion, non-violence and solidarity. At its worst, it is little more than a slogan, and a confusing one at that, but there is no need to focus on the worst of things and leave the best behind. Warts and all, the idea of civil society remain compelling, not because it provides the tidiest of explanations but because it speaks to the best in us, and calls on the best in us to respond in kind.” Like Chandhoke, I criticise any conception of civil society that ignores the “dark side” of voluntary associations, relegates the role of the State, politics or parties to the margins, or fails to address the problems of inequality and violence in the public sphere. Recognizing the problems of civil society’s current confusion is the easy part; trying to resolve them by developing some new ideas that tie these threads together is where the hard work starts. After all, there’s no need to wallow in the “dark side”. Unfortunately, Chandhoke ignores this section of my book, but she does go on to cite Paul Hilder’s useful contribution to openDemocracy’s debate on “open politics”, which echoes some of what I also have to say. How far does the book succeed in this practical sense? You won’t get an unbiased answer from me, but you can check out the reviews here, buy the book (here if you are in the UK) and read it. If you can’t afford it, send me an email at M.Edwards@fordfound.org and I’ll send you the Preface that summarizes the argument for free. Then you can judge for yourself. Mike Edwards PS: As Hobbes has rightly pointed out, the Ford Foundation is not connected to the Ford Motor Company