Response to Neera Chandhoke's "What the hell is 'civil society'?"

Submitted by shikejian on 18 March 2005 - 10:07am

Tags:

Ms Chandhoke's response to Michael Edward's proposal and support for "civil society" is very thoughtful and succinctly notes the problems with such an organization of peoples. However, it is a useless argument, for it really misses the underlying basis for a civil society. Civil society rests on the belief that a society is an economic assemblage, that all problems are economic and can be solved by economics. Unfortunately, not all problems in the world, not all problems in a society are economically based, despite Marx and his predecessors and successors. As the underlying assumption to a civil society is specious, there really is no argument about a civil society; if there is, then both sides are accepting the underlying assumption...unless that underlying assumption is questioned. With Ms Chandhoke, no questioning of the underlying assumption was broached. The problems of society are not caused by economics nor are they solved by economics (though they may be exacerbated by economics). There is no single problem and, therefore, there is no single solution--and that is another reason "civil society" is facile, specious. Too, we must remember where Mr. Edwards comes from: the Ford Foundation. Ford. Maker of automobiles and things. Mass marketer of globalization and maker of massive profits at people's expense. Mr. Edwards, then, is really supporting the betterment of his employers--as should be obvious by the empty rhetoric he used to define his civil society: a slew of meaningless words, cliches and slogans ["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."].

Hobbes

19 March 2005 - 5:38pm

"Civil society rests on the belief that a society is an economic assemblage, that all problems are economic and can be solved by economics." Shikejian-- We may be working with very different conceptions of civil society here, but I think you are quite mistaken. The term does makes *no* assumptions about what society is, what its problems are, or what possibile solutions there might be. On the contrary, the concept refers to the belief that there are realms of social life in which people gather together, compelled neither by economic necessity nor by the weight of governmental authority, to formulate, discuss and undertake projects of mutual concern. It assumes that "society" holds a minimal, but potentially expandable, zone of free action; the zone may overlap with political and economic life at several points, but it does not coincide with and is not reducible to them. Perhaps you consider this "specious;" if so, I wonder how you conceive of "society." You are also mistaken when you say that the Ford Foundation is "Maker of automobiles and things. Mass marketer of globalization and maker of massive profits at people's expense. Mr. Edwards, then, is really supporting the betterment of his employers" The Ford Foundation is quite distinct from the Ford Motor Company, and has been so for at least fifty years. The Foundation was, it is true, established with money derived from automobile manufactures, but its concerns are quite different. Unless, that is, you assume that forums like openDemocracy (which the Ford Foundation supports) exist only for "the betterment of [their] employers," in which case I wonder why you bother contributing.

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