The following piece is an essay I was assigned to write for my "Governance & Global Civil Society" class this semester. It is a reflection paper of a Michael Edwards' book simplistically entitled, "Civil Society". The book has become a standard work of reference for those who seek to understand the role of citizenship and voluntary civil action in the contemporary globalized (or should I say "globalizing") world in which we live. I would definitely recommend it for those who are interested in differences of interepration of words such as, "democracy", "society", "civil society", "nationalism", along with many other words... and/or navigate through the inquiries associated with these words. It's fairly short for a subjects to which he relates (192 pages), and it concisely states examples well-related to his arguments.
September 12, 2012
Civil Society: How We Have Made a Difference
In the 21st century, the term “civil society” is becoming a central organizing concept of the social sciences. Since the substantial increase in decentralization of government, many of our current debates about politics and social policy challenge the public to look at things in a new way. I have personally felt that, as time progresses, it gets more difficult to have a conversation with someone on this matter without looking at things from different contexts; in other words, one must compare the present day to historical events and/or cultures. In his book (2009), Michael Edwards continuously uses examples to describe these complex issues and asks us several questions within each chapter that help us think critically on the subject at hand.
One of the thematic reasons behind the new notion of “civil society” derives from the concept of inclusivity. As stated throughout the book, the phrase “civil society” has different meanings. In the beginning, the author explains that an individual; state; country; region; or culture may see civil society as a specific product for a government and/or organization(s) to uphold. He refers to more specific examples of the translation of civil society; Bangladesh translates civil as “gentle” society, while Turkey translates civil as “that which is not related to the military”. (p. 46)
On a related note, the discussion of the distinctions between a “strong civil society” and a “society that is strong and civil” (p. 62) is a concept I have not acknowledged in the past. Edwards implies that the world currently should have a foundation of the latter. In the past, debates have taken place where people use the rhetoric of their arguments to “win” against their “enemies”. From the perspective of civil society needing to be “good,” Michael Edwards makes a valid point by saying that it is necessary to “find [one’s] allies – and identify [one’s] enemies.” (p. 62) By metaphorically thinking of people who follow this logic as the “heroes” of global governance, doesn’t this mean that we are assuming that not everyone wants peace; love; and civility? As a matter of fact, wouldn’t this also imply that we are trying to seek out the evil in people who are seen as a threat to “our” society? Wouldn’t this, in turn, hypocritically impede what they are trying to promote in the first place? Finally, the definition of “good” seems like a qualitative measure that cannot be obtained: how do we know if we are progressing (or regressing)? In the era in which we currently live, and every other era before it, I cannot think of any one instance where this idea has actually worked. I wouldn’t eliminate the idea completely, but I would argue that the foundation of civil society should be built on Edwards’ use of the term, “strong civil society”.
For years, I have criticized the western world’s continuous creation of NGOs and the encouragement of volunteers. It is not because of the work they do (because I know that they have good intentions), but it is what they represent. This decentralization of government (in most parts of the world) is an attempt to shift the issues that all levels of government have been striving to “fix”. Edwards claims that the issue is not about what/who can make a society civil. Instead, we should be working to strengthen the pre-conditions in which interactions between all three sectors he mentions (association life, good society, and the public sphere) attribute to peace and social justice.
Throughout his book, Edwards discusses how all forms of “inequality” need to be eliminated via pre-existing features in the world: discrimination, lack of civil rights, the refusal to grant independence of states or regions, and the lack of communication between associations. What I personally learned through his wisdom is the idea of looking at things from other people’s points of view, while investigating something more important than what Edwards mentions only sporadically. I would argue that we would need to focus on an even bigger picture than what the concept of inequality signifies, as inequality refers to an unequal distribution of resources. This is only a result that is produced by the concept of inequity, which refers to the unfair, avoidable differences which arise from poor governance, corruption, or cultural exclusion. Based on this idea, I would raise two final questions: “What are the elements (and lack thereof) that expand or assist in the worldwide inequities remain?” and “What can we do to prevent these inequities from impeding the existence of a civil society?” Based on Edwards’ ideas, we cannot answer these questions without the involvement and consensus of all associations. Only then will we move forward and create a positive influence for our respective communities.
