Civil society as a contested field of meanings

Abstract

Purpose -During recent years, the concept of civil society, particularly global civil society, has come to the fore in both academia and policy circles. A key component of recent theoretical and policy research is the attempt to do international comparative research on the meaning of civil society. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the language and the terminology used to describe the agents of civil society are reflective of cultural and historical contexts of societies, have distinct meanings and cannot be used interchangeably. Design/methodology/approach -In different national contexts, the key agents of civil society are referred to differently; nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy. In comparative studies, scholars often list these concepts to indicate that they recognise that the agents of civil society are referred to differently in different societies. The article offers a socio-historical analysis of each concept. It is concluded that teasing out the differences, as well as the similarities, between the nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy, is crucial to robust comparative research on civil society. Findings -This paper exposes a number of limitations of each of the terminologies used to describe civil society. They all present a much more limiting notion of civil society than that proposed by the founding fathers. None seem to capture the range of civil associations in any society. Yet, assumptions are made that the terminologies used have similar meanings rather than attempting to clarify and define exactly what is being written or described. This is exacerbated by the interchangeable usage of nonprofit/third sector/community and voluntary sector/social economy. In order to progress beyond culturally specific understandings of civil society, it is necessary to examine the terminology used and how it emanates from a specific cultural and political context. Having a clear understanding of the language used and what it signifies is crucial to robust cross-national comparative research. Originality/value -This paper examines context specific understandings of civil society and the terminology used to define it; a question not previously addressed. It is hoped that this article will generate much needed further debate on cross-national meanings of civil society.

The Sport, Development and Peace Sector: A Model of Four Social Policy Domains

“…Having its theoretical roots in Kantian social philosophy, the idea of a global civil society has been addressed in detail in recent years by diverse social scientists, partly because of the rise of new social, political and economic policies within an increasingly interdependent world (cf. Anheier et al, 2007;Bartelson, 2006;Chandhoke, 2005;Chandler, 2005;Kaldor, 2003aKaldor, , 2003bKeane, 2003;Munck, 2006;Roginsky and Shortall, 2009;Taylor, 2004).…”

“…Moreover, the concept of global civil society, which I introduce here, may be used to examine a wide range of social policy issues and questions that have transnational dimensions (cf. Kaldor, 2003a;Pfau-Effinger, 2005;Roginsky and Shortall, 2009). This concept also confirms our understanding of globalisation as a process that is complex, multi-faceted and politically contested -in contrast to its more simplified presentation by neo-liberals (Clarke, 2004: 29).…”

Civil Society in the Shadow of the Irish State

“…The notion of civil society is problematic conceptually and is a contested field of meanings (Chambers and Kapstein 2006;Taylor 2006;Roginsky and Shortall 2009). The approach taken here mirrors Cohen and Arato's where civil society is defined as 'a sphere of social interaction between economy and state ' (1992: ix).…”

Gender, Migration and Development: Can Advocacy Groups Be More of a Hindrance than a Help?

“…While the meaning of civil society is contested, there is agreement that it is seen as including the multitude of associations around which society voluntarily organizes itself and which represent a wide range of interests and ties. These can include community-based organizations, indigenous peoples' organisations and non-government organizations (Roginsky and Shortall 2009; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development 2006). Two general types are relevant to this paper: professional organisations dependent on government (NGOs) and other non-profit bodies including smaller grass-roots organisations reliant on private donors (often community and church based).…”