Framing the Field

Abstract

This article considers how to frame the area of scholarship that deals with concepts such as third sector, nonprofit, voluntary sector, civil society, philanthropy, nongovernmental organizations, social economy, and public benefit organizations. In spite of more than 30 years' history of the field, which we refer to here broadly as civil society studies, there is not one single term that covers the whole sphere. This article focuses on the different concepts and evaluates their content and connotations. It suggests that attempts to use categorizations should be replaced with the Wittgensteinian idea of family resemblance.

Civil liberties and Volunteering in Six Former Soviet Union Countries

“…The freedom to assemble and participate freely in organizations is a key aspect of democratization (Diamond, 1999). These are often seen as basic freedoms of a democratic society (Linz & Stepan, 1996) and a pre-condition for the existence of civil society and its agents such as nonprofit organizations (Muukkonen, 2009). Consequently, civil liberties as an outcome of democratization and institutional changes form an important pre-condition for voluntary work.…”

Managing Boundaries: The Role of Non-Profit Organisations in Russia’s Managed Democracy

“…Second, our article contributes to the discussion of civil society in restrictive contexts. As illustrated at the onset of the article, human service NPOs have the potential to contribute to the democratisation process by holding the state to account within their area of expertise ( Muukkonen, 2009 ). However, Lewis (2013) suggests that in such restrictive contexts civil society agents do little to contribute to further democratisation as they lack public engagement, horizontal cooperation and reflect dominant political culture.…”

“…Traditional approaches to civil society assume a political context that is supportive of both civil society activity and public participation ( Hsu, 2010 ). The Tocquevillian participatory conceptualisation of civil society thus dominates the understanding of this concept ( Hayes and Horne, 2011 ; Muukkonen, 2009 ; Petrova and Tarrow, 2007 ). Emphasising the ‘space located between the family and the state’ ( Henry and Sundstrom, 2006 : 5) it excludes the market ( Ehrenberg, 1999 ) and political parties ( Henry and Sundstrom, 2006 ).…”

“…It is these voluntary associations that form the basis for the concern of this study – non-profit organisations (NPOs). Thus NPOs are institutionalised actors within civil society and some can be described as organisations that engage in providing services to a designated constituency ( Muukkonen, 2009 ). They are frequently referred to as human service NPOs ( Almog-Bar and Schmid, 2014 ).…”

“…In a democratising context, the literature attributes primacy to organisations that promote (human) rights and are mainly focused on protest or advocacy ( Muukkonen, 2009 ; Petrova and Tarrow, 2007 ; Tarrow, 1988 ) and, therefore, often neglects the role human service NPOs could potentially play ( Javeline and Lindemann-Komarova, 2010 ). Rights-focused NPOs tend to be confrontational and are consequently, as in the Russian case, more likely to be closely regulated by the state to negate dissent ( Daucé, 2015 ; Lewis, 2013 ; Ljubownikow et al, 2013 ; Robertson, 2009 ).…”