FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Infusing Civil Society With Hope for a Better World

David A. Palmer is a highly accomplished scholar who has focused considerable energy on studying Asian religions at the University of Hong Kong. He has published books on Chinese religious life and Dream trippers: global Daoism and the predicament of modern spirituality. In his conceptually rich chapter, “Religion, spiritual principles and civil society,” in Religion and public discourse in an age of transition: reflections on Baha’i practice and thought (2018), Palmer lays out the conceptual foundations of Baha’i engagement in the “public sphere of collective global discourse” (p. 37).

This concept of “civil society,” he informs us, is attractive, because it designates a sphere (or space) somewhat free from “direct state control, from market forces, and from particularistic interest groups; and that contains a great diversity of groups, associations networks, and movements that self-organize, act to improve or transform social conditions, and participate in public discourses” (ibid.).

Civil society is widely perceived as a good thing

Civil society is widely perceived as a good thing. The idea of a vibrant civil society is “pursued and promoted by international foundations, government policies, development organizations, UN agencies, and academic institutions” (ibid.). Everybody loves civil society! Well, not quite everybody. Critics have pointed out that civil society associations’ moral integrity and inclusivity are not regulated. Things can go bad. Strictly speaking, a fascist organization resides in civil society; it can paint anti-semitic signs on household doors. Civil society associations may manifest racist and sexist attitudes; they may even exclude certain people from membership.

Why, then, this “nearly universal legitimation of civil society?” Palmer observes that a host of positive values (such as solidarity, participation, volunteerism, altruism, generosity, and justice) are associated with civil society. Civil society is imagined as a “realm of freedom” where people can solve problems and “sacrifice their narrow interests for the common good” (ibid.). The reason why this can be true is that civil society contains “moral and cultural resources” to draw upon. Civil society is also hailed as a counterpoint to market and state hegemonic interests.

Palmer informs us that Baha’i teachings and its world-wide community pattern of engagement “generally predispose Baha’is to support and identify with those elements of civil society that promote the enhancement of human dignity and reinforce unity and solidarity within and among communities” (p. 38). He observes that Baha’i values such as establishing “peace, unity, and justice among the peoples of the world; overcoming racism and prejudice of all kinds; building equality between men and women; reducing economic inequality; promoting universal education; and establishing world citizenship” (ibid.) are confluent with the core values of many civil society organizations and associations. From the early twentieth century Baha’is have been active in movements for women’s rights and racial equality. As the Faith spread outside the Middle East into South America and India, initiatives and projects occurred in health, literacy, agricultural technology and grassroots education.

Four dimensions of civil society

Palmer makes an important contribution to the civil society literature by identifying four dimensions of the civil society discourse: associational, deliberative, symbolic and emancipatory. This “associational fabric” of civil society—based on “flourishing, lively groups that are spontaneously organized among the people; this is the soil and the social space in which people learn to self-organize, to work together with civility, and to cooperate across different associations” (p. 41). The central idea here is that “popular self-organization” always moves in the direction of “social progress and solidarity” (ibid.).

But, Palmer reminds us, serious dangers of idealization and romanticizing of civil society await around the dark corner.  Palmer states: “Many voluntary groups are violent, racist, extremist, or intolerable” (ibid.). This has, in turn, given rise to distinctions between good and bad society: thus, the “democratic” nature of civil society can be called into question by association in the service of xenophobia, fanaticism, violence or the suppression of women. Palmer raises the pertinent question of the values civil society associations ought to embody.

The deliberative dimension can be linked to Habermas’s notion of the public sphere (social spaces and discursive practices). In these spaces common norms, values and ideas are debated and cultivated. People can be drawn out of private and particularistic interests and converge and engage with each other. Discourses emerging from these spaces can influence political, legal and social institutions. So, deliberative civil society operates at the level of discourses and rules of discourse. The symbolic dimension: Palmer draws attention to Jeff Alexander’s notion of the “civil sphere” that develops a useful vocabulary revealing the assumptions underlying assimilation and multiculturalism. Alexander urges us to pay attention to “exclusionary binary codes” that create an exclusionary and restricted civil society.

The emancipatory dimension: “The incorporation of groups into the civil sphere represents not only the expansion of the sphere of solidarity, but also liberation from political, social and cultural oppression” (p. 44). There are different approaches to the emancipatory dimension of civil society. Gramsci’s approach sees civil society as soil to grow “countervailing forces.” A second strand set forth by Adam Michnik demonstrates how civil society activity in Eastern Europe prepared people’s consciousness and lay the foundation for the end of authoritarianism and establishment of liberal democracy.

This emancipatory dimension is infused with hope for a better world. Palmer says that civil society is “fully institutionalized and legitimate component of the liberal-democratic order” (p. 45). While these models have spread to other parts of the world, they may exist alongside non-democratic practices and traditional forms of associational life. Western-based NGOs tend to dominate funding and intermediary work.

Civil society organizations take the Western neo-liberal order for granted

Palmer suggests that “emancipatory promise of civil society” must be considered within historical and geopolitical location of global and civil societies. He points out that  Western civil society organizations take the Western liberal order for granted. Civil society organizations could defend the existing order; or, they may confront the prevalent order. Interestingly, Palmer makes the important point that most civil society organizations have no “vision of a progression beyond Western liberal democracy” (ibid.). Nor do they envision what differentiates the role of civil society in the paradigm of global governance and its imagined role in the new world order of the post-national constellation.

Thus, the Western social, economic, and economic system becomes the preeminent ideal of emancipation. Palmer says that this Western vision if flawed for two reasons: one, it falsely assumes that Western liberal democracies represent the “end of history,” and two, that the Western notion of civil society is a component of global economic and geopolitical order. This means that it is structurally inseparable from the oppression of other regimes.

Another powerful critique of Western notions of civil society is that it is used as a geopolitical tool (in provision of development aid and promotion of political reform). Palmer counsels us to account for the partisan geopolitical and ideological forces at play in shaping civil society. It is unnerving to consider that civil society discourse is integral to the “Washington consensus” of market ascendancy: NGOs and charity organizations usurp role of old grassroots movements and state. Some scholars now speak of “neo-liberal governance.”

With revolution off the agenda, NGOs settled in to professionalize and operate on grants from private foundations or international aid agencies. Now, with the state incapable of solving any problems, society could self-organize under the market and civil society. At the same time, Palmer argues, the associational fabric of civil society could apparently generate social mobilization to keep governments in check or even topple authoritarian regimes.

The contemporary normative discourse of civil society is thus closely tied with the expansion of capitalism and Western-style democracy. This means, for one thing, that civil society organizations are perceived by anti-Western forces as ushering in pro-Western democratic regimes. These latter regimes have been fought against, and Palmer thinks that in Russia, China and the Arab world, resistance has been linked with assertive authoritarianism, fractured societies or total societal disintegration. To join the pro-American camp means, these days, that one capitulates to American hegemony and radically unequal forms of social organization.

Thus, civil society organizations operating in non-Western settings find themselves in a difficult position. Even opposition groups may have to receive support from foundations and governments that have little interest in transforming the Western socio-political order. The emancipatory function of civil society can be undercut by its association with Western hegemony, which leads authoritarian regimes to strive to prevent the growth of an independent civil society, in the Western liberal understanding of the term.

For Palmer, civil society can be defined as referring to social spaces for the voluntary and expansive expression of values of human solidarity. Crucial here, then, is the linking of space with structured norms and values that define human relationships. Palmer’s seminal argument is very important: many of the shortcomings of civil society can be linked to a common problem—the “tearing apart of the values of solidarity that underpin civil society, whether caused by associations whose values, ideals, or practices are damaging to an expansive solidarity; diverse forms of public discourse; exclusionary cultural codes; or co-optation by political forces or geopolitical interests” (p. 48).

More articles by:

Dr. Michael Welton is a professor at the University of Athabasca. He is the author of Designing the Just Learning Society: a Critical Inquiry.

September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail