No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Civility and Global Civil Society: The Missing Link
Abstract
Globalization implies increases in the frequency and range of interactions among individuals, organizations, societies and cultures across borders. A growing number of such interactions will involve actors from diverse backgrounds and with varying values and differing expectations. Greater frequency, broader range and higher diversity may well invite frictions and tensions, and even bring violent conflicts. To counteract, even prevent, the potential for differences to escalate into disappointment, disengagement or conflict, a set of norms and behaviours well beyond simple acts of courtesy — that is, civility — should govern and guide such interactions, especially across borders. Identifying these norms and behaviours and understanding the meaning and functions of civility as well as the institutions and organizations involved can thus be seen as key tasks for research on globalization. However, ‘civility’, like the term ‘civil society’, with which it shares close linguistic and historical affinity, remains under-researched, as does the link between the two concepts generally.
... Our focus on the entanglement inherent in civility builds from but also moves beyond scholarly tendencies to account for these multiple directionalities of civility through a focus on "ambivalence" (Anheier 2011;Coleman 2008;DeMott 1996;White 2006). Our criticism of ambivalence is meant to be modest and respectful: to be clear, we understand the idea of ambivalence as an important step in theorizing civility, because it accurately stresses how there can be multiple different aspects of civility at play in any social formation. ...
The literature on civility navigates the gravitational pulls of binary camps: civility sceptics tend to emphasize how it operates as an instrument of power; civility optimists tend to emphasize its emancipatory potentials. While some scholarship has attempted to reconcile these perspectives by showing how civility can be both negative and positive, such theorization tends to describe this relation in terms of ambivalence. While these approaches rightly indicate that normative judgments about civility are largely a matter of perspective, the concept of twisted civility developed here focuses on the ways in which actors become trapped by the dynamic shifts of force embedded within civility. Comparisons across seemingly incommensurate examples suggest that such multidirectional dynamics are not culturally specific but rather more generalizable. Building our theoretical conception of twisted civility from a comparative approach based on research in Kuching and Saigon, and then using the concept to consider examples from the United States and Denmark, this article also reverses the direction of theorizing typically employed in scholarship on civility. Using postcolonial Southeast Asia as the source of theory rather than its afterthought, the method here uses anthropological comparison to generate theory and to problematize assumptions that universalize Euro-American trajectories of civility.
The overthrow of Communism by people’s revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s testified to the power of civil society against the totalitarian Communist state.1 The result of the demonstrable political power of the people was an intellectual rediscovery of the concept of civil society, alongside its escape from the constraints of national borders and its reconceptualisation as a global civil society. At the same time, a triple transition from Communism, as Offe described it famously, constituted by political and economic liberalisation, alongside in many cases from the Balkans to the Caucasus, violent reconstitution of nation states,2 shed light on the complexity of political change, and, with it, on multiple functions of civil society. Furthermore, the process has been transnationalised both within the scope of progressive and regressive globalisation. Civil society actors, especially in post-conflict zones the world over, have been intertwined in multidimensional partnerships, including international organisations, international NGOs (INGOs), international financial institutions, foreign governments as well as national and multilateral development agencies, and so on. Meanwhile, other segments of local civil societies have also linked up with global networks, often either as purveyors of illiberal identities or as partners in global criminal enterprise.
When the nation-state loses many of its traditional powers, Daniele Archibugi argues, democracy requires a cosmopolitan political authority above it. But current 'humanitarian' interventions do not fulfil such higher norms-they betray them, as the self-arrogated prerogatives of the few.
This paper argues that, to date, current research into global civil society suffers from weak description and inadequate theorization. The way forward requires interpreting global civil society as a progressive multiorganization field with innovative network forms and transformative purpose.
Global civil society has become an important paradigm for progressive social change at a planetary level. It posits a bold new ethical project for global democratization. For its critics, though, it is just the social wing of neoliberal globalization diverting social movements from their tasks. It is also seen as irredeemably Eurocentric in its assumptions and orientation. A third option, proposed here, is to understand global civil society as a complex social and spatial terrain. By bringing politics back in, a progressive option can be presented to contest the dominant co-optive or reformist conception of global civil society.
The South Atlantic Quarterly 101.4 (2002) 869-897
—Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (1880)
—Thomas Carlyle, The Life of Robert Burns (1820)
—Salman Rushdie, The Ground Beneath Her Feet (2000)
On September 11, terrorists crashing jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon struck a blow against cosmopolitanism—perhaps more successfully than against their obvious symbolic targets, the unequal structures of global capitalism and political power. They precipitated a renewal of state-centered politics and a "war on terrorism" seeking military rather than law enforcement solutions to crime. Moved by Wahabbi Islamic Puritanism and sheltered by Afghanistan's Taliban, they seemed to exemplify a simplistic opposition between backward traditionalists and Western modernism. That Muslims had long been stereotyped as the bad other to globalization only made it easier for Westerners to accept this dubious framing of the events, and made it harder for them to see a clash between different modernist projects, to miss the evidently popular message that "technology can be our weapon too."
One need be no friend to terrorism to be sorry that the dominant response to the terrorist attacks has been framed as a matter of war rather than crime, an attack on America rather than an attack on humanity. What could have been an occasion for renewing the drive to establish an international criminal court and multilateral institutions needed for law enforcement quickly became an occasion for America to demonstrate its power and its allies to fall in line with the "war on terrorism." Militarism gained and civil society lost not only on September 11 but in the response that followed. This was true domestically as well as internationally, as the United States and other administrations moved to sweep aside protections for the rights of citizens and immigrants alike and strengthen the state in pursuit of "security."
In this context, the cosmopolitan ideals articulated during the 1990s seem all the more attractive but their realization much less immanent. It is important not only to mourn this, but to ask in what ways the cosmopolitan vision itself was limited—overoptimistic, perhaps, more attentive to certain prominent dimensions of globalization than to equally important others. In the wake of the cold war, it seemed to many political theorists and public actors that the moment had finally arrived not just for Kantian perpetual peace but for cosmopolitanism to extend beyond mere tolerance to the creation of a shared global democracy. It seemed easy to denigrate states as old-fashioned authorities of waning influence and to extol the virtues of international civil society. It was perhaps a weakness of this perspective that the myriad dimensions of globalization all seemed evidence of the need for a more cosmopolitan order, and therefore the tensions among them were insufficiently examined. Likewise, the cosmopolitanism of democratic activists was not always clearly distinct from that of global corporate leaders, though the latter would exempt corporate property from democratic control. Just as protesters against the World Trade Organization (WTO) often portrayed themselves as "antiglobalization," even though they formed a global social movement, advocates of cosmopolitan institutions often sounded simply proglobalization rather than sufficiently discriminating among its forms.
In a sense, the noncosmopolitan side of globalization struck back on September 11. Migrants whose visions of their home cultures were more conservative and ideological than the originals figured prominently. Indeed, most of the terrorists were Arabs who had spent considerable time studying in the West—even at seemingly cosmopolitan Oxford, in the case of Osama bin Laden. A dark side to globalization was brought to light: criminal activity and flows of weapons, people, ideas, money, and drugs that challenged state authority but...
‘This fifth Global Civil Society Yearbook continues the intellectual shaping of an emerging global civil society. As the Global Call for Action on Poverty, G-Cap, makes its voice heard under the whiteband symbol, this analysis of current issues of migration, climate change and UN reform, with a focus on gender and social movements, provides a timely intellectual resource to strengthen shared commitments’ - Mary Robinson ‘These annual volumes have themselves become an occasion for enacting global civil society: Each Yearbook is a project that involves hundreds of people around the world in various ways… and they often fight it out around divergent understandings of critical issues. This volume enters the extreme zones we face today - the growing injustices which increasingly are only addressed by global civil society actors, but also the powerful innovations brought about by new technologies that can construct whole new global spaces for global civil society’ - Saskia Sassen ‘It is increasingly difficult to recall memorable analyses of international social movements before GCS. But after half a decade each annual issue is not only a magnum opus but is also definitive, distinctive & comparative. The study of global civil society can never be the same!’ - Timothy M Shaw, Professor of Commonwealth Governance & Development & Director, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London The annual Global Civil Society Yearbooks provide an indispensable guide to global civil society or civic participation and action around the world. Each yearbook includes commissioned contributions from leading commentators across the social sciences on the latest issues and developments. Each yearbook also explores and presents the latest approaches to measuring and analyzing global civil society and provides a chronology of key global civil society events in the year. The 2005/6 Yearbook explores the role of gender in global civil society and investigates the core issues of labour migration, climate change and UN reform. In part three, contributions consider the impact of social forums and wireless technology, as well as reviewing the discussion of networks from the 2004/5 Yearbook. Illustrated throughout with summaries, maps, figures, tables and photographs and encompassing regular features such as updates on previous editions and the annual data reports, the Global Civil Society Yearbook remains the standard work on all aspects of contemporary global civil society for activists, practitioners, students and academics alike. It is essential reading for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the key actors, forms and manifestations of global civil society around the world today.
In recent decades the study of social movements, revolution, democratization and other non-routine politics has flourished. And yet research on the topic remains highly fragmented, reflecting the influence of at least three traditional divisions. The first of these reflects the view that various forms of contention are distinct and should be studied independent of others. Separate literatures have developed around the study of social movements, revolutions and industrial conflict. A second approach to the study of political contention denies the possibility of general theory in deference to a grounding in the temporal and spatial particulars of any given episode of contention. The study of contentious politics are left to 'area specialists' and/or historians with a thorough knowledge of the time and place in question. Finally, overlaid on these two divisions are stylized theoretical traditions - structuralist, culturalist, and rationalist - that have developed largely in isolation from one another. This book was first published in 2001.
Globalization is one of the most politically charged issues of our time. This book aims to bridge the divide between its advocates and its critics, but, rather than trying to find middle ground, the author looks at globalization through the lens of poor people and poor countries, arguing for a different management of global changes that ensures everyone a share in its opportunities. His is a call for ethical globalization. An influential and globalizing civil society has a great opportunity to be a critical player - but this could be a brief window. Its advocacy largely pillories deficiencies in the system instead of promoting viable alternatives. The author seeks to change this by applying his experience from both sides of the ideological divide - working with NGOs, governments and the World Bank - to analyse the system's faults and suggest a fresh framework for transforming global relations and redressing injustices.
Amid fears of terrorism, rising tides of xenophobia, and protests, John Keane explores the contradictory arguments and traces the historical origins, contemporary meanings and political potential of globalization. Defending the idea of a global civil society, Keane stresses the need for new democratic ways of living and demonstrates how it is linked with such developments as turbocapitalism, social movements and the political institutions of “cosmocracy.” Keane's provocative reflections in Global Civil Society? draw upon a variety of scholarly sources and offer a fresh perspective on contemporary political thinking and new global problems. John Keane was born in Australia and educated at the Universities of Adelaide, Toronto and Cambridge. He is Professor of Politics at the University of Westminster. In 1989, he founded the Centre for the Study of Democracy. His most recent work is a study of power, Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts (Basic Books, 1999). His other books include Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions (Stanford, 1998), Democracy and Civil Society (Verso Books, 1998), Reflections on Violence (Verso Books, 1996), the prizewinning Tom Paine: A Political Life (Little Brown, 1995), and The Media and Democracy (Blackwell, 1991). He has been awarded many fellowships and research grants and has lectured throughout the world; he often appears on radio and television and is a regular contributor to The Times Literary Supplement. Currently he is writing a full-scale history of democracy.
Illustrates relational approaches to the study of social movements and collective action. Contributors analyse most recent developments in the analysis of the role of networks as facilitators or constraints of individual recruitment, various forms of interorganizational networks, and the relationship between social networks and the political context in which social movements operate. They also relate the growing attention to social networks by social movement analysis to broader theoretical debates. Both quantitative and qualitative network analysis are considered, and attention is paid to the time dimension and the evolution of networks, through both simulation models and empirical data. Empirical chapters cover both contemporary and historical episodes of collective action, in reference to authoritarian as well as progressive, left-libertarian movements. Chapters focusing on individual networks specify different effects of network embeddedness over participation in different types of collective action (Passy, Anheier). Interorganizational relations are explored by looking at leadership dynamics (Diani), the relationship between categorical traits and network position within coalitions (Ansell), and the role of individuals in linking different organizations both synchronically and diachronically (Osa). Network approaches to the political process illustrate shifts in alliance and conflict networks at a time of regime change (Tilly and Wood), the evolution of social networks during protest cycles (Oliver and Myers), and the role of local elites in shaping protest networks in the community (Broadbent). Theoretical chapters discuss network perspectives on social movements in relation to recent theoretical developments in rational choice theory (Gould), cultural analysis (Mische), and the analysis of social mechanisms (McAdam). A radical case is also made for a reorientation of the whole social movement agenda along network lines (Diani).
This book hopes to further contribute to teaching, research, and activist contention about the uncertain futures of human rights in a hyperglobalizing world. The issue of politics - the combined and uneven labours of practices of domination and governance and of counter-power - is addressed in this work. Power and resistance have articulated themselves in terms of alternate languages of normative politics in a pre-human rights epoch through various notions such as 'justice', 'righteous' conduct (both on the part of the rulers and the ruled), moral responsibility to avoid causing harm to others in everyday conduct, the virtues of honour and chivalry (upon which even until this day thrive the genre, texts, and corpus of international law of humanitarian intervention and of warfare), and fidelity to the divine being rendered intelligible only through the pious interpretation of God's word. This book also further addresses some ways in which politics of production (inter/intra-governmental labours as well as a wide variety of related social practices) bears upon the production of politics. Human rights activism, the politics of identity and difference, relativism, human rights movements, human rights markets, and business ethics are also discussed. © Upendra Baxi and Oxford University Press, 2006. All rights reserved.
Four essential questions for the study of civility involve developing a definition of the term, determining its effects, establishing trends, and predicting the consequences of civility. A framework for studying it includes the actors, their gender, situations and settings, occupational role requirements, the cultural imperatives defining civility, and the processes through which it is learned. Objective measures of civility in the United States show its variability and change. Four items in the 1996 General Social Survey (GSS) are combined to form a scale of civility. Correlates of the scale show that civility does not differ by gender, color, or region. It is weakly associated with income but is significantly associated with education, occupation, and health. Age, education, and health provide a predictive model of civility. Anger, an emotional aspect of interpersonal exchange, reveals reactions characteristic of civil behavior: waiting for anger to pass before responding, trying to forget the incident, not thinking of revenge, not walking away from the situation, and not yelling or hitting. Hypotheses are proposed for further study that involves age, marital status, occupation, health, and emotional control.
Dotcauses (Internet-based networks) and the transnational protest movement about globalization are prominent features of contemporary civil society. We argue that these phenomena are related. Dotcauses are important mobilizing structures within the movement, attracting support, coordinating action, and disseminating alternatives. They therefore influence many of its characteristics—its transnational action, leaderlessness, profusion of concerns, tactical schisms, and digital/language divides. Social movement theory is employed to study these issues. Dotcauses, and the Internet more generally, are changing social movement and activist dynamics. Policy makers have difficulty in responding to this dispersed organizational design, as do traditional civil society organizations.
A collaboration of two units of the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Center for the Study of Global Governance and the Center for Civil Society.
Contemporary treatments of ‘civil society’ have struggled to formulate clear and explicit criteria for determining which associations ought to count as part of a truly ‘civil’ society and, conversely, which other kinds of groups a liberal democracy would best avoid. Michael Oakeshott's idealized distinction between ‘civil’ association and ‘enterprise’ association may prove extremely helpful in sharpening these contemporary discussions of civil society. Rather than a conservative value with exclusionary and anti-democratic overtones, as many have alleged, the virtue of civility entails immanent inclusivity, democratic equality and the active recognition of others. Understanding civility in this way argues for both its normative and conceptual value in distinguishing the good from the bad in associational life. On the other hand, the contemporary literature on civil society draws attention to ambiguities in Oakeshott's thought that make his understanding of the liberal state, for better or worse, an improbable means of encouraging a rebirth of associational life.
Why Civility Matters
- N Billante
- P Saunders
The Virtue of Civility
- E Shils