Conceptions of Civil Society and State-Society Relations

3 Conceptions of Civil Society and State-Society Relations

Theory-oriented political scientists have complained that “civil society is vague [… and that] most civil society theorists offer intuitive, ostensive, or paradigmatic accounts of it rather than something more rigorous” (Jensen 2006 : 39). However, there is an increasing body of literature which seeks to define the concept of civil society (see Jensen 2006 ; Smismans 2006b ; Fung 2003 ; Klein 2001 ; Richter 1997 ). This literature has, among other things, highlighted the practical and theoretical origins of civil society and identified different conceptions according to their perception of state-society relations which, on their part, result in different democratizing functions assigned to civil society.

The concept of civil society dates back to political thinkers such as John Locke (1632 – 1704), Charles de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), Georg Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) or Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859) – just to mention a few. They established different schools of thought which have spawned different conceptions of civil society. Few current authors explicitly refer to classical political thought for their analyses of civil society in EU governance.¹¹ But they invoke the notion of civility which crystallized as common denominator of these classical accounts: Civil society had come to be perceived as a well-ordered social arrangement which demarcates civil from ‘uncivil’ society and represents the departure from a state of nature (see Jensen 2006 ; Richter 1997 ). Civility as basic ingredient of civil society stimulated the imagination of political philosophers and, later on, political scientists and EU integration researchers.

Current political philosophy explores civil society as a condition of society and seeks to identify the necessary societal infrastructure of participatory democracy. The debate is defined by a communitarian position on the one hand (see Taylor 1985 ; Barber 1984 ) and a procedural position as advocated by discursive democracy on the other (see Habermas 1996 ; Dryzek 1990 ). The communitarian position highlights the significance of active citizenship and political community as a necessary societal condition for democracy. Many advocates of this position presuppose a historically grown sense of social cohesion and solidarity¹² which cannot easily be transferred to transnational political systems such as the EU (see Section 4.3). The procedural position, on the other hand, highlights the existence of a common legislative framework which enables the individual to associate and communicate in the public sphere. Free association and communication are considered as basic ingredients of civil society which can, in principle, also be transferred to transnational political spaces. This concept has been invoked by a broad range of authors discussing participatory democracy in the EU (see Section 4.2 and 4.3).

The recovery of civil society in academia and political life draws on practical experiences with protest movements which have shaped political life in Western Europe and the United States since the 1960s. A broad range of new public interest groups such as environmental or women’s advocacy groups have evolved from these ‘new’ social movements (as compared to the ‘old’ labour or women’s movements with their 19th century socio-political origins). Many of these actors had travelled from grassroots activism and protest to different forms of cooperation with governmental agencies by the beginning of the 1980s.¹³

However, the academic debate of civil society was also inspired by the peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe unfolding throughout the 1980s and advancing the collapse of the communist block in 1989 (Klein 2001 : 19–96). These revolutions were sustained by civic movements which comprised a broad variety of actors ranging from trade unions and churches, to citizens’ groups or organizations, and individual intellectuals. They were linked by their opposition to the totalitarian communist state. Both experiences, the Western and that of Eastern transformation states, motivate our current imagination of civil society and its function for democracy. However, we should envision that these experiences may allude to different conceptions of state-society relations which assign different democratizing functions to civil society.

It has, in fact, been argued that an understanding of civil society which refers to the Eastern European civic rights movements represents a Lockean conception of state-society relations. John Locke identified autonomous and distinct spheres of state and civil society, thus locating civil society opposite the state (see Knodt 2005 : 132–133 and Richter 1997 : 40 both invoking Taylor 1991 ). Very different political thinkers have been associated with this tradition, but they focused on different dimensions of state-society relations: Neo-liberals emphasized the autonomy of the economy from the state, whereas neo-Marxists, critical theorists, and – more recently – advocates of deliberative democracy and contentious politics have focused on the existence of an independent public sphere (Richter 1997 : 39). Authors who lean on a dichotomous conception of state-society relations are concerned with popular control of political institutions which, from their point of view, can only be exerted by independent societal actors who stay away from governmental tasks.

Another conception can be traced back to Charles de Montesquieu and was further accentuated by Georg Friedrich Hegel. This conception is characterized by an integrative perception of state-society relations. It has since been elaborated and transferred to modern, democratic political systems and welfare states. Current proponents of this viewpoint such as Paul Hirst who advocates ‘associative democracy’ (Hirst and Bader 2001 ; Hirst 1994 ) presume that state and civil society entertain an associative relationship which is constituted by formalized democratic procedures. The involvement of civil society in political decision-making assumes a legitimizing and controlling function and contributes to democratic political governance if normative standards such as openness and representativity are being met.

Both conceptions of civil society participation, the dichotomous and the integrative conception, refer to input oriented legitimacy and ‘government by the people’, but they assign different functions to civil society. However, the practical discourse of civil society in EU affairs, as introduced by the European Commission’s White Paper on European Governance (EC 2001 ), is rather ambiguous in this respect.