In classical political theory, civil society is a normative concept. This is especially so insofar as civil society specifies that associational life – in a metaphorical space between the household, the market, and the state – neutralises the individualism of modernity, enables pursuit of multiple projects, and allows monitoring of the state.
Rather than see this space as possessed of a single essence, that of solidarity, Chandhoke, drawing upon the insights of Hegel and Gramsci, holds that civil society is a site of multiple struggles between different sorts of democratic and anti-democratic projects. In democracies, civil society has to be Janus faced, with one face turned towards the state as a condensate of power and the other towards anti-democratic forces within its own sphere.
Civil society is a necessary precondition for democracy, but we should take care not to romanticise the sphere. It should rather be seen as the theatre of history where the politics of affirmation and contestation play out, with sometimes expected, and sometimes unexpected, consequences.
Essential Reading:
Chandhoke, Neera 1995. State and Civil Society: Explorations in Political Theory. New Delhi, Sage Publications
Chandhoke, Neera 2005. ‘The Taming of Civil Society’ Seminar 545
Further Reading:
Alagappa, Muthiah (ed) 2004 Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space. Stanford University Press
Bayat, Asef 2013. Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Changed the Middle East. Stanford University Press
Cohen, Jean and Andrew Arato, 1994. Civil Society and Political Theory. Massachusetts, MIT Press
Questions:
Why, in your opinion, is civil society a necessary precondition for democracy?
For Hegel, civil society embodied the achievements as well as the dangers of modernity. Discuss
Elaborate the role played by civil society in the ‘Arab Spring’
Why does Gramsci see civil society as the site for hegemony?
Submitted by Neera Chandhoke
As a recent recipient of the graduate school certificate in African studies at ASU, my final drew from or focused in part on the settler narrative movement of the antebellum era. Despite the discovery of over 100 burials from this era that came to light recently, it was all treated in a quite troubing manner. Settler Colonial mentality was pervasive. It is clear, the slave labor narrative must be preserved at all cost. Local professional organizations and offices were disrespected and ignored as if the descended community did not exist. People wear the continuance of mixed relationships from this history and it is only now that they are finding their voice and their heritage in some cases. Global social theory is spot on.
I’m interested in colonialism,settler colonialism and decolonisation as it speaks to the original ownership of the land/country[?].
I was interested to read ‘the tendency among some scholars of settler colonialism to treat settlement as inevitable, simultaneously relieving settler societies and states of the burden of reconciling with indigenous peoples, and placing the burden of accommodating settler sovereignty onto those same indigenous peoples'[above]
I have been tentatively searching for references to the morality/legality of colonialisation,which could possibly have huge ramifications,and they are scarce.
Interesting. Could you please add Maria Lugones’s work in the further reading section please? She not only engaged with Quijano’s concept but revised it significantly to demonstrate the coloniality of gender. Thank you.