According to Edwards there are three major schools of thought, which compete over the contested terrain of civil society. After a brief introduction to the general idea, the author recognises that any attempt to define this powerful 'leitmotif' is bound to be heavily a disputed one. In the 'neo-Toquevillian' school, the focus is on associational life, where civil society is understood as a constituent part of society, alongside the political sphere and the market. The work of Robert Putham stands for this line of thought, but it has been heavily criticized for over-generalizing the connections between civic engagement and the emergence of "a society that is civil" (p.26).
Perhaps less in contrast but complimentary to the associational view of civil society is the theory that seeks to determine how to arrive at a certain kind, namely at a 'good society'. Such a society is seen as 'strong and civil', depending on "hat volunteers (citizens) do and why they do it, not simply who they are" (p.44). However, as much as the (neo-Toquevillian) three-sector model of civil society is ahistoric and idealistic for assuming relatively clear-cut boundaries between sectors, 'good society' theory, it is a great pains to account for the role of the state and for persistent inequalities in civil society. Both schools of thought on civil society, find themselves in a bind: they set out to promote democratization by way of gradualist reforms but remain inadequate to generate political action aimed at dismantling the counterweights that a capitalist mode of production imposes upon democracy. The theory of civil society as the public sphere (Edwards' third school of thought) marks a clear departure from the inadequacies of mainstream social theory. Foremost among the shortcomings of theories of cavil society concerned with social equilibrium, is their inability to accommodate and account for radical social change. In contrast, public sphere theory can explain and allow for such change as it is concerned with the relationships between civil society and democracy.
 |
