HC1 – Civil society and democracy
Basic themes of the course
Two-fold: the nature of associational life and the nature of liberal democracy
Associational life can be divided into three zones: the intimate sphere of the family, the
zone of civil society and the zone of the stat
Liberal democracies are one kind of politican organization, the one that we are most familiar
with in our Mordern, Western societies
We will be examining this thesis: that there is a special connection between the relationship
of these three zones and the nature of liberal democracy
So liberal democracy involves a certain kind of political culture in which those three zones
distinctively relate to each other
Let’s identify each of the three components.
1) The family
Our first social “zone” is the intimate sphere of the family
Our kind of society – liberal democratic societies – take the family in all its forms to be a
building block for associational life
It is a place for the transmission of our collective values and the scene of basic trust
It is a characteristic of totalitarian societies to want to infiltrate all parts of society for the
pursuit of collective ends
In liberal societies, however, families form a private sphere of free association
But they are not voluntary, for those dependent within them,a nd they presuppose the
liberal values of equal citizenship
The family falls outside the direct regulation of the liberal state
This may be an athnocentric conception: some societies, and some ethnicities in our society,
may view extended families as more like “mini-corporations”
2) The State
The state can be picked out by its function. It claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of
force oer a given geographical territory
The state CLAIMS monopoly. The mafia may exercise force within Italy or New Jersey, but
the state claims a monopoly on legitimate force via the police, the armed forces and the
legal system (such as taxation)
Liberal states enforce basic rights and promote the values of security and stability
The framework of law provides a structure for a “free” market and so enhances prosperity
Liberal societies also set themselves more or less ambitious distributive goals. They seek to
be fair
Typically, fairness involves re-distribution via taxation
More on liberal states…
Liberal societies, like the Netherlands, the UK, the USA, Canada, Sweden are committed to
basic rights
They are committed to fairness (in ways that differ markedly between Sweden and Texas)
They do not promote private ideals and their pursuit of the common good is constrainted by
rights
They aim to preserve themselves, not simply from external threats, but also by transmitting
their liberal values. They do this, notably, in their education system
A recurrent theme in this course is the paradox of responsibility
, Liberal states seek to promote basic social goods such as security, stability, prosperity
All these goals can be undermined by a sufficiently irresponsible group of citizens
The Paradox of Responsibility
Suppose every citizen in the Netherlands spent each lunch hour smoking cannabis and every
evening drinking beer
Suppose that, as a result, productivity output drops and the demands on the health service
increase
Taxation revenue falls, but pressure on public spending increases
Voting patterns become increasingly erratic and politics become ever more extreme
A liberal society wants to avoid these kinds of outcomes. But how can it? How can it
promote certain kinds of life and dissuade people from other kinds of life?
It is committed to basic rights, individual privacy and to not promoting private ideals.
How can it “nudge” citizens without coercion?
3) Associational life
Between the family and the state is the zone that we will mainly be concerned with on this
course
Associational life, broadly conceived, consists of all associations “between” family and state
Organizations/corporations in the economic sphere
State actors and “arms length” state actors such as “quasi-autonomous non-governmental
organizations” and non-governmental organizations
In this course we are mainly concerned with civil society associations
Putting the pieces together
We will be testing the following hypothesis: liberal democracy is not merely a set of
institutions and practices (such as voting every five years)
It has a cultural reality: the private zone of the family and the public zone of the state are
mediated by a range of associational forms
The health of a democracy can be measured by a flourishing ecosystem of different
associations
This is not the claim that every association is good for democracy – many are not
The claim is that this entire balanced infrastructure is good for democracy
On the one hand, civil society is “self-limiting” and this is not the argument for direct
democracy
On the other hand, the state benefits from this ecosystem and should leave it alone (or
incentivize it, or nudge it…)
Why civil society?
It has been invoked by theorists to explain how:
(1) A non-democratic society can make a successful transition to a democracy
(2) How a liberal society can solve the “paradox of responsibility”
(3) How a liberal society can transmit its values and educate for citizenship
(4) How a society can, in its on-going life, exhibit high degrees of social capital in a way that
makes it healthier, more prosperous and effective
(5) How there can be increased levels ofr meaningful (informed) democratic participation
Main aim in this course is to assess this “universal panacea” invoked by all people in all
places ad the cure for our social ills.
, What is civil society?
Civil society is a domain in which private citizens engage in cooperation for some specific
end
They are acting outside the scope of the nuclear family
They are cooperating with strangers, not an extended kinship group
In a cooperative enter[prise for mutual advantage that involves the executive virtues and
mediated trust
Where the end set by the group is of broad political significance
The association is not sponsored by the state, either directly or at “arm’s length”
The purpose of the group is described as broadly political. What does this mean?
Associations and social capital
Bonding vs bridging social capital
Social capital is that economic advantage that an individual derives from her embedding
in social groups
Social capital can include the better health a person en joys from joining a social club like
going bowling and playing cards
It can include the benefit to a child’s education of her parents being active members of a
parent-teacher association
It can be the directly economic benefit of a business person socializing in a charitable
association with suppliers, other professionals and customers
But social capital comes in two very different forms…
Bonding social capiatal
Groups held together by bonding social capital are highly solidaristic
They have a strong criterion for group membership and trust group members more
highly than outsiders
Examples might be religious groups dedicated to social causes, or ethnically based groups
They have a high barrier to entry and it is hard to leave
Such groups, being bound by identity, have difficulty managing internal conflict
You cannot just walk away, the stakes are too high, so internal conflict can be bitter
They are also likely to come into conflict as they are forced to negotiate with other kinds of
social groups
Negotiation is viewed as an existential threat to identity
Bridging social capital
For these groups, goals are prior to identity. Members are not very strongly identified
with each other as they are bound solely by a shared goal
The levels ofr mutual trust are comparatively weak
This makes these groups flexible, able to compromise, and easily able to negotiate
internal conflict
Both the entry conditions – membership and voluntariness – are comparatively weak
But the exit condition is so easy – people can vote with their feet and just leave – that such
groups are porous and unstable
Because of the ways in which these groups manage conflict within and between themselves,
it looks as if they are much better for democracy than bonding social capital groups
But, again, the real argument is for a balance of both kinds of groups.
Two ideal types
These are however ideal types
