• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Civil society -- why is it important?

MyDoorsAreOpen

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
8,549
Civil society is defined as all institutions in a society that are neither bound by ties of kinship nor maintained directly by the government. The most key examples are private sector business that employ people who are not related to each other, that is, non-family-run businesses. But civil society also includes such institutions as NGOs, charities, nonprofit groups, private schools, non-hereditary fraternal orders and social clubs, professional unions, artists' collectives, athletic leagues, and religious congregations in places with church-state separation.

I have heard two major cultures, China and the Arab world, criticized by Westerners as having poorly developed civil societies. In other words, citizens of these societies have no precedent for mingling socially with people outside their families, unless such mingling is mediated or mandated by whoever's in charge at the top. How, exactly, does this confer an absolute disadvantage on a people, relative to peoples with a better developed civil society? It seems to me that empires have risen and fell where anything anyone did was kept within the family. If marriages can forge business alliances and glue communities together (as was the case in most places for most of human history), is there really any need for the notion of being loyal to people who you're not forced to have anything to do with, either by family circumstances or by those collecting taxes from you and calling themselves your rulers? What sorts of things does a richly developed civil society exclusively enable?

If a people's lack of a well-developed civil society is at the root of their economic, political, or social problems, is there really any easy way to fix this? Is there really anything that can be done (by those in the government at the top, I'm assuming) to encourage people to affiliate with, and be more trusting of, unrelated neighbors?
 
that criticism of china is absolute rubbish. i haven't seen a society so hell bent on the extension of one's network outside of family than i have witnessed first hand there. the competition of so many people requires it to the point where any position of professional responsibility comes with it an expense account to write off social activities organised for the sole benefit of the person's own network (i think the company benefits from stronger individual networks or something). the gain for anyone in a relationship is a gain for all, favours are returned by habit.

i would argue in contrary that liberal democratic nations who run on capitalism creates a divisive individualism. sure, people mingle, but they only do so to benefit from harming one another, as if freedoms and liberty are zero sum games. a society like this eats itself alive.
 
MDAO said:
Civil society is defined as all institutions in a society that are neither bound by ties of kinship nor maintained directly by the government.

As a sociologist, I have never worked with this definition of the concept (though this is how political philosophers of the 19th C and prior defined it, as arenas of social action not bound by feudal ties nor the explicitly political ties of the state were new indeed). Rather, I find it more useful to define civil society as social action lying outside of the explicitly political sphere and the economic sphere. Thus, civil society includes organizations like NGOs but excludes economic corporations. Organizations similar to political parties straddle the border between civil society and the state.

I have heard two major cultures, China and the Arab world, criticized by Westerners as having poorly developed civil societies.

This seems quite unfounded, particularly when using the sociological definition of civil society.

In other words, citizens of these societies have no precedent for mingling socially with people outside their families, unless such mingling is mediated or mandated by whoever's in charge at the top.

They do have precedent, though, particularly in China, with communities of Doaist philosophers emerging as a counterpoint to the dictates of Confucianism, and in classical Muslim Arabia, with communities of naturalists and theologians coming to hold political and epistemological sway.

ebola
 
ebola, thanks for that clarification. I was working with an outdated definition -- no wonder I was having trouble seeing its relevance today. By your definition, as L2R pointed out, China and the Arab world definitely have historical precedents for people getting together neither to trade nor to govern.

And with your definition, it's easy to see the value of civil society -- it's important to have venues where people can interact socially with each other without big stakes involved should someone say or do the wrong thing. Trade and government related social interaction do not offer this -- lives are changed forever by the social machinations that take place in either, and one must be on guard at all times when engaging in either one.

L2R, you're right that the Chinese today establish a lot of social groups whose sole purpose is to provide useful connections to members -- beginning level ballroom dancing is a popular one for older people there. I guess I didn't think of this or count this, though, because I see a lot of the connections cultivated in such groups as being explicitly for the purpose of trade down the road. When I was in China and someone was attempting to establish guanxi with me, I was always left with the feeling that the person regarded me as a potential buyer or supplier of something down the road. They might not have had a definite idea when I'd come in handy, but no doubt that I would. Maybe this is just my cultural or personal bias, but in the West, I've generally felt that people's reasons for seeking my company were less tangible. It could be that I'm fooling myself on this, but that's just been my perception. People in the West clearly do make personal connections that are economically and politicially useful to them through the institutions of civil society. But at least for me, this feels more accidental and unexpected than it does in China. If I join a bowling league and happen to meet a great pot dealer, that's just a bonus -- the bowling league was primarily a source of bowling enjoyment, both before and after meeting the dealer. Thinking of the bowling league as a real or potential source of pot dealers strikes me as wrongheaded. In China, joining social groups just seem more calculated toward economic and political connections from day one.
 
indeed, that is true. the clear agenda comes of benefit in everyone knows their place in the relationship. this extends upwards too (which also taps into the chinese dissent fallacy). the less tangible the motive of the other, the more vulnerable one is to manipulation or exploitation.

as for your interesting point on altruistic relationship, this is most foreign to us city folk both in the west and the east. somewhat ironically, the most culturally different place i have visited in this regard is america. the time i spent at my ex's family tobacco farm in north carolina took a number of days to get used to. the slow pace, the talking without intent or purpose, was really strange.
 
I dunno, the term "civil society" doesn't do it for me. The first picture that popped into my head when I read that was that of some middle-aged white guy wearing a monacle and sipping a cup of hot tea with his pinkie raised in the air, chatting with his friends in a high, nasally voice. No offense if I described anyone here but maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by civil society.

the value of civil society -- it's important to have venues where people can interact socially with each other without big stakes involved should someone say or do the wrong thing.

While I see what you are saying, this ^ seems a bit ethnocentric. I would argue that, other than holidays, religious rituals, and family celebrations, people in many cultures have no use for such venues. Why should people socialize with others outside of a family context? Why is it so important?

Maybe this is just my cultural or personal bias, but in the West...

Try to imagine you are not from the West. That you live in some Amazonian rainforest, African prairie, or, like much of the world's population, in an urban slum. When finding electricity or clean water are everyday challenges, civil society is probably the least of your worries.

Now try to imagine that the same white guy I described above comes to your country, to your home, and tells you that you need something called "civil society."

Why do you think so many people hate America and the West in general? Because we like to make others feel that if they are not like us, they are somehow inferior.
 
Civilized Society is group sustenance, but what is civil to one society and culture is not to an other. We set the bar of what it to be considered acceptable as far for ourselves, and the general population that makes up that society.

Meritocracy was the goal for Americas people, but that became a capitalistic type theory of order which is inclusive to personal beliefs more then contributing qualification.
 
Geriatric said:
I dunno, the term "civil society" doesn't do it for me. The first picture that popped into my head when I read that was that of some middle-aged white guy wearing a monacle and sipping a cup of hot tea with his pinkie raised in the air, chatting with his friends in a high, nasally voice. No offense if I described anyone here but maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by civil society.

Maybe. I think that the colloquial definition of "civil" (ie, as "civility") might be importing misleading connotations into how you think of civil society.

Try to imagine you are not from the West. That you live in some Amazonian rainforest, African prairie, or, like much of the world's population, in an urban slum. When finding electricity or clean water are everyday challenges, civil society is probably the least of your worries.

Imagine that you are the member of a paleolithic tribe in the Americas or better yet, a dweller in a contemporary urban slum. Civil society (at least as defined sociologically) will prove an invaluable venue for organizing political and economic resistance against those agents that perpetuate conditions of political and economic inequality. Thus, without organization in civil society, one is relegated to ultimately futile struggle against such injustices as an individual.

(addendum: I would argue that in the contemporary period, the sociological definition of civil society makes more sense, as power has become concentrated in the bureaucratized state and hierarchical economy. In the feudal period, power was more closely related to kinship networks and the exercise of tradition.)

ebola
 
I didnt read anything of your op except for your definition for civilization and your title question. Society isn't important imo. All it manages to do is feed us and protect us and make lives easy for us. It allows us to lead comfortable lives. If we were never able to live comfortably, we wouldn't have time to think and invent. No time for social networks to be formed that allow us to share ideas. Language would not exist and we wouldn't be on this forum today. We surely wouldn't be the dominant species. We would be just another animal.

We would however have a purpose - to survive and find a mate. Survival is what society took out of our hands. We dont need to find our own food, build our own shelter or protect ourselves. We have a government that does all of that for us. We have to earn a mate but we dont have to find one, they are everywhere. Society takes away our purpose and gives us another - work for society and be it's slave and in return it acts as our parent and babys us. No wonder why weed feels so good, it makes me feel like a kid in a world where i am but a baby - it makes everything fit lmao.
 
Top