Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B.Chandrasekhar^
Has our romance with civil society been coming to an end? Neera
Chandhoke the well-known Indian authority on civil society would
like to put it in its place: ‘The civil society argument has now been
around for about 25 years. The problems of the world remain as
intractable, even as the numbers of agents who seek to negotiate
the ills of human condition have expanded exponentially….. Is it
time that we begin to consider the role of civil society? Is it time to
once again put civil society in its place?’1
1
^ Senior lawyer based in Guntur, AP, India, and Spl. Public Prosecutor, Tsundur Carnage Case.
Author of Sacco-Vanzetti and NGOla Katha (both in Telugu). Published several articles in Telugu
and English on human rights issues and philosophy and engaged in writing critique of the rights
discourse. This paper was presented in a national seminar at Dravidian University, Kuppam, AP in
August, 2010. Author’s mail ID: bcsekhar@lawyer.com.
Chandhoke, Neera. 2009. ‘Putting Civil Society in its Place’. Economic & Political Weekly February
14, 2009 Vol. XLIV No 7: 12-16.
2
Correspondingly for the right and the left, for the World Bank and
the ‘ultra-left’ human rights discourse is very dear. It is the civil
society in which people are organized for rights and entitlements in
this rights-obsessed world in the process of which human rights
have been turned from a discourse of rebellion and dissent into that
of state legitimacy4. Political theorists and pundits of all stripes
repeatedly and almost automatically assert that at the root of all the
political/ social ailments of countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia,
Russia, and Zimbabwe is the absence (or the weakness) of civil
2
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2008. “Habermas and Foucault: thinkers for civil society?”. Brit.Jnl. of
Sociology June 1998 Vol.49 No.2.
3
Jayaram, N. 2005. “Civil Society: An Introduction to the Discourse’ in N.Jayaram (ed.), On
Civil Society: Issues and Perspectives, pp. 15-42. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
4
Douzinas, Costas. 2000. The End of Rights, pp.7. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
3
Is this the way to understand civil society and fall in love with it? Is it
an ideal to be built up or a target to be destroyed for the sake of
nature and mankind? This paper attempts to trace genealogy of the
concept of civil society right from Hegel down to the present day
and portrays the postmodern ‘society’ using Baumanian diagnosis.
2
One of the most important aspects of Hegel’s political theory is his
extensive treatment of civil society in the Philosophy of Right which
is his laborious and painstaking system of political and social
philosophy. Hegel was the first thinker of the modern German
tradition to recognize the importance of economics for social,
political and cultural life7. In the early modern era the term ‘civil
society’ had a very general meaning. It referred to society in so far
as it is governed by laws; civil society was therefore contrasted to
the state of nature. By the eighteenth century, however, the term
began to acquire its more narrow contemporary meaning. It now
refers to one aspect of modern society, namely a capitalist
economy, society in so far as it is based on private enterprise, free
markets and modern forms of production and exchange. It is in this
5
Fontana, Benedetto, 2006. ‘Liberty and Domination: civil society in Gramsci’ in boundary 2
2006 Vol.33 No.2: pp.57-74.
6
Chandhoke, Neera. 2003. Conceits of Civil Society, pp. 70-89. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press. This book gives a detailed account of the march of NGO sector along with the rise of the
global markets and the reappearance of the concept of civil society.
7
Beiser, Frederick, 2005. Hegel, pp.243. New York: Routledge.
4
more narrow and modern sense that Hegel uses the term 8 for the
first time in his last edition of Philosophy of Right in 1821. Up to his
immediate predecessors civil society was used to indicate political
society, to mean pre-political society, that is, the phase of human
society which up to that time was called natural society9.
Hegel begins his treatment of civil society by baldly stating its two
leading principles. Firstly, the pursuit of self interest. In civil society
every one seeks their own good, regarding every one else simply as
a means for their own ends. Secondly, everyone satisfies his self-
interest only if he also works to satisfy the self-interest of others.
Hence people relate to one another strictly on the basis of mutual
self-interest. Since they see public life only as a means to satisfy
their own ends, Hegel describes civil society as the stage of ‘the
alienation of ethical life’.
11
Thus, the movement of mankind from nature to human has been heralded by modernity and
the human reason has been installed in the sovereign epicenter of the world. Hegel celebrates the
same. Of course, Marx also follows the suit.
12
Selingam, Adam B. 1998. ‘Between Public and Private: Towards a sociology of Civil Society’
in Robert W. Hefner (ed.), Democratic Civility: The History and Cross-Cultural Possibility of a
Modern Political Ideal, pp.79-112. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.
6
such civil society. He proposed that the state should control it. For
him civil society was ‘a wild beast that needs a constant and strict
taming and mastery’, and the master-the state could, apart from
taking up several social welfare measures, go to the extent of
creating new markets for industry through colonization13
3
Like Hegel, for Karl Marx civil society is the realm of economic
relations. But, unlike Hegel, Marx had a definite conception that civil
society is part of the structure but not superstructure. Instead of the
state taming the forces of civil society, the vice versa is true as the
state is, for Marx, part of the superstructure. Referring to the
Hegel’s analysis of civil society Marx in his Critique of political
economy specifies that ‘the anatomy of civil society is to be sought
in political economy’. ‘Civil society embraces the whole material
intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development
of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and
industrial life of a given stage and, in so far, transcends the State
and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself
in its foreign relations as nationality and inwardly must organize
itself as State’. The latter is the guarantor of security to the
individual. The concept of security, wrote Marx in On the Jewish
Question,14 does not raise the civil society above its egoism. On the
contrary, security is the insurance of its egoism. ‘None of the so-
called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond
man as a member of civil society, that is an individual withdrawn
into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private
caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he
is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary,
13
Beiser, Frederick, 2005. Hegel, pp.250. New York: Routledge.
14
Collected Works, 1975. Vol.3 pp.164. Moscow:Progress Publishers. Marx uses the concept of
civil society in his critique of Hegel and German idealism, in such writings as ‘ On Jewish
Question’, ‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction’, and
‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’.
7
But the completion of idealism of the state was at the same time the
completion of materialism of the civil society. Throwing off the
political yoke meant at the same time throwing off the bonds which
restrained the egoistic spirit of the civil society. Political
emancipation was at the same time the emancipation of civil society
from politics, from having even the semblance of a universal
content.(166)
The liberty of the egoistic man and the recognition of this liberty,
however, is rather the recognition of the unrestrained movement of
15
Ibid, pp.164
8
the spiritual and material elements which form the content of his
life. (167)
16
Loss of species being is the problem identified by many modern philosophers from Marx to
the contemporary communitarians who began their career in 1960s in USA. But the thing is that
none of these thinkers and movements could realize that the species-being of human being is not
just within itself and the communitarian beingness that existed hitherto was a communitarian
beingness of the whole cosmos in which human was a part and an unconscious part.
17
Giddens. Anthony, 1998. Capitalism & Modern Social Theory, pp.6. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
18
Femia, Joseph. 2001. ‘Civil society and Marxist Tradition’ in Kaviraj, Sudipta & Sunil
Khilnani, Civil Society: History and Possibilities, pp.131-146. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
9
4
Gramsci bypassed Marx and hijacked civil society from the domain
of the structure to that of the superstructure. According to Chantel
Mouffe, he was one with Hegel in this regard and Bobbio attributes
the deviance to his Hegelian upbringing20. Gramsci revised Marx’s
concept of civil society as a structure of individuated persons and
their self centered commercial transactions to that of superstructure
consisting of ideological and cultural domain. Although Gramsci
continues to use the term to refer to the private or non-state
sphere, including the economy, his picture of civil society is very
different from that of Marx. It is not simply a sphere of individual
needs but of organizations, and has the potential of rational self-
regulation and freedom. Gramsci insists on its complex organization,
19
Harris. John, 2001. Depoliticising Development, pp.1. New Delhi:Leftword.
20
Ibid, pp.141.
10
existence in the third world and fall pray to the jargon of democratic
politics and marketise peoples’ lives and shattering human bonds to
spin out atomistic and self centered individuals. Disempowerment of
the communities and corporatisation of the individual has ensued.
The artificial juristic person—corporation, has become the ideal he
and the guiding rationale of the individual. And marketisation of
human relations with outsourcing of parenting and
commercialization of old-age welfare are few examples of this
squalor of postmodern condition.
26
Ibid. See also Chandhoke, Neera. 2003. ‘A Critique of the Notion of Civil Society’ in Rajesh
Tandon and Ranjit Mohanty (ed.), ‘Does Civil Society Matter?: Governance in Contemporary
India’, New Delhi: SAGE Publications
27
Chandhoke, Neera. 2003. ‘A Critique of the Notion of Civil Society’ in Rajesh Tandon and
Ranjit Mohanty (ed.), ‘Does Civil Society Matter?: Governance in Contemporary India’, pp 27-
58. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
28
29
Marx, Karl. 1844. “Critical Notes on “The King of Prussia and Social Reform”’ in Writings of
Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, pp.348. Quoted in Femia, Joseph. 2001. ‘Civil society
and Marxist Tradition’ in Kaviraj, Sudipta & Sunil Khilnani, Civil Society: History and
Possibilities, pp.131-146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
5
Post-modernity is a life of disjointedness and fragmentation. The
isolation is completing with all its local ills. The society has
disintegrated into its components and each component is crusading
for its share in the alienation. The existential void is coming to our
experience slowly. Today’s life is caustically depicted by Michael
Schultz and David Lee in the following passage31: ‘The home itself
has grown lean and mean, wider families being broken up into
nuclear and single-parent units where the individual’s desires and
interests characteristically take precedence over those of the group
unable to stop treading on each other’s toes in the mega
community, we have stepped into our separate houses and closed
the door, and then stepped into our separate rooms and closed the
door. The home becomes a multi-purpose leisure centre where
household members can live, as it were, separately side by side. Not
just the gas industry but life in general has been privatized.
Globalisation and privatisation have brought many liberations. The
more we are free the more we are impotent. They have eroded our
capacity to think in terms of common interests and fates,
contributing to the decay of an active political argument and action.
33
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2007. Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, pp.1. Cambridge:
Polity.
14
When the real powers that shape the conditions under which we all
act these days floe in global space, while our institutions of political
action remain by and large tied to the ground: they are, as before,
local and afflicted with a grave insufficiency of power to act in a
sovereign manner. After much enunciation of the life in liquid
modernity, Bauman, in his book, introduces three attitudes that
explain the premodern, solid modern and the liquid modern. ‘ We
may say that if the premodern posture toward the world was akin to
15
There can not be any solid bonds between persons who are running.
There can only be floating coalitions and fleeting bonds, the
16
freedom is a myth and the rights are only in the service of the
liquidity. The society, thus, has been transformed into a society of
consumption departing from that of production and we are homo
consumens who can be compared with a virtual species which
thrives in the market-driven atmosphere of capitalism The problem
is that a life spent consuming is essentially an incomplete life;
incomplete in its ability to recognize alternative forms of
emancipation. The market is perceived as the freedom giver.
Bauman perceived commercialization of freedom. Increasing
freedom in liquid modernity should be consider as ‘to a large extent
illusory’34. Under the heading “how Free is Freedom?” Bauman
writes in the same book: ‘To be an individual does not necessarily
mean to be free. The form of individuality on offer in late-modern or
postmodern society…. –privatised individuality – means essentially,
unfreedom’. It is through consumption people perceive that they are
best able to exert their individuality. The existential tremors find
their solution in a longing for belongingness and the carnival
communities where for a brief period people will be in a mass of
gatherings.
---------
34
Bauman, Zygmunt 1999, In search of Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
17