Philosophy and
Cultural Studies
by
Carolyn Hendriks
Social and Political Theory Program
Research School of Social Sciences
Australian National University
Abstract
Civil society remains a murky concept and the field of deliberative democracy is as guilty as any of using the term with limited critical discussion of what it includes, and what its normative role encompasses. This paper takes on this exploration and in doing so reveals a number of tensions within the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. Amongst the growing literature on deliberative democracy there are two emerging streams of thought and both have something different to say on the role of civil society. There are micro deliberative democrats who concentrate on defining the procedural conditions of a structured deliberative forum (Elster 1986; Gutmann and Thomson 1996) and there are macro deliberative democrats who are more concerned with the messy, unstructured deliberation which takes place in the public sphere (Dryzek 1990; 2000; Habermas 1996).
These two streams of deliberative democracy implicitly offer contrasting ideas on the role of civil society with respect to the state. With their focus on proceduralism, micro theorists encourage civil society to engage in collaborative practices with the state. In contrast, macro theorists advocate that civil society work outside and against the state in oppositional politics. Apart from this being a theoretical inconsistency, this phenomenon also has practical ramifications. The recent experiences of deliberative designs such as citizens’ juries and deliberative polls in Australia highlights some of the problems which can arise when the micro deliberation of ‘the forum’ confronts the macro deliberation in the public sphere.
Introduction
Civil society is one of those amorphous terms, which floats around with multiple meanings, each with a different political connotation. It has been described as the “... the ‘chicken soup’ of social sciences….the locus of what there is of utopianism in contemporary political thought”.1 The recent surge of comparative literature on civil society highlights the breadth of interpretations that the term can take on across theories of politics.2 Even within a given political theory, consensus on what ‘civil society’ encompasses does not appear any easier to attain. The field of deliberative democracy is as guilty as any of using the term with limited critical discussion of what it includes, and what its normative role encompasses. This paper takes on this exploration and in doing so reveals a number of tensions within the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.
Deliberative democracy has become a booming area of political thought and many democratic theorists are calling for more of it. But like any appealing political theory, deliberative democracy runs the risk of becoming disconnected from the practice of real politics. This is particularly so in relation to what deliberative democracy has to say on civil society.
Within the growing literature on deliberative democracy there are two emerging streams of thought. There are those micro deliberative theorists who concentrate on defining the ideal conditions of a deliberative procedure.3 This stream of the theory provides only a limited discussion on who deliberation should involve and does not refer to civil society per se. In contrast, macro deliberative theorists emphasise informal discursive forms of deliberation, which take place in civil society.4 Their primary focus is on the role of unstructured, open communication in deliberative politics.
These two streams of deliberative democratic theory prescribe very different roles for civil society, particularly with respect to how citizens and groups should relate to the state and whether they should take on a communicative or strategic role in deliberative politics. Micro theories of deliberative democracy suggest that sectors of civil society should engage in deliberative politics to the extent that they are willing and capable of participating in structured deliberative forums. In this sense civil society is implicitly called to take on communicative forms of action through collaborating with the state. Conversely, macro theories of deliberative democracy emphasise the informal and unstructured nature of public discussion. Under this conception, civil society plays a role in the informal political activity both outside and against the state. These activities presumably require both communicative and strategic (non-deliberative) behaviour.
This division has practical ramifications. As I, and others, have observed, some interest groups react strategically to deliberative forums such as citizen juries and deliberative polls. These observations show that the ideals of structured deliberative forums can be in conflict with the unstructured nature of deliberation within civil society. This suggests that the creation of formal micro deliberative spaces is not necessarily compatible with the desires of active publics, who seek to challenge state institutions and policies.
These apparent differences and tensions within deliberative democracy highlight the need for both its theory and practice to take a more critical look at how they relate to civil society. This paper takes on this task firstly by unpacking what the concept of civil society might mean for deliberative democracy and how this definition relates to terms such as interest groups, social movements and lay citizens. Secondly, the paper explores the potential tensions between the roles assigned to civil society by micro and macro versions of deliberative democracy. This theoretical discussion is then enriched with some insights from the recent practice of deliberative forums in Australia. The concluding section of the paper draws attention to the heterogeneity of civil society particularly with respect to how different sectors choose to engage in deliberation. I argue that a more productive conception of civil society for deliberative democrats is one that acknowledges that certain groups and actors are more capable and willing to deliberate than others.
What is this thing called ‘civil society’?
Civil society is a highly contested concept. Social theorists and philosophers have debated the virtues and boundaries of civil society at least since its early modern usage in the late seventeenth century in western Europe.5 Scottish moralists, for example, conceive of civil society as a source of ethics – a place where norms emerged from the people rather than from external institutions such as the monarch or the church.6 Subsequent philosophers from Hume, to Hegel to Marx have critiqued this romantic conception of civil society each for different reasons. Hume, for instance, challenged the notion of universalistic social norms, while Hegel argued that civil society should be embedded in institutions of the state, including corporations.
In contemporary debates, there are two broad uses of the term. The first, which stemmed from the rise of anticommunist movements in Eastern Europe, views ‘civil society’ as a source of state opposition.8 This position grew out of the experiences in both in Eastern Europe and Latin America over the past 20 years where grassroots groups gained wide public momentum to overthrow repressive regimes.9 The second broad usage of ‘civil society’ emerged out of North America as a backlash to liberal individualism. In this context, the concept refers to the communal and associational spaces of social life, which, it is argued, are necessary for a well functioning democracy.10 The concept of civil society has surfaced in a breadth of literature spanning communitarianism, new social movements, social capital, associative democracy, deliberative democracy and more recently in the work on the ‘democratic deficit’. Its prolific usage has given ‘civil society’ an ambiguous character. It is often used interchangeably with terms such as ‘public sphere’ and ‘community’. Definitions of civil socity that do exist do not tend draw upon known concepts like social movements and interest groups. This terminological swamp makes navigating the territories of civil society a difficult endeavour. It should therefore come as no surprise to the reader that sourcing an agreed upon definition is near impossible. is probably safe to say that civil society broadly refers to the formal and informal
associations and networks in society, which exist outside the state. Some definitions limit
civil society to the domain of voluntary association, encompassing everything from loose
apolitical social networks to sporting clubs through to organised and politically motivated
interest groups. Others go further and distinguish civil society from not just the state, but
from the economy.11 Civil society, as distinct from the state and the economy,
“…include[s] all institutions and associational forms that require communicative
interaction for their reproduction and that rely primarily on processes of social integration
for coordinating action within their boundaries”.12
Definitions based on differentiating civil society from the state and economy are always unclear with respect to boundaries. That diverse interpretations of civil society exist across so many different political theories and religious traditions is due to the slippery boundaries between the state, economy and society. The complex interaction between all three domains has meant that much disagreement remains for example, as to what extent civil society should encompasses the commercial and private spheres of society. Civil society is best conceptualised in spatial terms as an arena where different sort of activities occur.13 Rather than distinguishing civil society by sector, or degree of voluntarianism, civil society is distinct for the “kinds of activities” it carries out across a range of private, political and civic associations and networks.14 One of its defining features is its capacity to ‘self-organise’, that is, “to develop communicative interaction that support identities, expand participatory possibilities and create networks of
solidarity”.15 This definition implies that civil society encompasses the private sphere of families as well as associations, social movements, and other forms of public communication, such as the media16. It excludes state-bounded institutions such as political parties, parliament and the bureaucracy, as well as organisations centred wholly on the market and economic production.17
Within this definition there is enormous heterogeneity. Some sectors of civil society are more orientated towards the state or economy than others. Some sectors pursue progressive ideas, some more conservative ones, and others taken on fundamentalist positions. Civil society is also heterogeneous with respect to resources, power and influence. Social and economic inequalities in civil society provide certain groups with privileged access to information, labour and finance. Such resources allow some sectors in civil society with greater organising capacity and typically more access to the state. Thus, powerful groups with sophisticated political strategies such as lobby organisations have far more capacity to assess government and influence policy then smaller semi-organised community based groups.
One way to differentiate between different sectors in civil society is the degree to which they seek to influence the activities of the state.18 Based on this criterion alone, civil society can be envisaged as a series of concentric circles around the state (See Figure 1). The more politicised sectors of civil society, often referred to as public spheres, are centred around the state.19 Public spheres enable the various discourses and ideas in civil society to be ‘voiced” and “made politically efficacious”.20 They seek to influence public affairs by acting as networks of public opinion, which communicate information and points of view.21 Different public spheres emerge out of civil society, often in response to failures in the economy and the state.22 Some are more politically organised (eg. interest groups) than others (eg. social movements), some work locally, others internationally.
Share
by
Carolyn Hendriks
Social and Political Theory Program
Research School of Social Sciences
Australian National University
Abstract
Civil society remains a murky concept and the field of deliberative democracy is as guilty as any of using the term with limited critical discussion of what it includes, and what its normative role encompasses. This paper takes on this exploration and in doing so reveals a number of tensions within the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. Amongst the growing literature on deliberative democracy there are two emerging streams of thought and both have something different to say on the role of civil society. There are micro deliberative democrats who concentrate on defining the procedural conditions of a structured deliberative forum (Elster 1986; Gutmann and Thomson 1996) and there are macro deliberative democrats who are more concerned with the messy, unstructured deliberation which takes place in the public sphere (Dryzek 1990; 2000; Habermas 1996).
These two streams of deliberative democracy implicitly offer contrasting ideas on the role of civil society with respect to the state. With their focus on proceduralism, micro theorists encourage civil society to engage in collaborative practices with the state. In contrast, macro theorists advocate that civil society work outside and against the state in oppositional politics. Apart from this being a theoretical inconsistency, this phenomenon also has practical ramifications. The recent experiences of deliberative designs such as citizens’ juries and deliberative polls in Australia highlights some of the problems which can arise when the micro deliberation of ‘the forum’ confronts the macro deliberation in the public sphere.
Introduction
Civil society is one of those amorphous terms, which floats around with multiple meanings, each with a different political connotation. It has been described as the “... the ‘chicken soup’ of social sciences….the locus of what there is of utopianism in contemporary political thought”.1 The recent surge of comparative literature on civil society highlights the breadth of interpretations that the term can take on across theories of politics.2 Even within a given political theory, consensus on what ‘civil society’ encompasses does not appear any easier to attain. The field of deliberative democracy is as guilty as any of using the term with limited critical discussion of what it includes, and what its normative role encompasses. This paper takes on this exploration and in doing so reveals a number of tensions within the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.
Deliberative democracy has become a booming area of political thought and many democratic theorists are calling for more of it. But like any appealing political theory, deliberative democracy runs the risk of becoming disconnected from the practice of real politics. This is particularly so in relation to what deliberative democracy has to say on civil society.
Within the growing literature on deliberative democracy there are two emerging streams of thought. There are those micro deliberative theorists who concentrate on defining the ideal conditions of a deliberative procedure.3 This stream of the theory provides only a limited discussion on who deliberation should involve and does not refer to civil society per se. In contrast, macro deliberative theorists emphasise informal discursive forms of deliberation, which take place in civil society.4 Their primary focus is on the role of unstructured, open communication in deliberative politics.
These two streams of deliberative democratic theory prescribe very different roles for civil society, particularly with respect to how citizens and groups should relate to the state and whether they should take on a communicative or strategic role in deliberative politics. Micro theories of deliberative democracy suggest that sectors of civil society should engage in deliberative politics to the extent that they are willing and capable of participating in structured deliberative forums. In this sense civil society is implicitly called to take on communicative forms of action through collaborating with the state. Conversely, macro theories of deliberative democracy emphasise the informal and unstructured nature of public discussion. Under this conception, civil society plays a role in the informal political activity both outside and against the state. These activities presumably require both communicative and strategic (non-deliberative) behaviour.
This division has practical ramifications. As I, and others, have observed, some interest groups react strategically to deliberative forums such as citizen juries and deliberative polls. These observations show that the ideals of structured deliberative forums can be in conflict with the unstructured nature of deliberation within civil society. This suggests that the creation of formal micro deliberative spaces is not necessarily compatible with the desires of active publics, who seek to challenge state institutions and policies.
These apparent differences and tensions within deliberative democracy highlight the need for both its theory and practice to take a more critical look at how they relate to civil society. This paper takes on this task firstly by unpacking what the concept of civil society might mean for deliberative democracy and how this definition relates to terms such as interest groups, social movements and lay citizens. Secondly, the paper explores the potential tensions between the roles assigned to civil society by micro and macro versions of deliberative democracy. This theoretical discussion is then enriched with some insights from the recent practice of deliberative forums in Australia. The concluding section of the paper draws attention to the heterogeneity of civil society particularly with respect to how different sectors choose to engage in deliberation. I argue that a more productive conception of civil society for deliberative democrats is one that acknowledges that certain groups and actors are more capable and willing to deliberate than others.
What is this thing called ‘civil society’?
Civil society is a highly contested concept. Social theorists and philosophers have debated the virtues and boundaries of civil society at least since its early modern usage in the late seventeenth century in western Europe.5 Scottish moralists, for example, conceive of civil society as a source of ethics – a place where norms emerged from the people rather than from external institutions such as the monarch or the church.6 Subsequent philosophers from Hume, to Hegel to Marx have critiqued this romantic conception of civil society each for different reasons. Hume, for instance, challenged the notion of universalistic social norms, while Hegel argued that civil society should be embedded in institutions of the state, including corporations.
In contemporary debates, there are two broad uses of the term. The first, which stemmed from the rise of anticommunist movements in Eastern Europe, views ‘civil society’ as a source of state opposition.8 This position grew out of the experiences in both in Eastern Europe and Latin America over the past 20 years where grassroots groups gained wide public momentum to overthrow repressive regimes.9 The second broad usage of ‘civil society’ emerged out of North America as a backlash to liberal individualism. In this context, the concept refers to the communal and associational spaces of social life, which, it is argued, are necessary for a well functioning democracy.10 The concept of civil society has surfaced in a breadth of literature spanning communitarianism, new social movements, social capital, associative democracy, deliberative democracy and more recently in the work on the ‘democratic deficit’. Its prolific usage has given ‘civil society’ an ambiguous character. It is often used interchangeably with terms such as ‘public sphere’ and ‘community’. Definitions of civil socity that do exist do not tend draw upon known concepts like social movements and interest groups. This terminological swamp makes navigating the territories of civil society a difficult endeavour. It should therefore come as no surprise to the reader that sourcing an agreed upon definition is near impossible. is probably safe to say that civil society broadly refers to the formal and informal
associations and networks in society, which exist outside the state. Some definitions limit
civil society to the domain of voluntary association, encompassing everything from loose
apolitical social networks to sporting clubs through to organised and politically motivated
interest groups. Others go further and distinguish civil society from not just the state, but
from the economy.11 Civil society, as distinct from the state and the economy,
“…include[s] all institutions and associational forms that require communicative
interaction for their reproduction and that rely primarily on processes of social integration
for coordinating action within their boundaries”.12
Definitions based on differentiating civil society from the state and economy are always unclear with respect to boundaries. That diverse interpretations of civil society exist across so many different political theories and religious traditions is due to the slippery boundaries between the state, economy and society. The complex interaction between all three domains has meant that much disagreement remains for example, as to what extent civil society should encompasses the commercial and private spheres of society. Civil society is best conceptualised in spatial terms as an arena where different sort of activities occur.13 Rather than distinguishing civil society by sector, or degree of voluntarianism, civil society is distinct for the “kinds of activities” it carries out across a range of private, political and civic associations and networks.14 One of its defining features is its capacity to ‘self-organise’, that is, “to develop communicative interaction that support identities, expand participatory possibilities and create networks of
solidarity”.15 This definition implies that civil society encompasses the private sphere of families as well as associations, social movements, and other forms of public communication, such as the media16. It excludes state-bounded institutions such as political parties, parliament and the bureaucracy, as well as organisations centred wholly on the market and economic production.17
Within this definition there is enormous heterogeneity. Some sectors of civil society are more orientated towards the state or economy than others. Some sectors pursue progressive ideas, some more conservative ones, and others taken on fundamentalist positions. Civil society is also heterogeneous with respect to resources, power and influence. Social and economic inequalities in civil society provide certain groups with privileged access to information, labour and finance. Such resources allow some sectors in civil society with greater organising capacity and typically more access to the state. Thus, powerful groups with sophisticated political strategies such as lobby organisations have far more capacity to assess government and influence policy then smaller semi-organised community based groups.
One way to differentiate between different sectors in civil society is the degree to which they seek to influence the activities of the state.18 Based on this criterion alone, civil society can be envisaged as a series of concentric circles around the state (See Figure 1). The more politicised sectors of civil society, often referred to as public spheres, are centred around the state.19 Public spheres enable the various discourses and ideas in civil society to be ‘voiced” and “made politically efficacious”.20 They seek to influence public affairs by acting as networks of public opinion, which communicate information and points of view.21 Different public spheres emerge out of civil society, often in response to failures in the economy and the state.22 Some are more politically organised (eg. interest groups) than others (eg. social movements), some work locally, others internationally.
