reshape human beings and their relationships in any terms other than money, growth, and organizational self-interest. As with social media in chapter 4, therefore, I have revised the treatment of civil society and the market in chapter 3 to take account of a growing body of research and experience which suggests that the costs of internalizing market values and practices are starting to outweigh the benefits.
Taken together, these four trends pose major challenges to the theory and practice of civil society in all of its guises, though they also open up some important opportunities – in the shape, for example, of new social movements that have arisen in response to the strengthening of nationalist political forces, or the increasing dissatisfaction with the condition of associational life that one sees among many younger activists. I explore these opportunities in chapter 2. It is also clear that these trends feed off each other: authoritarianism and polarization are natural bedfellows which both benefit from and accentuate the fracturing of the public sphere. The decline of voluntary associations which bring people of different views and backgrounds together is a consequence of that fracturing but also another cause. The more civil society is eroded, the less it can do its job; and the less it does its job, the weaker it becomes. Faced by these interlocking and deeply entrenched problems and developments, what can be done?
If civil society isn’t “the problem,” it cannot be “the solution,” at least in any simple or straightforward sense. But all of the issues outlined above contain an important civil society dimension, and adopting a tripartite analysis of associational life, the good society and the public sphere can help us to understand how these different dimensions interact with one another to bring solutions closer. Take rising cultural and political polarization as an example. Theorists who follow the associational school of civil society look to the decline and revival of certain kinds of organization as the key to understanding and addressing this problem – particularly groups that bring together people of different backgrounds and ideologies in common projects. But organizations are usually reflections of much deeper loyalties that are anchored in contrasting visions of social and political values and priorities. Unless those deeper divisions can be aired and mediated in some way, changes in the physical infrastructure of civil society are unlikely to have much effect. And the only way to mediate them – to sort through such differences and reach some common ground as the basis for policy and action – is by protecting and enhancing the communications structures of the public sphere so that people can talk honestly to each other. In isolation, no one school of thought is satisfactory, but taken together they can build on each other’s strengths and weaknesses to reveal opportunities for action of a kind that might actually produce results. Chapter 6 explores these opportunities, and each of my other chapters has been adjusted to take account of contemporary developments. As in previous editions, I have also updated the examples and references used throughout.
Carried over from 2003, however, when the first edition of the book was written, is a strong element of advocacy for civil society as something that is philosophically and practically distinct from government and business. Indeed, it is this difference that makes the difference to democracy and social change. There must be spaces and opportunities that are not dedicated to making money or accumulating power if civic values and relationships are to take root and flourish – places where we can meet each other for conversation and shape a collective course of action in line with our own democratically derived priorities. It is that possibility that is threatened by current trends. It may seem a truism to say that the future of civil society depends on us – on the members or constituent parts of the civil sphere and not on wealthy donors or politicians. But this observation is important: prioritizing democracy and mass participation over bureaucracy and oligarchic dominance is a vital step forward in recovering a more powerful vision of civil society and its possibilities. This doesn’t mean standing still or pretending that we can go back in time to a romanticized civic past, but it does require that we hold onto some foundational principles even as we search for new ways to put them into practice.
Reviving civil society in the face of repression, polarization, and inequality is both a personal and a political (or institutional) challenge. Do we want to build an authentic civil society or not? If we disagree on what that means, do we want to be part of a democratic dialogue to find out? And since dialogues at present are neither civil nor democratic, are we at least committed to building the conditions in which everyone can participate so that we can start a different conversation with each other instead of shouting from our separate bunkers? Anything that brings people closer together rather than forcing them apart will help; anything that generates honest conversation instead of fake news and propaganda can move us forward; and anything that enriches the quality of life rather than diminishing it deserves our attention. These are all ways to build a civil society that’s worthy of the name. The rest is up to us.
Notes
1 Ripley (2018). 2 Rutzen (2015); CIVICUS (2018). 3 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/16/brazil-environment-chief-accused-of-war-on-ngos-as-partnerships-paused 4 Skocpol and Williamson (2012). 5 Cramer (2016); Hochschild (2018). 6 https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/politics/john-mccain-farewell-statement/index.html 7 Lindsay (2018). 8 Edwards (2018b).
Acknowledgments
My thanks go to all those who have provided feedback on the third edition of Civil Society since its publication in 2014, and who have supplied me with a rich array of additional references, case studies, and other source material. Naturally, responsibility for all errors and omissions in the book remains mine. I have received excellent support and guidance from Jonathan Skerrett and Karina Jákupsdóttir at Polity Press in Cambridge, while three anonymous reviewers made valuable suggestions on an earlier draft. The revisions for this book were completed at our home in upstate New York, where my wife Cora is blazing a trail for true democracy and decency in government. As my own “civil society,” this book continues to be dedicated to her.
Michael Edwards
Swan Hill
March 2019
1 Introduction – What’s the Big Idea?
Set into the wall of the Church of the Ascension on London’s Blackheath is a small metal plaque. “Fellowship is life,” it reads, “and lack of fellowship is death, but in hell there is no brotherhood but every man for himself.” John Ball, the leader of the Peasants’ Revolt who spoke these words nearby in 1381, would not have thought of himself as part of “civil society,” but his sentiments have been echoed down the centuries by anyone who has ever joined a group, formed an association, or volunteered to defend or advance the causes they believed in. Collective action in search of the good society is a universal part of human experience, though manifested in a million different ways across time, space, and culture. In Sullivan County, New York, where I live, I am surrounded by contemporary examples of the same phenomenon – the volunteer fire service, the free giveaway of hay to those who can’t afford to buy it for their pets, the music sale by Radio W-JEFF (“America’s only hydro-powered public radio station”), the community activists at Swan Lake Renaissance who are my neighbors, and a myriad of other groups that cater to every affinity and interest. Yet Sullivan County remains economically depressed and politically divided, one more set of communities on the margins of a nation that is increasingly violent, unequal, and apparently incapable of resolving its own pressing social problems. A strong civil society, it seems,
