R.S.

Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

TOPIC 2: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL SOCIETY Respicius Shumbusho Damian *** [Do not cite: Extract notes from a draft manuscript] *** INTRODUCTION Civil society of our age, the one we know, is a product of a long history. Both the concept and practice have grown through centuries. Down the ages, philosophical thinking on the idea of civil society has been changing. However, common under all ages in the history of mankind, the philosophical thinking has evolved around how people could best meet their individual needs while also achieving collective ends. This is a central characterization of the society that is civil. Regardless of being good or bad, philosophers agree that at one point in history, the sphere and institutional arrangements referred to as civil society became important. The philosophy of civil society attempts to contemplate and idealize about the relationship between man, society, and the state. In other words, the philosophical contemplation and idealization related to building a society in which people treat each other in a civil manner forms the philosophy on civil society across the history. The philosophy of each age has influenced the meaning of civil society differently. A point of caution when analyzing the philosophical ideas on civil society is that; in most cases becomes difficult to have consensus among analysts that they can accurately group specific philosophers under specific ages across the history. The reason behind this analytical crisscross is that; there are either disagreements among ideas of philosophers within specific ages (e.g. the middle age) or the ideas of philosophers of different ages tend to overlap (e.g. middle age versus enlightment). In this regard, it is important to note a shift in thinking even if it is noted between thinkers who are identified under the same philosophical age. However, to learn such paradoxical points, students of Political Science must develop a habit of using books written by philosophers themselves rather than depending on analytical texts (or philosophical outline series). a) CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHERS (BEFORE 450 AD) The concern of classical philosophers was how could people achieve good life in the polis, the Greek city states; especially, how to resolve the conflict between the interests of individuals and those of the society). Political historians trace the concept from the societas civilis of Cicero, which means a good society i. Socrates (470-399) Socrates did not write down his ideas. His philosophical thinking on civil society is presented by Plato. According to Plato, Socrates advocated that conflict between individual and society could be resolved through public argument using the dialectic, a form of rational dialogue in which the arguers test propositions against others propositions in order to uncover the truth; that is, until they achieve a reasoning that cannot be refuted. For Socrates, this is what is referred to as civility. Question for Discussion: What is a civil society according to Socrates? ii. Plato (437-347) In the writings of Plato, the concept Just Society is used as a substitute of civil society. According to Plato, a just society is a society in which individuals subject their souls and personalities to civic virtue of wisdom. According to Plato, soul is made up of three elements with contradicting motives of existence;

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

Appetite: Seeks to achieve personal satisfaction, especially physical satisfaction (such as wealth, leisure, and tastiness, beauty,) Spirit: Seeks to achieve social approval (peaceful coexistence, acceptance, tolerance), and Reason: Seeks the truth (how the right order of things should be)

For Plato, a just society is made up of just persons (individuals) whose reason, aided by a strong spirit, constrain the aspirations of the appetite. Therefore, a just society is one in which people dedicate themselves to the common good, practice civic virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, and perform the occupational role to which they are best suited. For instance, the ideal state of Plato is ruled by philosopherkings, who make decisions based solely on the common good (because a philosopher king is wise and knowledgeable he will also treat people in civility). Question for Discussion: What is a civil society according to Plato? iii. Aristotle (384-322) Aristotle described civil society as an ethicalpolitical community of free and equal citizens of good and responsible character who by mutual consent agree to live under a system of law that expresses the norms and values they share. To Aristotle, civil society meant a civil-ized society in which humans submit to the rule of absolute monarchs who hold the power to hold their aggressive and self aggrandizing instincts in check. To him, a civil society is also a political society. The Aristotelian conception of civil society was based on the assumption that there is inherent in humanity a capacity for radical selforganization grounded in a shared sense of the underlying spiritual unity of the whole of life. According to Aristotle, man is a political animal. Man is born in the state, which is a creation of nature (and he who by nature is without a state is either a bad man or above human nature). The state is prior to both the individual and the family. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated does not become self-sufficing as it is a party to the whole. In other words, Aristotles state has no distinct reference that separates it from the society. The state comes into existence originating in the bare needs of life and continues existence for the sake of good life (Aristotle, in Politics). Question for Discussion: According to Aristotle, how does a society become civil? What is Unique about Civil Society in Classical Philosophy? In classical philosophy, civil society is generally associated with good life in a political community. The philosophers in the classical period did not make a clear-cut distinction between the state and society. They commonly held that the state represented the civil form of society and civility represented the requirement of good citizenship in a politically organized society (a good society is civil, and is politically organized). However, the disagreement among classical philosophers is on the kind and powers of that political authority (compared to the society). For instance, Aristotle in his philosophy referred to the state as a creation of nature to which all human beings belong by their virtue of existence (reason). Classical philosophers held that human beings are inherently rational that they can collectively shape the nature of the society they belong to. In addition, human beings have the capacity to voluntarily gather for the common cause and maintain peace in society. By holding this view, we can say that classical political thinkers endorsed the genesis of civil society in its original sense. 2

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

b) MIDDLE/MEDIAVAL AGE (450 A.D-1500 AD) The middle age thinking grew out of the growth of Christian influence in the Roman Empire. The prominent invention about explaining the relationship between man, society, and state during middle age was reconciliation between reason and faith. It was basically the age of subjection of reason to the will of God. With the rise of feudal political arrangements, the classical conception and discussions related to civil society disappeared. The explanation of the relationship between the individual, society, and state was conceived under divine theories and dominance of the church and the feudal class over political authority. A. St. Augustine (354 to 430) In his famous book, City of God, St. Augustine subjected belief in a natural law of society (based on reason) to one based on belief in faith of God. He replaced speech, reason, deliberation and action in a politically organized civil society with faith, Scripture and the Church, allowing only Christian principles to constitute the foundations of civil society. To him, Rome had conquered a lot of wealth, but it was suffering from malady and division simply because its institutions were of the earthly city that lacked a moral content, which comes from God only. Augustine did not articulate a coherent theory of the relations between the state and civil society, but provided justification for the responsibility of the church for civil society. Submission to the will of God, as elucidated by the fear-inducing institutions of Church and State, was required to lessen the pain and suffering of humans forever that was tainted by original sin. This thought formed the basis of law and order during the subsequent centuries of the feudal era. St. Augustine invoked a sharp dualism between the City of God and the Earthly City. In the city of God, the organizing principles are the Christian morals, faith, and ethics, while the organizing principles in the ethyl city were reason, speech, and deliberation. B. Thomas Aquinas (12251274) The ideas of Thomas Aquinas, which are related to civil society, are presented in his Summa Theologica-Part Two. Aquinas reconciled reason (of Aristotle) with faith by positing that correct human conduct cannot be rationally ascertained through study of the laws of nature, but only in accordance with the divine laws ordained by God. He argued that nature provides the foundation (intellect) by which we know what we ought to do, but discipline (from others) is also needed. Scripture provides the moral values which guide people in their interpretations of natural law principles in their formulation of specific human laws. According to Thomas Aquinas, there is a close connection between virtuous man (with moral excellence) and God. Morality is internal; and thus no one can legislate morality. All human good law is derived from morality (which is a natural law). Thus, morality which is the only natural law is enough in the sense that human beings do not need any other law. The Bibles admonishment to "love your neighbor" thus provides a guideline to recognizing that people get along best when their mutual rights are respected, leading to laws that treat all citizens alike (as it is in the society that he aspired). Note: Generally, the Aristotelian conception of civil society, which was taken up by Thomas Aquinas is that; civil society is a morally perfect and Self-sufficient human group-a society perfected by the moral virtue (reason/faith in God)

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

C. Renaissances Philosophy (14-16th) Some scholars argue that the enlightment philosophy covers the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the analysts of civil society philosophy have suggested that enlightment begins with the attempt of philosophers to challenge the feudal system and the divine theory during the 16th century. Notably, medieval political thinkers observed that power and authority came first from God and then from a social mandate. In the thinking of both St. Augustine and Aquinas, civil society is equivalent to a moral society in which individuals possess a sense of moral excellence that comes from believing in God. Some critics have even argued that the two were not idealizing about civil society, but rather a religious society characterized by mutual assistance for all. Martin Luther and John Calvins ideas marked the beginning of renaissance thinkers whose major philosophical concern was to question legitimacy of both the absolute monarchy state of the mid 18th century and the church, which legitimated monarchs by emphasizing the theory of divine origin of the state. The philosophers of the time posited that both the feudal state and the church were obstacles to human progress and they proposed a society organized on basis of positive law (rather than natural law). C.1. Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) Martin Luther and John Calvin, founders of Protestant religion marked the beginning of the Renaissance period. They protested against the Roman Catholic Church authority, as being corrupt. Their main contribution to the idea of civil society was not that the State should be similarly replaced, but rather that people should be free to choose their own religious commitments while demonstrating charity and service to their neighbors (as it was for other medieval thinkers). D. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORISTS Social contract philosophers and theorists were commonly concerned with the source and relationship between civil society and the state. They commonly used human nature to augment the origin and role of the civil society and the state. The term contract comes from the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon agreement among people to form the society in which they live (and later) or form a political authority. Social contract differs in the way they characterize man in the state of nature and the necessary kind of authority they proposed (and how it relates to society) in relation to human nature. C.2. D.1. Nicole Machiavelli (1439-1527) The thinking of Machiavelli as presented in The Prince was most influenced by the rise of Market corporations under which murder, destruction, violence and selfishness regulated the social order. From this situation, he characterized man as by nature selfish, wicked, deceitful, greedy, self-interested, profit driven, and concerned with himself compared to others. Machiavelli argues that man is usually content and happy so long as he is not victim of some terrible occurrence or set of negative circumstances. However, the state of nature is characterized by negative circumstances (murder, destruction, and violence). So as to be safe, content, and happy man wanted to live out of the state of nature by submitting to the sovereign, the Prince who is by necessity, a member of an established and influential family, a man with long blood-lines to other rulers who, by nature of his heredity, has

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

less cause to offend others and thus rules effectively through his urbane nature. (Chap II, pp.8). As longer as the Prince cannot think what is not right for his people, he needs to provide the right foundations for a vibrant civil life so that the individuals could place common interests above the private interests and save themselves and the society from corruption. The prince could provide a viable framework for collective protection and eliminate all forms of suffering (of the state of nature). For Machiavelli conflict is a constant in the civil society (due to classes). It could never be entirely eliminated but could be managed through appropriate civil institutions, a vigorous public life and creative leadership of the Prince. In this sense, the Prince rule was vital for securing civil liberties, controlling private interests and revitalizing civil society. Private interests, economic and social relations, and morality mattered only if they affected the ability of the political authorities to hold civil society together. In Machiavellis social contract, there is undivided sovereignty between the state and civil society. Since civil society is organized around private interests (in the society of nature), no civil society can stand by itself. Machiavellis prince would come into power through ways including conquering and would not be overthrown by the people. Thus, in Machiavellian social contract, civil society is subjected to control by the state, which cannot be challenged.
Reflection Question: What negative circumstances and terrible occurrences would you think of that have changed human nature in the current Tanzanian realities? To what extent have political authorities attempted to apply Machiavellis philosophy?

E. Enlightment Philosophy (17-18th C) Unlike the renaissance philosophy, enlightment philosophy was much concerned with questioning arbitrary authority and they mostly emphasized political authority that comes from the consent of the people. The role of governments is well justified as a servant of the people and not their master. The Enlightenment philosophers believed in the inherent goodness of the human mind which called for moral and political authority. However, they differed on the assumption they have on the effect of selfrule that the individuals within a politically organized community would aspire as well as the powers they have above the government placed in power through consent of the people. D.2. Thomas Hobbes (15881679) Like Machiavelli, Hobbes thinking about civil society was influenced by the political unrests resulting from the wars between the church and parliament supporters (English Civil Wars). The wars were threatening the power of King Charles I (whom Hobbes supported). Hobbes characterized human beings as by nature brutish, war-like, nasty, and self interested. Man in the state of nature was like a beast. The state of nature was thus a state of war of every man against every man. Consequently, life was "solitary, poorer, nasty, brutish, and short". Such a state of constant wars among individual limits social developments and common wealth. Thus, people sought to create a society in which natural rights of the people are protected and all persons ought to seek peace. However, Hobbes recognized a divine based Golden Rule that states that one should respect the rights of others in order to safeguard ones own.

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

Hobbes contends that due to fear of the situation in the state of nature, people agreed among themselves to submit to the sovereign, the leviathan who would execute the natural law and protect their natural rights on behalf of them. The sovereign knows what is best for his people and it is his will that defines evil and good for his subject. (If you shut up and do as you are told, you have the right not to be killed, and you do not even have the right not to be killed, for no matter what the Sovereign does, and what he does doesnt constitute violation of contract). From the ideas of Hobbes, civil society is the application of force by the state to uphold contracts and so forth. Civil society is a creation of the state. Sovereignty rather than Sociability (of Hume) is a necessary tool for formation of stable civil society. From Hobbes point of view, what modern scholars call civil society may be taken as pointless conflict and pursuit of selfish ends that a good government should suppress. Whatever the state does is just by definition. All of society is a direct creation of the state, and a reflection of the will of the ruler. D.3. John Locke (1632-1704) In the Second Treatise, Locke developed a theory of civil society that begins with characterization of human nature and the state of nature. According to Locke, man is by nature a social animal, cooperative, and likes peace. Man in the state of nature was happy, free and enjoyed natural rights (which are naturally given to all human beings-by God who is above them (p.70). The state of nature was governed by the natural law, which was not written, but obliges and teaches everyone to consult it and love all human beings. Thus, in the state of nature men mostly kept their promises and honored their obligations, and, though insecure, it was mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant. The weakness of the law of nature was that; there was nobody to provide collective protection of the natural law. Since all are kings, in the state of nature, however free, enjoyment of natural rights (life, property, and liberty) is not constantly assured. This fear compelled man to enter into cooperation with others so as to enjoy mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, (which Locke generally calls property). Thus, the people come together and agree to submit to the political authority, which provides collective protection of natural rights. Lockes social contract provides an opportunity for people (in civil society) to remove the ruler (government) from power if it does not served the interests of the people. The formation of civil society and political authority in Lockes social contract theory is summarized in The Second Treatise, page 89 as follows: Where-ever therefore any number of Men are so united into one Society, as to quit every one his Executive Power of the Law of Nature, and to resign it to the publick, there and there only is a Political, or Civil Society. And this is done where-ever any number of Men, in the state of nature, enter into Society to make one People, one Body Politick under one Supreme Government, or else when any one joyns himself to, and incorporates with any Government already made. For hereby he authorizes the Society, or which is all one, the Legislative thereof to make Laws for him as the publick good of the Society shall require; to the Execution whereof, his own assistance (as to his own Decrees) is due. And this puts Men out of a State of Nature into that of a

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

Commonwealth, by setting up a Judge on Earth, with Authority to determine all the controversies, and redress the injuries, that may happen to any Member of the Commonwealth From Lockes social contract, there are two separate contracts; the first between the individual and the society, while the second between the society and the political authority. Civil society precedes the state, both morally and historically, but the people who form civil society are the ones who agree to form the state; and thus become theirs. Moreover, civility, which begins with creation of social order, is a responsibility of the society, then after creation of social order the society grants the state legitimacy. The only important role of the state is to ensure that justice is seen to be done in society (social perfection). While the state does not ensure justice, people through civil society can remove it from power. John Locke advocated for a strong civil society that has powers and control over the state not only during the contract (e.g. election), but also on the future relationship between the state and society. Autonomy of civil society in Lockes social contract is indispensable since the state arises from a contract between the people (not individual) and the political authority. In addition to a strong civil society, Locke suggested that the contractual terms between the state and society should be guaranteed through known principles, a constitution that safeguards peoples sovereignty. In the way, Lockes ideas are regarded to be the main source of collective constitutional rights (we the people), limited government, and autonomous civil society as they are emphasized under liberal democratic values. D.4. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in the Second Discourse, writes; Man was born free, but he is every where in chains (pp.6). According to Rousseau, man in the state of nature was free since he was born free, but the progress of civilization has substituted subordination of others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which people judge themselves through comparisons with others. Since with civilization man would no longer find it feasible and desirable to return to the state of nature, man entered a social contract so as to submit to an authority that can restore freedom and reconcile inequalities in society. As men lost their natural innocence as a noble savage, they had to organize themselves into civil society. Since all men are equal (and are to be made equal), all individuals in society submit their particular wills to the collective or general will, that is created through agreement with other free and equal persons. The state is thus an arena for defining the nature of the common good, and civil liberty emerges only when all people are willing to abide by the general will. Rousseaus ideas on civil society give more importance to collective good compared to Locke and Hobbes. Formation of the general will is a two-stage process. Society developed as a trick which allowed the wealthy to maintain inequalities of power and privilege by postulating an equal freedom to acquire such advantages. A social contract is an agreement between the society and individuals. Formation of collective authority (republic) is a means for assuring that individuals happiness and interests do not surpass the attainment of common good. Rousseau argues that civil society is based on a contractual arrangement of rights and duties which applies equally to all people, whereby natural liberty is exchanged for civil liberty, and whereby natural rights and freedoms are exchanged for legal and moral rights and freedoms. The terms of the contract provide assurance that civil laws promote the public good rather than the private good of particular individuals

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

or groups. If the contract is breached by a government which usurps the sovereignty of its people, then the people are no longer obligated to submit to that government and consequently regain their natural liberty. Note: Commonly, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, (may be and Hume) contended that civil society is a higher group of human beings rooted from the desire of individuals themselves to escape from the state of nature E.1. David Hume (1711-1776) Like social contract theorists and the rest of rest of the enlightment philosophers, David Humes definition of, and ideas related to civil society were built on his intellectual reflection about human nature. According to Hume, men are governed by their own interest and they tend to give advantage to their particular interest over common good. Generally, Hume had little confidence that men would at any time think of the common good. He also believed that justice would never exist if men are not compelled to believe in common good. However, giving advantage to common good over self interest is only possible if men from their own consent and without order above agree to suspend immediate self interest and go for common good. This is what Hume called sociability, which is an essential element for formation of civil society. As it if noted from Hume (1778), Of the Original contract, he writes; When we consider how nearly equal all men are in their bodily force, and even in their mental powers and faculties, till cultivated by education, we must necessarily allow, that nothing but their own consent could, at first, associate them together, and subject them to any authority (p.2). Since men on their own cannot change their nature, the solution should be sought depending on the prevailing circumstances. To build a society in which men give advantage to common good, justice should become the nearest interest of the people. Since most of men are self interested, not all men can have interest in justice. Hume believed that few men who have direct interest in the execution of justice have to play a leading role in ensuring that men go for common good rather than individuals particularistic interest. These include kings, civil magistrates, and governors (in other words, the government), which to him is the remedy for restoration of justice and common good by establishing the means for mutual assistance that men receive in society (e.g. roads, water, bridges, harbours, and sanitation systems in towns and cities). Despite these are immediately needed by any man, taken singularly, they are for the common good and are to be provided as common good even if some men would not like them to be provided. In his Essays, Hume provided two components of a political society; authority and liberty. While authority is an essential component for existence of civil society, liberty is a requirement for a perfect civil society. Therefore, for Hume, the perfection of a society has two stages; first, establishing the a strong authority able to challenge social feuds and ensure rule of law, and second, establishing mechanisms for achieving liberty, especially through institutionalized instruments for restricting government powers (actually, as it was for his experience of England-Tudor Monarch, then revolution). To him, during the second stage (with a perfection of civil society) is establishing what he called a mixed government (which he also called civil liberty or public liberty). 8

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

In his ideas, Hume draws a clear distinction between society and the state. He radically neglected the humanist view of civil society, which dominated the 17th century philosophy regarding the origins of state and civil society. The One major point should be noted regarding the ideas of Hume on civil society. Unlike John Locke, for Hume, civil society was secondary while the political authority (state) was primary. In other words, apart from creating social order that is necessary for perfection of society, civil society (perfect society) is treated as itself a creation of the state. Humes conception of civil society goes beyond protecting individuals liberties. Like the modern Third Sector Approach, civil society is taken as an arena and institutional arrangement that facilitate production and exchange of goods on one hand, while on the other hand is perceived as the arena for building moral society (in which selfish and negative attitude towards mutual protection are subjected to the common good. E.2. Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) Emmanuel Kant developed his well known theory of civil society, Brgerliche Gesellschaft (meaning the same as civil society). To him, civil society (or political society) meant a society of free commitment of citizens in the absence of absolutist arbitrary rule, religious orthodoxy and social inequalities. According to Kant, civil society is a public sphere that is beyond the political system, but still is a political society because it is inseparable from absolutism that is required for social stability. Despite the fact that his conception of civil society was developed during the absolute monarch rule, Kant suggested the existence of a political sphere where both the state and civil society had reach. Moreover, his Brgerliche Gesellschaft was not a class dominated sphere since it could include elite bureaucrats, educated, workers in state offices, as well as workers associations, and social clubs. Given the fact that civil society is not a social class dominated sphere, Kant advocated that civil society would not be associated directly with the absolutist system of the time. Instead, he suggested that the universal civil society would emerge, which is based on rule of law and universal human development. It is convincingly tempting to associate Kants postulation with the rise of global civil society movement, global citizenship, and other universal democratic values, which is associated with the modern conception of civil society. F. THE 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS i. George Friedrich Hegel (17701831) According to Hegel, civil society is the difference which intervenes between the family and the state. The state is a unity of different persons, as a unity which is only a partnership, and then what is really meant is only civil society. Furthermore, Hegel describes the relationship between individual, civil society, and the state as follows; In civil society each member is his own end, everything else is nothing to him. But except in contact with others he cannot attain the whole compass of his ends, and therefore these others are means to the end of the particular member. A particular end, however, assumes the form of universality through this relation to other people, and it is attained in the simultaneous attainment of the welfare of others. Since particularity is inevitably conditioned by universality, the whole sphere of civil Society is the

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

territory of mediation where there is free play for every idiosyncrasy, every talent, every accident of birth and fortune, and where waves of every passion gush forth, regulated only by reason glinting through them. Particularity, restricted by universality, is the only standard whereby each particular member promotes his welfare (p.183). In other words, welfare can only be promoted with co-existence of civil society and state. The formation of civil society follows later in time than that of the state, but it presupposes the state; to subsist itself, it must have the state before its eyes as something self-subsistent. Hegel had used the term civil society to refer to all relations out of the state, but above the individual and family including economic relations. Hegel ultimately changed the meaning of civil society, giving rise to a modern liberal understanding of civil society as a form of market society rather than institutions of modern nation state. He suggested that Die Brgerliche Gesellschaft (civil or market society) was where individuals leave the family and enter into economic competition (as opposed to political society or state). For Hegel, civil society is a market society where individuals enter infinitely complex movements of reciprocal production and exchange (a system of need) (Philosophy of Right, p.208). Hegel took civil society as a realm of economic relationships as they exist in the modern industrial capitalist society (since had emerged during capitalism and served its interests- (especially, individual rights and private property). For him, civil society is a domain of particular needs, self interest and divisiveness that potentially leads into self destruction. However, civil society does not cater for universal interests, but universal interests prevail only in the state. It happens so because there is no inherent rationality in civil society that may lead into general good. State agents or civil servants constitute a universal class that serves the interests of the society as a whole. In the simplest language, Hegel believed that in civil society individual citizens pursue their personal particular interests in competition with and at the expense of other citizens. On the other hand, in the state, only the general interest of the society is pursued. For Hegel, the state stands above civil society both to act as a limiting force on competition since it has the role of identifying which forms of competition are illegal and which ones are legal. Moreover, the state provides the basic framework in which competition in civil society takes place. This framework is instituted through legal contract, property laws, etc. Therefore, the state is an institution that guarantees equal rights for all citizens. According to Hegel, There are two principles of civil society; first, the concrete person, (who is himself the object of his particular aims), is, as a totality and a mixture of caprice (sudden and unaccountable change of mood or behaviour) and physical necessity. The second principle is that, (but), the particular person is essentially so related to other particular persons that each establishes himself and finds satisfaction by means of the others, and at the same time purely and simply by means of the form of universality. Hegel provided the distinction between the family, state, and civil society on basis of the forces that necessitate the existence and sustenance of each of the three.

10

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

Like Aristotle, Hegel believed that the family is outside civil society. The family is held together by sentiment and ties of romantic love. This means that; one feels duty-bound to place ones own interests below the common interests of the family and to care for members of ones own family. On the other hand, civil society is held together by system of needs (economic reciprocity) arising from competition of the market society. Civil Society is thus an intermediate realm between the family (of individuals) and the state. Where as the relationship of members of the family is characterized by particularistic altruism. The relationship in the state is characterized by universal altruism, a community of individuals who on basis of an all-encompassing solidarity that expresses the sense of shared values sacrifice at expense of individual interests. Hegels analysis of the state and civil society makes it distinct and autonomous from the state. However, the family and civil society are elements of the state. The material of the state is divided amongst them through circumstances, and personal choice of occupation. The citizens of the state are members of families and are members of civil society. This analysis suggests that even if civil society is distinct from the state, its existence is dependent on existence of the state. Summary: Civil society is an ethical realm of social life between the family/family and the state regulated by universality. It entails all relationship beneath the individual and family (including economic). Man in a capitalist society (market society) needs civil society (others) as a means to self satisfaction (end). In turn, market society needs the state for self subsistence. ii. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) Alexis de Tocqueville made the concept of civil society popular through his analysis of American democracy. According to Tocqueville, people are always interested in equality than liberty. The rise of modern society (democratic society in America) produced individualism rather than equality. Equality (not equality of conditions) and individualism fostered by democracy (liberal democracy) convince men that they need nothing from nor owe anything to their neighbors; thus, in the way they would isolate themselves from the community. Therefore, citizens are prone to surrender to the state. For that reason, Tocqueville emphasized that there was a need for civil society, which he defined as a network of voluntary, non-political social organizations that strengthen democracy and prevent a tyranny of the majority (which can be religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive), that protect diversity by uniting equal but weak individuals into powerful groups. These associations prevent the fragmentation of society by forcing men to consider the affairs of others and to work with their neighbors. For Tocqueville, the state as an organization is commonly and inherently driven towards centralization. This necessitates societal forces to check against despotism of the state, which is likely to be a natural outcome if no such societal forces. He believed that however democratic the state might be, if a modern polity is not concerned with creating equality of condition, democracy would always be at threat of despotism (which is a necessary character of democracy). The preservation of political democracy requires creating countervailing forces not controlled by the state, which may organize the citizenry in a public sphere and block centralization of 11

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

power. According to Tocqueville, civil associations, therefore, facilitate political association; but, on the other hand, political association singularly strengthens and improves associations for civil purposes In his Tocquevilles Law, he emphasized associational life as a primary law that controls human society. In his words; among laws controlling human societies, there is one more precise and clear than all others. If men are to remain civilized or become civilized, the art of association must develop and grow among them at the same speed as equality of condition spreads. He thus emphasized associations including commercial and industrial on the first hand, and intellectual and moral associations on the other hand (something that brings him closer to Hegel and Marxs contextualization of civil society in the 19th century. By civil Tocqueville was referring to civilian private life rather than public life (as that of Rousseau) or a sphere of private interests and private ownership, but regulated by civil law (as that of Hegel). In other words, the ideas of Tocqueville emphasize one central point as related to the role of civil society in modern liberal democracy. Liberal democracy without civil society is not self sufficient for achieving equality and rule of law. Summary: Democracy creates equals, but not equals of conditions. This kind of equality produces individualism that places society at danger of social disintegration and self aggrandizement. The state can hardly solve this problem since it is inherently driven towards centralization. Civil society is needed to prevent social disintegration, ensure equality of condition, and prevent centralization of power. However, today there are two competing views on civil society and its role. First, there are scholars who agree with Tocquevilles conception and second, those who are against such a conception of civil society. All students should read Sheri Bermans Civil Society and the Collapse of Weimer Republic There will be a compulsory question related to the two in one of the forthcoming exams. iii. John Stuart Mills (1806-1873) The work of John Stuart Mills that best centers on the idea of Civil Society is On Liberty of 1859. Mill argues that there are two distinct parts of a person's life; that part of a person's life that "concerns himself only," and that part "which concerns others"(p.74). The role of the government is only to make sure that the part that concerns himself only does not rule over the part that concerns the others because this would lead into harming the others. According to John Stuart Mills, governmental encroachment upon the freedom of individuals is almost never warranted. For Mills, a genuine civil society must always guarantee the civil liberty of its citizens especially, their protection against interference by an abusive authority. When the government relies on democratic participation of the majority, the tyranny of the majority may endanger individual liberty. Mill emphasized that because majoritarian governments demand the recalcitrant minority either to persuade the majority to change its views or learn to conform to socially accepted norms. Mill proposed that there should be balance between individual liberty and exercise of authority. However, the principle that should guide proper balance between authority and individual liberty is that; the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (p.2).

12

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

According to Mills, the best society is the one in which the individual citizens must remain absolutely free. Three requirements are thus important; first there should be free public avenues for expressing private thoughts and feelings, second; individuals should be left to pursue happiness and live happy life, third; like-minded individuals should be left to form associations. For mill, while individuals are responsible for their thoughts and feelings, the society is responsible for protecting social interests. Therefore, on every possible occasion, encouraging civil discussion of alternative views genuinely benefits society as a whole. Generally, liberty that Stuart Mills was talking about was a kind of social liberty or the limit of legitimate powers that the society has to exercise over the individual. The legitimate authority should leave individuals to enjoy their liberties as long as they do not harm others. iv. Karl Marx (18181883) In his early writings, Karl Marxs conception of civil society was most influenced by Hegels dialectic philosophy. In this sense, Marx referred to Civil Society as a bourgeoisie society (post feudal-capitalist modern society-that came after the withering away of medieval society). According to Marx, during feudalism there was no civil society, but there were many societies like guilds and estates. With the break down of estates and guilds, individuals became important paving way into selfish needs of individuals separated from each other and from the community that replaced traditional social ties. With the development of materialist philosophy, Marxs conception of civil society became unique in the history. Marx refuted the idea of Hegel that a state is a neutral mediator of individuals interests. For Marx, the state is a sphere of social life not only separate from the society, but also opposed to civil society. The state has representatives who administer the state against civil society (including police, judiciary, and bureaucracies. Thus, the distinction between the state and civil society is political just in the sense that these representatives use state power to further their interests in society. Karl Marx believed that the society is structured into classes based on the economy. In turn, the economy (base) determines relationship within the social and political life (superstructure). Thus, he defined civil society as a non-political society structured by economic realities and a class system. According to Marx, civil society was an ideological mystification of the real social relations of exploitation. For Marx, both the state and civil society are the characteristics of the society that has divided itself. Civil society and the state separated from each other in the bourgeois system, and thus the individual became intrinsically split into a private person and a citizen of a state, two forms of existence in one person that became opposed to each other. Despite emphasis of individual freedom under the bourgeoisie economic system, the economic freedom of a private person as a member of civil society is not permanent (except under communist society). Such freedom survive only if it is needed for facilitating spontaneous mechanisms of the market where people must make themselves the tools of tangible powers of the economy (money, goods, and capital). Karl Marx justifies this hypothesis that during monopoly capitalism the economic freedom of an individual is suspended due to the rise of property hierarchies which did not exist during competitive capitalism.

13

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

However, historically, it has been hard to affirm what exactly that Karl Marx was referring to as civil society. Criticizing Hegels Theory of Right, Karl Marx commented that the so-called rights of man are nothing but the rights of the member of civil society, i.e., egoistic man, man separated from other men and the community. Some scholars have even questioned whether he was referring to civil society or the bourgeoisie dominated society. His portrait of civil society as ideological mystification of the real social relations of exploitation was in a large measure responsible for the denial of any autonomous role for society against the state in communist societies. In this way, scholars argue that the society that Karl Marx was referring to in a communist state (a just society) has not existed and could not exist since dominating civil society in the name of civil societys freedom has been evident in communist states. C. THE 20TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS i. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) Antonio Gramscis analysis of civil society takes further the Marxs analysis of the capitalist society. Apart from the economic relations (base) and the state (superstructure) of Marx, Gramsci emphasized that there is an intermediate sphere between the base and superstructure, which helps to maintain domination in a class society. Unlike Hegel and Marx, Gramsci used the term civil society to refer to the part of superstructure which do not (or not officially forming) the repressive apparatus of the capitalist state. These include the educational system, media, intellectual associations, trade unions, and political parties). Gramsci identified civil society as a part of the political society of hegemony that is constructed through the manufactured consent. In his understanding civil society is a an integral part of the state, which is used as an instrument for to continue the hegemony Gramsci identified state as the sum of political society and civil society where both parts are in touch with the hegemony. For him, political society includes the legal coercion where the institutions, constitutions, police and government are helping the political hegemony to continue. The state does not only exercise political control over the society, but also has a control mechanism in its ideological part which is exercised by the civil society. Members of the society, while giving consent to the state to carry the responsibilities, are both the reasons and consequences of the civil hegemony with the help of mass media, churches, clubs, associations etc. Gramsci calls this the manufactured consent though which the civil society becomes an unintended contributor to the political hegemony. In Hegels view, what both the state and political society are looking for is legitimacy that is gained by the consent and became sustainable with coercive and ideological constraints, which result in a hegemony in the society. Despite the state seems to be separate from both civil society and political society, all the three are well integrated. Something to note is that, Gramsci did not consider civil society as a constituent or constituted by the socio-economic base of the state, instead, located it in the political superstructure as the cultural and ideological capital that facilitates survival of the hegemony of capitalism. As a positive role, civil society is also a war of opposition, the sphere of opposing to hegemony which can be hidden with cultural and ideological discourses and disciplinary methods. Through civil society,

14

R.S. Damian

PS337: Lecture Notes

the society is able to fight not only against states coercive methods, but also the cultural and ideological codification that is created by hegemony. ii. John Rawls (1921-2002) John Rawls is one of the most recent contributors to the philosophy and theory of civil society. Rawls begins with acknowledging the conceptions of civil society by, Hume, Hegel, Marx and Gramsci. On top of those conceptions, Rawls added three crucial components, which to him were important to the understanding of civil society; 1. The cultural and symbolic dimension of civil society (which play a great role in the formation of values, action-orienting norms, meanings, and identifications within civil society). From this point of view, apart from transmitting or inculcate established practices or beliefs; civil society is also a site of social contestation, in which collective identities, ethical values, and alliances are forged. **[think of the responsibility of a father in Tanzanian society] 2. The emphasis on the most dynamic, creative side of civil society (that informal networks, initiatives and social movements, as distinct from more formal voluntary associations and institutions form an important part of civil society). They play an important role in articulating new (informal) social concerns and projects and generate new values and collective identities which seek to reform not only the polity, but also the institutions of civil society itself (as part of democratization). 3. The communicative, deliberative conception of the "public sphere," According to Rawls, the presense of the three components seek to achieve a well ordered society (civil society). A well-ordered society (civil society) is a society which is designed to advance the good of its members, and which is effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. In short, it must have the following qualities. 1. Everyone accepts and knows that the others accept the same principles of justice, and 2. The basic social institutions satisfy and are known to satisfy these principles. 3. Members acknowledge a common set of principles according to which their competing claims may be settled. The public conception of justice as advocated by John Rawls seeks to redefine the conception of natural liberty system (such as that of Locke and Hobbes) that tended to minimize the public sphere. He seeks to provide a system of liberty that ensures shared conception of justice between people who have differing purposes and interests. In that respect, Rawls defined society as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage, which gives primacy to equality and freedom. Therefore, civil society has to ensure that individuals are free at the same time acting in a friendly, cooperative, deliberative, and communicative manner in a public sphere.
Note: As part of the topic requirements, students should concentrate on the ideas of specific philosophers including reading their relevant books and articles. For the purpose of consistence, the philosophers in this category will be; 1. Aristotle 6. Alexis de Tocqueville 2. Thomas Hobbes 7. Antonio Gramsci 3. John Locke 8. John Rawls 4. David Hume 5. George Friedrich Hegel/Karl Marx

15