CHAPTER XV

CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY

RAINIER A. IBANA

CIVIL SOCIETY: ITS THEORY

The history of the notions of civil society and the common good is
coterminous with the development of social consciousness. Ancient and medieval
philosophers identified both of them with the state: Aristotle subordinated all human
activities to politics and St. Thomas defined kingship as governing for the common
good.

Modern philosophers disentangled civil society from the state, and the notion
of the common good was reconceptualized by the Enlightenment thinkers in terms of
the citizens’ general interest. The shift from common good to general interests
marks the beginning of institutions that exist between (inter-esse) the people and its
govern-ment or economy. Hegel argued for the necessity of the state as the sole
arbiter of the various competing interests within civil society; and Marx, in reaction
to Hegel, analyzed the tension points within civil so-ciety as a function of economic
interests.

Contemporary notions of civil society and common goods are distinguished

from their previous counterparts by their relative auto-nomy from the state and from
the economy. Gramsci identified civil society with the cultural hegemony produced
by the church, mass media and educational institutions. Habermas further expanded
the notion of civil society to include the structures of the "lifeworld" — the "always
already" given context of social life that includes culture, social integration and
personality. The lifeworld, according to Habermas, is mediated by language, which
form of mediation is distinguished from economic and political systems where
human relationships are mediated instead by money and power.

Furthermore, the common good and the general interest are expressed by
contemporary philosophers in their plural forms: com-mon goods and generalizable
interests, which grammatical trans-formations mirror their pluralistic and open-
ended character. Hence, the state and the economy are no longer revered as bearers
of com-mon goods; instead civil society has emerged as an active participant in
molding the shape of common goods.

Common interests are generalizable to the extent that they are not
predetermined, but must be agreed upon by the community. Mem-bership in civil
society is thus constituted by those who are willing to resolve their competing
interests according to the procedures of dis-course. Ideally, it is governed by the
participants’ "force of insights"; in other words, conflicts must be resolved
dialogically. For practical pur-poses, however, compromises are accepted on the
basis of proce-dures that have been mutually agreed upon by the parties in conten-
tion. Without these procedures, power and greed might as well serve as norms for
settling conflicts.

Civil society distinguishes influence from power, and different-iates non-profit

motives from greed. NGO members of civil society are non-governmental precisely
because they merely exert influence on political processes, while not actually being
elected or seizing state power. They consider themselves to be non-profit
organizations be-cause their economic surplus is redistributed among their members
and their decisions are not motivated primarily by the competitive ethos of
stockholders.

Their influence and non-profit motives are proving effective, however, also in
the political and economic arena. The experience of the National Movement for Free
Elections the Kilusang Rollback and the Human Rights Conference on East Timor
demonstrate the in-fluence of civil society against those who claim to possess
political power. In terms of the alleviation of poverty, the cooperative move-ment is
actually making a significant impact on local economies. Their self-sufficiency and
self-reliance stand in pale contrast to financial institutions that are subservient to
the world market. Cooperativism aspires for economic progress without being
indebted to the logic of greed and competition.

Relation to State and Economy

Largely as a result of the conflict between socialism and capi-talism,

contemporary discussions on civil society are structured within the context of a
triadic framework which points to the state, the eco-nomy and civil society as
primary points of reference. The so-called "new social movements" are located
within the sphere of civil society and are hailed as the "first sector" in comparison to
the state and the economy (Tandon, 1993). While the primacy of the notion of the civil
society, is popular among its advocates, it may overemphasize some-what the role of
civil society within the context of the social whole, and underestimate the role of the
state and of the economy in social development. Arato and Cohen, for example, are
critical of statist conceptions of civil society (1993), while Bulatao and Tiongco
suggest that the new models of economic cooperation and sustainable deve-lopment
can best be understood within the framework of civil society (1994).

Although this triadic framework is proving its explanatory power in terms of

understanding our contemporary social issues, the broader context of the history of
ideas teaches us that civil society has not always been the primary motor of social
development. The Hegelian understanding of Civil Society, for example, subsumes
civil society within the state, while the Marxist version interprets civil society as a
function of the economy. Adam Seligman, a contemporary critic of civil society is
even pessimistic about its potential as a social project for the next millenium (1992).
The problem, it would seem, is not in the notion of civil society itself, but in
Seligman’s refusal to come to grips with a post-modern version of a civil society that
goes beyond its ancient and modern counterparts.
 The triadic balance among civil society, the economy and the state is possible
only if we ground them on a more comprehensive foundation. The principle of
solidarity is the most likely candidate for such a foundation because it conditions the
possibility of politics, economics and civil society. These three merely articulate a
more pri-mordial condition of sociality that is "always already" given (pheno-
menologically) in every social encounter. This giveness is grounded on our solidary
experience of "being with" others.

Even Habermas’ framework for civil society, which is based on communicative

ethics, still presupposes the everyday context of our "lifeworld" with others (1987):
the structures of communication merely mirror the structures of communal life. By
analyzing the distortions in our communicative relationships, Habermas hopes also
to analyze the distortions of social life. The media of money and power, expressed
through economic and political structures, are seen by Habermas as distortions of
everyday linguistic relationships. Thus, the tool he offers for social analysis criticizes
political and economic structures from the normative standpoint of civil society.

While not discounting the important role of the state and of the economy in
the discourse of civil society, the latter insists on its autonomous space within the
context of a democratic social system. Where such a space is absent, civil society
creates it by striking a dent on the communicative structures of repression. Civil
society move-ments have effectively allied themselves with the mass media in the
establishment, protection and expansion of the public spaces oc-cupied by civil
society. These public spaces usually are housed in churches, plazas and markets.
The contemporary discourse of civil society, however, is being hosted also by
television talk shows, news-paper editorials, radio programs and electronic-mail
discussion groups. Contemporary political events testify to the significant role of
communications technology in advancing the democratic space of civil society.

The autonomy of civil society does not mean that it stands inde-pendently
from the state and from the economy. Its transformative project requires that it
maintain linkages with government and busi-ness. NGOs, for example, are prime
sources of candidates for elec-toral and appointive positions in government because
of their mana-gerial and facilitating skills. The impressive service records of NGO
workers make them reliable allies of the poor if they are given the op-portunity to
assume state and economic positions of authority.

The relationships of civil society to the state and the economy are mutual.
Civil society requires a democratic state and a free economy in order to maintain
itself and to advance its agenda. Without a legitimate legal system to which it can
appeal its case during moments of crisis, civil society could degenerate into
violence. The legal avenues afforded to the organizers of the East Timor Human
Rights Conference and the landmark case of Oposa vs. Factoran (where the Supreme
Court decided against illegal loggers on the basis of "intergenerational
responsibility"), demonstrate the protective roles played by a democratic state on
civil society.
 The stability of the economy is also important for the develop-ment of civil
society. Authoritarian states have curtailed civil rights on the basis of their claims to
save faltering economies. Economic in-stability has been abused as an ideological
foil to crush the democratic space allotted for and by civil society.

Another important factor that affects the dynamic interplay among civil
society, the state and the economy is the middle class origins of the former. Niels
Mulder observed that in Southeast Asia, civil society is limited to the newspaper-
reading public. According to Mulder:

In Southeast Asia, we find an emergent educated public— probably the most

essential ingredient for a civil society—that is still too small to produce much of a
politically effective public opinion. Yet its members often desire emancipation from a
dynastic or neo-colonial order of state where a few hold all the privilege. They aspire
to the rule of impersonal law and ethics in political, in ‘public,’ affairs. Because they
write in and to newspapers, and are active on the NGO scene, their voices can often
be heard.The disproportionately small popu-lation of the middle class, however, could
shape the development of Philippine civil society.

The skewed Philippine social structure compels civil society to focus its
discourse on the basic needs of the majority. Food, housing, peace, a sense of
community and the kind of shared goods being pur-sued by NGOs and cooperatives
must remain prominent in the agenda of civil society. It might become possible also
that instead of merely asserting the autonomy of civil society from the state and
from the eco-nomy, it may diplomatically have to complement the social reform pro-
grams of the state and of the economy.

Civil society, nevertheless, has the privileged dual function of criticizing the
state and the economy when they fail to address the needs of the population, and of
alleviating the social conditions of the poor so that the latter may also share the
privilege of participating in civil society.

Upon closer analysis, radio talkshows where poor people voice their views in
the vernacular could prove to be a powerful fulcrum in raising people s
consciousness regarding the possibilities of equal participation. Eventually, this
could lead to a clamoring for economic and social reforms beyond speech acts and
political discourse. The advent of communications technology brings hope for the
coming of new forms of communal existence.

CIVIL SOCIETY: ITS REALIZATION IN THE PHILOSOPHY

After 300 years of life in a convent (the Spanish colonization), and after more
than 50 years of Hollywood (the American occupation), the Filipino people are again
beginning to enjoy the freedoms gua-ranteed by a liberal democracy. This
responsibility was brought about by human and natural events. The human event was
the non-violent uprising against the Marcos dictatorship in 1986, and the natural
event was the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo on June 12, 1991--our annual Inde-pendence
Day celebration against the Spanish regime.
 These historical data are relevant for the emergence of civil society in the
Philippines. The 1986 uprising symbolized the height of political mobilization before
and after the dictatorship. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo destroyed the American
military bases which had be-come the focus of political movements. The volcanic
eruption also symbolized the evolution of non-governmental organizations. Most of
these were organized as initial responses to our fragile environment, for we are
located in the so-called volcanic ring of fire, along the ty-phoon belt of the Pacific,
and at the edge of the one of the earth’s tectonic plates.

The 1986 uprising also broke our communist movements, while non-
communists sought new modes of political participation which could overcome the
hurdles of a skewed economic structure. These problems led social activists and
development workers to reflect on the new liberal-democratic terrain inaugurated by
the 1986 uprising. The notion of a civil society emerged as a real alternative to
dogmatic forms of socialism and the spectre of a brutal form of capitalism. After the
notion of "sustainable development", the notion of civil society is emerging as the
new mantra of social development workers.

Concrete Solidarities

Several examples may be cited from the Philippine context. The senatorial
election held on May 8, 1995, is a testament to the festive character of our people
who compelled hard-nosed politicians to sing, dance and crack jokes before the
public. It was predictable therefore that several movie actors and comedians would
win the elections. The leading senatorial candidate even admitted to having imitated
the pose of a popular movie actress in her campaign poster; she claims further to
have made use of the people’s fiesta mentality as part of her campaign strategy (The
People’s Journal, May 15, 1995).

The senatorial election three years earlier was a hard lesson for civil society
candidates, showing that their politics of ideas was too far beyond the personalistic
culture of our people. At a post-mortem to that election in which a comedian won the
first place in the senate, it was suggested that civil society workers should first join
the movies before presenting themselves to the electorate.

Civil society’s efforts at economic empowerment, however, are receiving a

modest level of success through cooperatives and liveli-hood programs. Some civil
society advocates therefore concluded that the electoral process may not be their
legitimate arena of social par-ticipation. Instead they suggest that in the long run it
would be more advantageous to work for the development of better social con-ditions
which eventually could promote an issue-oriented electoral process. Indeed, most
social movements have been participating in the political process indirectly: not by
fielding candidates, but by en-suring that the votes be counted correctly and quickly.

The success or failure of civil society, the state and the economy therefore
depends on the rootedness of its programs in the solidary life of the people for whom
these programs were geared in the first place. Consequently, some non-government
organizations are even "inc-lined to call a moratorium on outside ideas and
concentrate on digging into local history, culture, and spirituality" (Murphy, 1994).
Such an iso-lationist position, however, is impossible within the context of contem-
porary telecommunications technologies.

If civil society is to advance beyond ideological squabbles it must address the

solidary concerns of the contemporary world: the environment, human rights, peace
and order. These issues have emerged as the battle cries of today’s generation of
activists. Young people today are finding in these social movements new identities as
environmentalists, human rights activists, feminists and peaceniks. Such identities
are relatively more inclusive when compared to the labels of previous generations:
socialists, communists, capitalists and anti-imperialists.

Civil society advocates differentiate themselves from political and economic

movements (Francisco, 1994). Within the context of the Philippine left, such a
strategy offers social space for those who would like to participate in social
transformation without necessarily aligning themselves with partisan ideologies.
Civil society dwells on concrete social issues wherein competing ideologies can
agree to work toge-ther. As a result of the advocacy of civil society, government and
businesses are also beginning to package their campaigns and adver-tisements
around issues that strike at the heart of the community.

Communities of Existence

Communities, however, may be classified into at least two types: communities

of action and communities of existence (Wojtyla, 1981). The former are constituted
by shared activities, such as listening to a lecture or digging a canal; while the latter
are constituted by our being with others, such as being in the family, the nation and
the global community of persons. Although the first type of community is relevant in
terms of understanding the temporary interests that bind some social movements
(Graham), we shall focus our attention on the second type of community because it
is the one that directly touches on the principle of solidarity in its relation to
economic and political systems.

We may illustrate this distinctions in terms of the following schema:

political economic

systems systems
 civil society

communities of action

Communities of Existence, being with others, communal lifeworld (here what is

italicized establishes the grounds for Natural Law and an environmental ethics).

Again, there are abundant examples within the Philippine context. Foremost in
our collective consciousness is the celebrated case of Flor Contemplation, the
Filipino domestic helper hung while seeking employment in a foreign land in order to
support the education of her children. Outraged by this event, the Philippine people
rallied in the streets and burned effigies and flags to symbolize their protest. This
social movement compelled two cabinet secretaries to resign from their posts, while
several government officers were charged administratively for their negligence.
Contemplation’s example pro-duced such an emotional reaction because it hit a
discord among the various levels of solidarity: the family, the nation, the human
community.

Another unpublicized case involved solidarity with future generations. This is

the case of Oposa vs. Factoran. filed on behalf of children. The Supreme Court ruled
against illegal loggers on the basis of "intergenerational responsibility". Oposa
himself was recently named one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines.

It might seem that such cases could apply only within a liberal democratic
context. Indeed, civil society rejoices in the rights and privileges afforded by a
democratic legal system. But even under less favorable conditions, the internal logic
of civil society can produce democratic social spaces. For example, foreign
correspondents were the first to know of Mr. Marcos’ decision to call the snap
election which led to his defeat. The cultural value of his spoken word as a " palabra
de honor" paved the way for the public, through the same com-munications
technology, to assert their legitimate right to vote.

After the dictatorship, civil society continued to assert itself through

television talk shows, newspaper editorials, and radio pro-grams. An initial reading of
our contemporary situation might lead to the conclusion that participation in civil
society is limited to the middle class who write, read and listen to the English
language media. A closer investigation of radio talk shows held in the vernacular,
how-ever, reveals that participation in civil society has nothing to do with economic
class. The intensity of radio discourse reveals the heigh-tened political
consciousness of the people as they debate current events and issues which
confront our nation. This politics of everyday life offers a glimpse into the dynamism
of people’s participation in con-temporary social issues.

The power of communication in the formation of communities re-veals the

dialectical element in Habermas’ insight about com-municative ethics.
Communicative action serves as a mirror image of communities, but it also can
produce communities insofar as it can bring people together beyond the boundaries
of time, space, class, gender, sect, etc. With the lopsided distribution of power and
money within a skewed social system, civil society must rely on com-munications
technology to build its strength. Furthermore, the heigh-tened social consciousness
generated by the media can build bridges for those who have been marginalized by
social systems--the poor, the outcast, the barbarian, the slave--so that they too can
participate in civil society, government and the economy.

Such a conception offers hope on the basis of the structure of the human
person as dynamically oriented towards the truth and good-ness of being with others.
Such a dynamism may be stunted tempo-rarily by bureaucratic states and a
capitalist economic system. Never-theless, such systems can be subjected to
critique and transformation because of the reflective character of human rationality
and the capa-bilities of human freedom to rebound. The history of ideas has demon-
strated this dynamic capability to which the emergence of civil society as an
alternative paradigm for social transformation stands as a testament.

Philosophy Department

Anteneo de Manila University

Manila, Philippines

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bulatao, Victor Gerardo, "An Innovative Approach to Rural Development", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10
(October, 1994).

Cohen, Jean and Arato, Andrew, Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992).

Francisco, Oscar, "Coming to Grips with Civil Society", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10 (October, 1994).

Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1987).

Ibana, Rainier, NGO Terminologies: Their Philosophical Contexts (Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social
Policy and Public Affairs, 1994).

Murphy, Dennis, "New Concepts Must Come from Local History and Culture", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10
(October, 1994).

Seligman, Adam, The Idea of Civil Society (New York: The Free Press, 1992).

Tandon, Rajesh, "Civil Society is the First Sector", Participatory Development InfoNotes, vol. 2 (Society
for International Development, Italy, August, 1993).

Tiongco, Jose, "Revolutionizing Health Care in the Philippines", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10 (October, 1994).

Wojtyla, Karol, Toward a Philosophy of Praxis, ed. by Alfred Bloch and George T. Czuczka (New York:
Crossroads Publications, 1981).

DISCUSSION
 The paper stresses the interest and involvements of the elements of civil
society in such human welfare issues as health, envi-ronment and peace; indeed
cooperative efforts in these regards constitute the components of a civil society. But
it should be noted that as these are interests of government as well, there is need to
clarify the significance of civil society.

Should it be said that civil society is important as a point of political

transformation, as in the Philippines?

Or should one say that civil society could be important in areas which long
had been under colonial rule unresponsive to the culture of the people, because it
now gives the people a voice?

Or should it be said that civil society could be important for deve-loping

countries which are under pressure from multi-national cor-porations which respond
rather to world market conditions them to the economic realties of a developing
country?

In fact, all three instances are examples of the multiple modes in which civil
society as a combined voice of the people is important; but these are by no means
the only circumstances. Rather, civil society is much more broadly needed to the
degree that it is recognized: (a) that the knowledge and the concerns of the people
are important in themselves, (b) that the proper course of action must be at least
influenced by those who are close to the issues and the locales in which action is to
be taken, and (c) that this course of action is not something that can be determined
abstractly on a theoretical basis, but needs to be worked out by interchange between
those involved. What is good for this community is not knowable a priori or from a
distance, but needs to be worked out in terms of the knowledge, interest and
sensibilities of all who are involved.

Further, civil society works on a different logic than the political and the
economic orders. Where the political order works in terms of power and uniformity,
civil society proceeds in terms of consensus and diversity. Where the economic order
works in terms of profit, civil so-ciety works rather in terms of distribution. Hence, it
appears that civil society is a third dimension of a modern society and is important
for the well-being of the whole.

Indeed, some would day that civil society needs to be the first among the
three. Others would fear that if it dominated the others it would render them
dysfunctional for it lacks the instruments and capabilities proper to those fields. It
seems important to think rather of a coordination and collaboration between the
three. But if so this cannot be in terms of a univocous line of power, but in terms of
each sphere proceeding according to its proper nature and making its proper
contribution. Hence it may not be anymore helpful for the civil society to dominate
the economy than for it to be simply subordinated to the state, but it is essential that
the economic and the political orders work for the human ends of the people involved
and according to human norms. The articulation of these and direct engagement in
their implementation is an essential contribution of civil society.
 Civil society is necessary also precisely as a society. When one is alone one’s
voice cannot be heard, nor does one have the courage to take up issues which are
important and in which one may have true competencies or valid interests. It is
rather in unity with others that these can be brought forth in the public arena. Civil
society then enables the person and reflects not only one’s social nature but the
structure of the public arena.

Further civil society is needed not only when the state is too strong, in order
to protect smaller groups and the individual, but also when the state is too weak, for
then it is even more important that the people be interrelated and effective, that
their sense of their culture and its values be brought forward in days of darkness,
and that they proceed to rebuild the nation when this becomes possible. Poland is a
prime example of this role of civil society through long periods of foreign domination,
suppression and even division between other states.

There can be dangers in this, as in all human realities, e.g., if civil society
were to seriously diminish the power needed by the state or the efficiency needed
from the economy, or if its expression of the culture of a people were to turn inward
chauvinistically or become intolerant of diversity. All of this must be guarded against;
ethics must guide the exercise of freedom here as elsewhere. No structure can
substitute for or dispense from this obligation.

There is hope, however, in the fact that there now are communications media
which enable all to speak and to bring forth their insights and concerns so that a
public opinion can be formed which reaches beyond the concerns of the few. This is
not automatic, nor is it assured that from such public discussion there will emerge
truth and justice, love and concerns for peace. These must come from the
philosophical ethics and religion. These must be integral parts of civil society for
they are the wellsprings of humanity and must be ope-rative if society is to be
healthy and helpful.

These elements of spiritual civilization can be present more easily in civil

society with its open logic of the common welfare, unfet-tered by the specific
concerns of economy and state. This is the im-portance of a civil society in which
the multiple concerns, physical and spiritual resources of a people, are present and
active.