One of the terms that I have never figured is “Civil Society”. I am a citizen, and I am a member of Society – but I find my self at odds with what the bulk of ‘civil society’ gets upto. It’s not that I am fascist or believe in the role of the State or indeed the state to be greater than the Individual. Nor is it that I believe that Individual rights are superior to all other rights. Like the bulk of society, I occupy the middle ground – that forms opinions on a case by case basis. And is not particualrly wedded to one ideology or the other …

In online discussions I have often objected to the use of the term “Civil Society” -saying that there is no such thing – until one day Pragmatic_D – asked me to put my money (or rather my words) where my mouth is — and asked me to write a piece for Pragati ….

___________________________________________________________________________________

Civil (adj.)
of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens; of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.

Society (n.)
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

In the modern world, the role of civil society is often talked about, debated, praised and derided. It is a term used often, but not always with any level of precision or clarity. Most people seem to know broadly what civil society is, yet few have seen it, and fewer can put in words what it actually means.

One way of thinking about civil society is as a number of individuals and groups with their own, varied agendas, often at odds with one another, trying to work towards their own individual aims. In that sense, the term “civil society” then applies to the population at large and therefore all 1.1 billion Indian citizens. Yet in its most common usage, it connotes focused interest groups. So what exactly is civil society?

Civil society—based on the Hegelian construct—is the intermediate phase between family and state. It represents ‘universal egoism’ according to which everyone is treated as the means to one’s own ends. This stands in stark contrast to the ‘universal altruism’ of the state. According to the Marxist construct, not far removed from Hegel’s views, civil society was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, representing the economic interests of capitalists. He believed that the role of civil society is such that it will push for an individual to pursue individual interests but back down when it came to community interests. At the other end of the spectrum, Adam Smith (much earlier) too spoke about civil society—but he believed that it was an exercise in private morality seeking public approval.

Given that none of the philosophers, regardless of the side of the economic and political divide they were on, had anything nice to say about civil society, it is quite interesting to see the space that it occupies in the modern state.
___________________________________________________________
The rest of the piece can be found here …