Conditions of Liberty ~ 1/9/2008

I'm reading Conditions of Liberty by Ernest Gellner and came across this definition of Civil Society:

"Civil Society is that set of diverse non-governmental institutions which is strong enough to counterbalance the state and, while not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of the peace and arbitrator between major interest, can nevertheless prevent it from dominating and atomizing the rest of society" (Gellner, 1994: 5).

What Gellner is talking about in his opening chapter is the resurgence of civil society in the wake of the USSR and general collapse of Marxist ideology. What is interesting in these first pages is his discussion on the reasons for the Marxist's rejection of the very concept of civil society (and the dictator's use of this rhetoric to increase their own power). Essentially, civil society exists as a counter weight to the state, and manifests itself in many different forms, thus it is by nature pluralistic and inherently divisive.

For the marxist this is high problematic not only because it prevents the ideological unification of the citizens, but because it helps support state functions, civil society prevents the so called 'withering away' of said state. This association with the state, also implies a coercive nature to civil society. In the marxist ideal, because the citizens are ideologically unified, and there is no more need for state apparatus, civil society also because redundant. J.J. Russeau had a similar problem with political parties, and advocated for a single party because if social conscience was divided, then the government would never be legitimate.

The problem I have with the marxist view, notwithstanding the effects this had when applied by the USSR et al., is that single ideology is equally as coercive and divisive, only on a larger scale. It leaves no room for dissent nor difference in thinking or appearance. Not only is this unrealistic, but also highly discriminatory. Certainly I agree there is an element of coercion to the function/activity of civil society, but it also provides opportunity for dialogue on social, cultural, economic, and political rights and needs. Without civil society, it is had to imagine how all this would be articulated.

I suppose the marxist might suggest, as Chavez does from time to time, ideas and difference can be articulated within the single party/state/ideology, and it is a more efficient method for creating consensus. Again we arrive at the same problem, that what ends up happening is just a conglomeration of difference into a single identity, with is then necessarily divided against that which it is not. A more functional solution might be not trying to change people and their identities, but rather understanding them from their own perspective, in order to solve co-habitational issues. Civil society can aid in this endeavor.