Summary:
For this literature review, I chose two
chapters from the University of London School of Economics and Political
Science’s “Global Civil Society”
yearbook edited by Heidelberg University Max Weber Institute of Sociology
Center for Social Investment and Innovation Academic Director and Professor of
Sociology Helmut Anheier, University of Amsterdam Professor of Political
Science Marlies Glasius and University of London School of Economics and
Political Science Civil Society and Human Security Research Unit Director and
Professor of Global Governance Mary: University of Delhi Professor of Political
Science Neera Chandhoke’s Chapter 2: “The Limits of Global Civil Society” for
the 2002 LSE GSC Yearbook and the Chapter 1: “Global Civil Society: A Skeptical
View” by American University Washington College of Law Professor of International
Law Kenneth Anders and David Rieff of the New School University for Social
Research from the 2005 yearbook.
Chandhoke writes, “As the upholders of an
ethical canon that applies across nation and cultures, international actors in
civil society now define as well as set the moral norms… They command this kind
of attention because they have access to the international media, they possess
high profiles and they put forth their idea in dramatic ways.” [Chandhoke,
2002, Page 40]
Anderson and Rieff view the riser of
transnational non-governmental organizations as what they label a
quasi-religious revival of the earlier European and American missionary
movements [Anderson and Rieff, 2005, Page 7]. They suggest that what they label
the global civil society “movement” imagines themselves as the bearer of
universal values [Anderson and Rieff,
2005, Pages 5-6], using globalization as its vehicle for disseminating
universal values, but are skeptical that the fundamental moral values of the
movement appear to be about human rights rather than democracy, seeming to
present human rights as a form of universalism elevated into a set of
transcendental but ultimately mystical goals, values and beliefs [Anderson and
Rieff, 2005, Page 8] and a substitute for democracy as a value and the good
that it spawns. They argue that what they call the “democracy deficit” [Anderson
and Rieff, 2005, Page 7], to satisfy the requirements of a democracy while
recognizing the limits of electoral participation in something intended to
encompass the who world, is buttressed by the intertwined quests for legitimacy
by non-governmental organizations and international organizations such as the
United Nations, each legitimizing the other in a system that is undemocratic
and incapable of becoming democratic [Anderson and Rieff, 2005, Page 6]. They
argue that this is what drives what they label the “severe inflation” of
ideological rhetoric that international and transnational non-governmental
organizations constitute global civil society, a term they find conceptually
incoherent.
Chandhoke
writes, “The space cleared by the rolling back of the state became known as
“civil society”, and [non-governmental organizations] were transformed into the
guardians of civil society even as they subcontracted for the state.”
[Chandhoke, 2002, Page 43]
Anderson and Rieff perceive the
global civil society movement as seeking to universalize the “ultimately
parochial” model of the integration of the European Union, believing it
represents a universal model for humankind on a planetary level; the
“fetishizing” of a particular historical and cultural experience whose outcome
is far from clear. [Anderson and Rieff, 2005, Page 8]. They are skeptical whether
the values the movement embodies and espouses are as desirable or as complete as
supporters claim [Page 9].
-->
1.
Anderson,
Kenneth and Rieff, David. “Global Civil Society: A Skeptical View”. In Kaldor,
Mary, et al., Eds. “Global Civil Society 2004/5”. Sage Publications. 2005. Part
1: “Concepts of Global Civil Society”, Pages 2-15 http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/research/CSHS/civilSociety/yearBook/chapterPdfs/2004-05/Chapter1.pdf
2.
Chandhoke,
Neera. “The Limits of Global Civil Society”. In Kaldor, Mary, et al., Eds.
“Global Civil Society 2002”. Oxford University Press. 2002. Pages 35-53.
3.
Kaldor,
Mary. “The Idea of Global Civil Society”. International Affairs, Volume 79,
Issue 3. May 23, 2003. Pages 583-593: http://www.lse.ac.uk/globalGovernance/publications/articlesAndLectures/theIdeaofGlobalCivilSociety.pdf
4.
Kumar,
Krishan. “Global Civil Society”. European Journal of Sociology, Volume 48,
Issue 3. December 2007. Pages 413-434: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-sociology-archives-europeennes-de-sociologie/article/global-civil-society/216D5924D153C38EEEC4734140A01D75
5.
Wild,
Leni. “Strengthening Global Civil Society”. Institute for Public Policy
Research. Monday April 3, 2006: http://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/strengthening_global_civil_soc_1494.pdf?noredirect=1
No comments:
Post a Comment