Roginsky, Sandrine
[UCL]
Shortall, Sally
[Queen's University Belfast]
Purpose – During recent years, the concept of civil society, particularly global civil society, has come to the fore in both academia and policy circles. A key component of recent theoretical and policy research is the attempt to do international comparative research on the meaning of civil society. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the language and the terminology used to describe the agents of civil society are reflective of cultural and historical contexts of societies, have distinct meanings and cannot be used interchangeably. Design/methodology/approach – In different national contexts, the key agents of civil society are referred to differently; nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy. In comparative studies, scholars often list these concepts to indicate that they recognise that the agents of civil society are referred to differently in different societies. The article offers a socio-historical analysis of each concept. It is concluded that teasing out the differences, as well as the similarities, between the nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy, is crucial to robust comparative research on civil society. Findings – This paper exposes a number of limitations of each of the terminologies used to describe civil society. They all present a much more limiting notion of civil society than that proposed by the founding fathers. None seem to capture the range of civil associations in any society. Yet, assumptions are made that the terminologies used have similar meanings rather than attempting to clarify and define exactly what is being written or described. This is exacerbated by the interchangeable usage of nonprofit/third sector/community and voluntary sector/social economy. In order to progress beyond culturally specific understandings of civil society, it is necessary to examine the terminology used and how it emanates from a specific cultural and political context. Having a clear understanding of the language used and what it signifies is crucial to robust cross-national comparative research. Originality/value – This paper examines context specific understandings of civil society and the terminology used to define it; a question not previously addressed. It is hoped that this article will generate much needed further debate on cross-national meanings of civil society.
(eng)
Purpose – During recent years, the concept of civil society, particularly global civil society, has come to the fore in both academia and policy circles. A key component of recent theoretical and policy research is the attempt to do international comparative research on the meaning of civil society. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the language and the terminology used to describe the agents of civil society are reflective of cultural and historical contexts of societies, have distinct meanings and cannot be used interchangeably. Design/methodology/approach – In different national contexts, the key agents of civil society are referred to differently; nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy. In comparative studies, scholars often list these concepts to indicate that they recognise that the agents of civil society are referred to differently in different societies. The article offers a socio-historical analysis of each concept. It is concluded that teasing out the differences, as well as the similarities, between the nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy, is crucial to robust comparative research on civil society. Findings – This paper exposes a number of limitations of each of the terminologies used to describe civil society. They all present a much more limiting notion of civil society than that proposed by the founding fathers. None seem to capture the range of civil associations in any society. Yet, assumptions are made that the terminologies used have similar meanings rather than attempting to clarify and define exactly what is being written or described. This is exacerbated by the interchangeable usage of nonprofit/third sector/community and voluntary sector/social economy. In order to progress beyond culturally specific understandings of civil society, it is necessary to examine the terminology used and how it emanates from a specific cultural and political context. Having a clear understanding of the language used and what it signifies is crucial to robust cross-national comparative research. Originality/value – This paper examines context specific understandings of civil society and the terminology used to define it; a question not previously addressed. It is hoped that this article will generate much needed further debate on cross-national meanings of civil society.
- Bartelson Jens, Making Sense of Global Civil Society, 10.1177/1354066106067348
- Bidet Éric, Économie sociale, nouvelle économie sociale et sociologie économique, 10.1016/s0038-0296(00)01103-1
- DiMaggio Paul J., Anheier Helmut K., The Sociology of Nonprofit Organizations and Sectors, 10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001033
- Fraisse, L. (2002),France, Third Sector European Policies, First Draft, CRIDA.
- Fukuyama, F. (2007), “Identity and migration”,The American Prospect, February.
- Karl Barry D., Lo, the Poor Volunteer: An Essay on the Relation between History and Myth, 10.1086/644235
- Landeau, D. (1995), “Royaume uni: social economy et voluntary sector”,RECMA, No. 257, pp. 5‐7.
- Leat, D. (1997), “Review article: visiting the world of NGOs”,Nonprofit Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 47‐51.
- Mertens S., Nonprofit Organisations and Social Economy: Two Ways of Understanding the Third Sector, 10.1111/1467-8292.00122
- Morris Aldon, NAKED POWER AND THE CIVIL SPHERE, 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2007.00093.x
- Perri, T. and Leat, D. (1997), “Inventing the British voluntary sector by committee”,Nonprofit Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 33‐45.
- Powell Fred, Geoghegan Martin, Reclaiming civil society: the future of global social work?, 10.1080/13691450500085166
- Etzioni Amitai, The Third Sector and Domestic Missions, 10.2307/975110
- Etzioni Amitai, The Case for a Multiple-Utility Conception, 10.1017/s1478061500002619
- Gordenker Leon, Pluralising global governance: Analytical approaches and dimensions, 10.1080/01436599550035951
- Perru Olivier, Pour une épistémologie du concept d'association chez Émile Durkheim et chez Max Weber, 10.7202/004966ar
- Salamon Lester M., Anheier Helmut K., In search of the non-profit sector. I: The question of definitions, 10.1007/bf01397770
- Smith David Horton, The Rest of the Nonprofit Sector: Grassroots Associations as the Dark Matter Ignored in Prevailing "Flat Earth" Maps of the Sector, 10.1177/0899764097262002
- STREETEN PAUL, Nongovernmental Organizations and Development, 10.1177/0002716297554001012
- Thayer‐Scott, J. (1997b), “What's in a name?”,Canadian FundRaiser, available at: www.charityvillage.com/cv/research/rvolism2.html (accessed 4 June).
- Wijkstrom Filip, The Swedish nonprofit sector in international comparison, 10.1111/1467-8292.00067
Bibliographic reference |
Roginsky, Sandrine ; Shortall, Sally. Civil society as a contested field of meanings. In: International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 29, no.9-10, p. 473-487 (2009) |
Permanent URL |
http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/145845 |