David Ost

The Meandering Meanings of Civil Society: 

An Idea from Eastern Europe Triggered Democratic Revitalization in the West,
But Has it Become Irrelevant Today

David Ost, professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges (USA) and professor of Sociology at the Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities, in Poland.

The lecture discussed the revived concept of “civil society” that was a gift provided by the eastern European anti-communist opposition to democratic theory and practice. It offered a way of thinking about politics based on political participation rather than consumption, positive engagement rather than revolutionary rejection. After communism, the idea entered the mainstream, and underwent a transformation into a concept of the voluntary sector, to the applause of some and the condemnation of others. Does the concept carry any clout today? 

 

David Ost - his book, The Defeat of Solidarity: Anger and Politics in Post-communist Europe (2005), won the Ed Hewett Prize for the best book in the political economy of post-socialism, and has come to figure prominently in Polish political debates. Ost is a frequently invited contributor to the Polish press, and his work is often cited in discussions of contemporary Polish and East European developments. 

 ***

Civil Society is a term that is known for 200 years at least but has taken a new meaning in the last 30 years or so trigged by developments in Eastern Europe and thanks to Polish theorists. This is a rather new concept (D. Ost’s book 1990), at the same time it is an old concept (Adam Ferguson; A. Smith; G. Hegel and Scottish school in the beginning of 19^th century). 

Back then it was connected to a free market, citizens would interact through market space. It doesn’t make it a category for democratic ideas for periods to follow.  The next question naturally was if there are possibilities for civil interactions outside of market place? The question is acute now as well – who owns media owns more power, what about the rest?

Marx: civil society is bourgeois society. Must be smashed for real participation to be possible. Coupe de grace. 

Hegel: Burgeliche gesellschaft = civil society = bourgeois society. There was no civil society outside of bourgeois society; the only way for democracy is having class inside of civil society.

In development of democratic thinking emerged the elite theory of democracy in mid 20^th century (J. Schumpeter: Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 1942). Prewar understanding was mass participation. It was believed to bring trouble. The experience of 1930s was that a lot of people were moving towards mass participation that was led by few (fascism, communism). 

Can we have another understanding of democracy or another theory about what democracy is in changed society? The mass planning was done by elite but the role of masses was just to vote in every few years. The main target was employment, lack of which drew masses earlier to fascism and to communism. Port Huron Statement, 1962 – to bring masses out of isolation. 

 

Change of passive citizen --> active citizen as there was no market. 1980 – Solidarity was crashed. New change in the theory of civil society: market creates capitalism. Civil society becomes “bourgeois society“again. 

Margaret Somers: place where citizens can participate in the practices of citizenship free of both – state and market, turns into a concept denoting chiefly “the private”. The ones on power said “let government decide”, state starts to cut back obligations to citizens. NGO’s and voluntary sector – you take care of problems.

Present new developments in that:

1. Planning Cells (started 1972 in Schwelm): people from different background having moderators learn of a problem delegated to them by a commissioning body, and look for alternative solutions. Proposed solutions presented to commissioning body as a “citizens report”.  
2. Citizens’ Juries in USA – members present recommendations to decision-makers and to the public.
3. Participatory Budgeting (Brazil, started 1989) – ordinary residents decide about part of the public budget; allows citizens to identify, discuss, and prioritize public spending projects. It works!

Eastern Europe – very little of that is going on. Why?

• Focus on market development
• Desire to (finally) build a (strong) state
• Distrust of citizens (ethnic reasons, class reasons, old intelligentsia traditions)

In addition, see the article: THE DECLINE OF CIVIL SOCIETY AFTER POSTCOMMUNISM
----------

* I also attended David Ost's phd seminars in January 2011 "Doctoral course on Postcommunist Transformations".