samoqalaqo sazogadoeba - Center for Social Sciences

LECTURE 1. INTRODUCTION. INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TOWARDS DEFINITION OF
CIVIL SOCIETY
Concept of civil society returned into political discourse after long period when it was somehow
attributed mostly to classical thinkers, rather than actual politics. Transitions to democracy and
reintegration of Soviet Union, led by the people, aware of neo Marxist theories of civil society (such
as Gramshi theory), brought this concept back to actual social life and politics, and made it once
again subject of theoretical debates.
In this new reincarnation the concept, however, acquired new meanings and dimensions, which
are far from being uncontroversial. Common speech usage of this term in Georgia associates it
with the network of newly emerged non-governmental organizations and media. This
understanding steams from the attempt to define civil society in terms of its institutions, and link
civil society development with the democratization of political system. Suppose one relies mostly
on this approach. Then, despite that this definition itself lives many questions unanswered (what
type of institutions should be attributed to civil society, and which – not), even more important
questions arise. Can we talk of “civil society in Iran”, having in mind number of non-governmental
organizations, functioning there? Or is civil society concept linked to a specific social context,
existing in predominantly western countries, having long history of market economy and
democratic development?
As an introduction to the institutional definition of civil society, paper by Lari Diamond is presented
in this lecture. In this paper is given very detailed account of the civil society institutions, as seen
from the mainstream political science perspective (tranzitology sub-field). This account of formal
civil society institutions is contrasted with the sociological vision by Gellner, who attributes “civil
society” to a specific type of social fabric (“modular men”), existing only in western societies, and
being very recent phenomenon. So, what is civil society - institutions, which can exist everywhere,
or social structure, which is culturally bound to specific context?
Parallel to the distinction between minimal and liberal democracies is made as an introduction to
the further deeper considerations.
Literature:
Diamond L. Towards Democratic Consolidation. Journal of Democracy, v.5, N.3, 1996, pp. 4-
18
Michael W.Foley, Bob Edwards, The Paradox of Civil Society, Journal of Democracy, V.7, N.3,
1996, 38-52
Волков В. 1998. Общественность: забытая практика гражданского общества. - Pro et
Contra: www.carnegie.ru. 21pp.
Стивен Холмс, Чему Россия учит нас теперь? Как слабость государства угрожает
свободе, www.carnegie.ru
LECTURE 2. CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE STATE: EVOLUTION OF NOTION IN HISTORY
Evolution of notion of civil society reflects evolution of development of modern state and modern
political system as well. The first great dichotomy is distinction between political society and
barbarians, unable of creating politeia (Aristotel). History of Civil society as synonymous of the
state, leads through secularization of political authorities (st. Augustine), positivist account of the
state order, preventing the war of all against all (Hobbes), social contract (Rousseau), till Scotch
moralists, who first, start to describe civil society as autonomous from the state.
Civil society as a sphere between state and developing market economy and private man is
followed through writings of Hegel, Marx, and then traced in a practice of totalitarian Soviet reality.
The post-Soviet radical vision of civil society, which is completely different from the classical ones,
114