"Naming" and Civil Society

Defining the Terms of Debate

[Contents] [Next]

By Tony Hahn, MA Political Science, Carleton University

One of the hallmarks of the modern left is its tendency to "name"; in other words, to assign self-serving meanings to terms which are either ill-defined or do not suit the purposes of those who are re-naming the phrase in question. Conservatives are then forced to define themselves according to left-wing definitions, putting them at a disadvantage in debate. A well-known example is the infamous term "liberalism," which has been uprooted from its classical connotations of individualism, freedom, and sovereignty over one’s self. To be "liberal" today is to possess infinite tolerance, compassion, and generosity. This co-opting of the definition of "liberal" allows the left to frame the debate in terms favourable to themselves. After all, who would not want to be defined as advanced and unselfish? By losing terminology, advocates of small government have seen leftists replace the discredited concepts of the welfare state and social justice with phrases that they had previously thought belonged to them.

"Civil society" is another term that is slowly being stolen from conservatives as the left continues to search for fashionable descriptions of the socialist mentality. Until the modern era, civil society has referred to "all of the natural and voluntary associations in society."1 These associations can range from families, and churches and schools, to unions and corporations. As Boaz remarks in Libertarianism: A Primer, all of the associations within civil society may have their own purposes, but taken as a whole, civil society is the overall result of all the spontaneous networks of associations that individuals create and join. The individual is the centre of civil society, as he or she engages in voluntary exchanges with others to reach a goal that each individual could not achieve on their own. From this, community arises, and with that comes the need for each individual to accept responsibility for their own behaviour. The order that arises from these interactions is what is known as civil society.

Unfortunately, some of those who seem most pre-occupied with the term civil society are working against its values. Karen Sawatsky offers the following definition: "Civil society ... is a society in which citizens (at a minimum) offer their informed participation to the political process, invest ethically and contribute to ensuring the basic necessities of life are available to all."2 This seems somewhat idealistic; the only way that this version of civil society could come to be is through state interference and force, which runs contrary to the original values of civil society. Sherri Torjman, vice-president of the Caledon Institute on Social Policy, goes one step further. She argues that civil society’s functions cannot be limited to volunteer groups and non-profit organizations; the private sector must be harnessed as well. "Involvement of the business sector is integral to the notion of civil society. The business sector has operated with many privileges and rights and it has to be accountable to the broader community. If you see the business sector as creating many of the social problems we face, then the question is, how can you develop a sense of responsibility to do something about these problems?" Moreover, Torjman insists that civil society must operate alongside government programs. She cautions, "(P)art of what civil society requires is public investment in people and in social infrastructure. The community-based work is innovative and it’s both complementary and supplementary to public sector activity. We’re seeing rising inequality because we have a changing, non-standard labour market, so the government’s role in redistributing income through programs such as child benefits and Employment Insurance has become more important."

Sawatsky and Torjman are eager to replace the central element of civil society

individual voluntarism

with interference from the state in manufacturing communities. Governmental coercion is the antithesis of true civil society. It negates the individual and invalidates free association by implementing re-distributive schemes to achieve a desired (and ideological) goal. The following comment from Al Hatton of the National Volunteer Organization, addressing the challenges facing so-called Canadian civil society groups, illustrates the real motive: "We’re not mature at dealing with the new reality of globalization and technology or the powers of the marketplace and the neo-conservatives and the right-wing. We underestimated their penetration and power in a way that has diminished us and hurt those we represent. Now we need to act together and get clear about who we are and what we want. If we look forward instead of back, and be practical instead of ideological, while still sticking to the principals [sic] that have always guided the leaders in our sector

we have incredible potential if we do that." Clearly, adherents to this version of civil society do not have respect for voluntary association at heart; rather, they wish to impose their own vision of collectivism.

Collectivists who invoke civil society in their projects are really in favour of the extension of political society

that is, the extension of political projects through the state without regard for the ideals of free association. This is as contrary to civil society as possible. This puts individuals at the behest of a bureaucratic elite, thus undermining natural communities and the responsibilities that come with being a member of those communities.3 Civil society, therefore, is only orderly in that it is engineered to be so according to ideological decree. One must ask whether these activists believe that there was anything resembling civil society prior to the rise of the welfare state!

As with the term "liberalism" before it, "civil society" is under threat. Who would want to be in favour of an un-civil society? If the left were to have its way, all of those who are against collectivist economic and social policy would be defined as being un-civil. It is ironic that those who are most against liberty and civility are also those who have taken or are hoping to take the terms for themselves. If the term civil society is to avoid the fate of the concept of liberalism, those who adhere to the values of civil society must defend and protect it.

Notes

[Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Friday, November 5, 1999.