A War of Position

Foundations for a Radical Civil Society Theory
Today’s mainstream theories of civil society, it has been argued, overlook practices that are not aimed at influencing centers of political and economic authority. These may be specific actions of otherwise ‘engaged’ movements, the entire action repertoire of movements purposefully avoiding institutional encounters or even social forces for which the term ‘movement’ is inappropriate.

Of course, this problem is not confined to civil society literature. The theoretical trends between related disciplines are reflective. In this case, social movement theory’s intimate connections with theories of civil society has imported many statist assumptions. Mainstream social movement theories (political process theory, resource mobilization theory, NSM etc.) revolve around the same structuralist core as the statist theories of civil society outlined above. The discipline’s focus on movement strategy is housed in a political contention paradigm that views movements as “vehicles for making political claims and acting in relation to the state;” consequently, as with theories of civil society, it “fails to examine the ways in which movements reshape beliefs, moral codes, identities, and other cultural elements” (Flacks, 2004:136).

The structuralist paradigm is insufficient for understanding the actions, forms, and goals of numerous current political and social forces. Among them, radical communities have been uniquely impacted by this deficit. The popularity of structuralist theories has hampered social movement theory’s ability to engage with communities built upon explicitly anti-statist values. It misses the small, relational associations that form the social foundations of these communities. The radical perspective is rooted in an all together different understanding power and social change. It is their view that Kaldor’s ‘centers of political and economic authority’ are some of the last places to look to foment social change. Therefore, before we can construct social movement theory that is relevant for radical communities, we must develop a theory frameowrk that reflects the radical view of power and social change. This begins not by asking ‘what is radical civil society?’ but ‘where in civil society are radicals?’

Hints from Radical Theory
Rather than patching current, mainstream civil society theories until they fit the task at hand, it is necessary to build from the bottom up, reclaiming terms and concepts for use in a new, radical theory of civil society. A critical step in this process is the careful incorporation movement-created theory. If the discipline wants to fully understand the processes of social change initiated by or involving radical communities and movements, it must listen to what they are saying. There is no shortage of literature. This delay may be due to the inherent and constructed barriers within and between radical pedagogy and activist communities. However, all claims of over- and anti-intellectualism aside, the fundamental fact is that there is theory being developed within radical movements and communities.

When we look at this theory we see an interesting trend, one that may help cross the academy-movement divide. The discussions regarding the mechanics of social change, that is, the radical view of the dynamics and factors affecting social change, echoes the work of Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci argues that the complex program of radical social change in a modern liberal democracy involves – more than anything – the development of a strong and dynamic culture capable of establishing the necessary institutions for a subversion of power. The articulation of contemporary radical politics has evolved its early focus on style, moved past a primary focus on direct confrontation with political society, and has blossomed into a body of communities, organizations and institutions that closely mirror Gramsci’s culturally thick, passion-infused, counter-hegemonic base (Carlsson, 2008; Day, 2005; Gordon, 2007; O’Hara, 2001; Spannos, 2008).

Despite his potential usefulness, a clear problem with bringing Gramsci into the discussion is the volume of literature surrounding his work. His is hardly an uncontroversial body of ideas. The Civil Society concept experienced a surge in popularity following the dismantling of the Soviet bloc and Gramsci’s Civil Society was re-awoken as part of the scramble to explain the quick, unanticipated and dramatic changes taking place. However, its use by Sovietologists, intellectuals and the media did not arise from a thorough analysis and application of Gramsci’s work. Joseph Buttigeig, arguably the leading expert on Gramsci’s texts in the US, notes that the increasingly frequent allusions to the concept were not, in most cases “accompanied by a clear understanding of its intricate genealogy and of its many different nuances, or, even less, by an awareness of Gramsci’s perspicacious treatment of it” (Buttigieg, 1995:2). This is a particularly important accusation as it comes from a linguist who has undertaken a mammoth, multi-volume translation of Gramsci’s complete Prison Notebooks.

This trend continues today. Looking at the influential interpretation offered by the London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society’s Global Civil Society yearbook, the concept is identified with – or is defined as – an ensemble of popular progressive movements not necessarily linked to any political party. It is equated with ‘the people’ standing in opposition to ‘the state,’ meaning government. The worldwide participation of millions in the 2003 Iraq War protests is described as “the mobilisation of global civil society” (Kaldor et al., 2003:3-4 in Buttigieg, 2005). The normative prescriptions and the implied state/non-state opposition paradigm limits the concept’s unique flexibility. More importantly, though these interpretations of civil society refer to and rely on Gramsci’s ideas, they are built upon a serious misreading of his work. Buttigieg argues,

The editors of the Global Civil Society yearbook misconstrue Gramsci

• Uncategorized
• Comments(1)