Introduction to the Special Issue 'Beyond Civil Society': Advancing a Post-sectoral Conception of Civil Society-Moving Beyond Civil Society?

摘要

Political actors and research perspectives currently identify civil society as a resource that is not fully exploited-an observation that, with some strategic adjustments, could incite a revitalization of several essential issues. From this viewpoint, "bringing civil society back in" to the political agenda could contribute to a revitalization of the welfare state, democracy, equality, and social cohesion. Moreover, civil society could potentially become the space needed for a critique of current developments-on national, European, and global levels. We can, however, recognize that civil society, as a resource that many commentators strongly believe in, is not mobilized and used to the extent people envision. Why is this the case? We suggest that there are two reasons for the lack of engagement. One reason is related to the current political moment. The other reason is related to a particular conceptual and theoretical discourse on civil society. Concerning the first issue, the current political moment has become complex and, more importantly, loaded with paradoxes. Today, we can observe the prominent co-existence of apparently contradictory political ideologies, governance mechanisms, economic developments, and political and cultural clashes on multiple levels: between, first, the local and the national; second, the national and the global; and third, the secular and the religious. These developments have been with us for a while, but we now seem to experience these contradictions and paradoxes as the "normal" and not the "exception." In this landscape, we find more invocations of "globalization," as in a global financial crisis, a global pandemic, global trade and production patterns, and global refugee problems-together with more economic nationalism (in East Asia, the USA, and even the European Union), political-ideological nationalism (Brexit, "America First," Hungary, and Poland), and nationalist reactions against immigrants, to mention a few. Other paradoxes have become more pronounced during the last thirty years: There is a growing interdependence between a bigger and more forceful global market and more influential states. And as we realized that we were living in an increasingly secular society, we discovered that secularization came with a reinforcement of religions. This paradoxical world has spurred new crossroads, conflicts, and collaborative forms across and between the arenas of civil society, state, and market. This development has provided a new space not only for a democratic civil society, but also for the authoritarian state. At this stage, no one can predict whether civil society will strike back as a stronger political actor or whether state and/or market will monopolize the space of governance. To study these current trends, we need a conceptual framework able to grasp and understand the many paradoxes in the current societal juncture.