CHAPTER XV

CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY

RAINIER A. IBANA

CIVIL SOCIETY: ITS THEORY

            The history of the notions of civil society and the common good is coterminous with the development of social consciousness. Ancient and medieval philosophers identified both of them with the state: Aristotle subordinated all human activities to politics and St. Thomas defined kingship as governing for the common good.

            Modern philosophers disentangled civil society from the state, and the notion of the common good was reconceptualized by the Enlightenment thinkers in terms of the citizens’ general interest. The shift from common good to general interests marks the beginning of institutions that exist between (inter-esse) the people and its govern-ment or economy. Hegel argued for the necessity of the state as the sole arbiter of the various competing interests within civil society; and Marx, in reaction to Hegel, analyzed the tension points within civil so-ciety as a function of economic interests.

            Contemporary notions of civil society and common goods are distinguished from their previous counterparts by their relative auto-nomy from the state and from the economy. Gramsci identified civil society with the cultural hegemony produced by the church, mass media and educational institutions. Habermas further expanded the notion of civil society to include the structures of the "lifeworld" — the "always already" given context of social life that includes culture, social integration and personality. The lifeworld, according to Habermas, is mediated by language, which form of mediation is distinguished from economic and political systems where human relationships are mediated instead by money and power.

            Furthermore, the common good and the general interest are expressed by contemporary philosophers in their plural forms: com-mon goods and generalizable interests, which grammatical trans-formations mirror their pluralistic and open-ended character. Hence, the state and the economy are no longer revered as bearers of com-mon goods; instead civil society has emerged as an active participant in molding the shape of common goods.

            Common interests are generalizable to the extent that they are not predetermined, but must be agreed upon by the community. Mem-bership in civil society is thus constituted by those who are willing to resolve their competing interests according to the procedures of dis-course. Ideally, it is governed by the participants’ "force of insights"; in other words, conflicts must be resolved dialogically. For practical pur-poses, however, compromises are accepted on the basis of proce-dures that have been mutually agreed upon by the parties in conten-tion. Without these procedures, power and greed might as well serve as norms for settling conflicts.

            Civil society distinguishes influence from power, and different-iates non-profit motives from greed. NGO members of civil society are non-governmental precisely because they merely exert influence on political processes, while not actually being elected or seizing state power. They consider themselves to be non-profit organizations be-cause their economic surplus is redistributed among their members and their decisions are not motivated primarily by the competitive ethos of stockholders.

            Their influence and non-profit motives are proving effective, however, also in the political and economic arena. The experience of the National Movement for Free Elections the Kilusang Rollback and the Human Rights Conference on East Timor demonstrate the in-fluence of civil society against those who claim to possess political power. In terms of the alleviation of poverty, the cooperative move-ment is actually making a significant impact on local economies. Their self-sufficiency and self-reliance stand in pale contrast to financial institutions that are subservient to the world market. Cooperativism aspires for economic progress without being indebted to the logic of greed and competition.

Relation to State and Economy

            Largely as a result of the conflict between socialism and capi-talism, contemporary discussions on civil society are structured within the context of a triadic framework which points to the state, the eco-nomy and civil society as primary points of reference. The so-called "new social movements" are located within the sphere of civil society and are hailed as the "first sector" in comparison to the state and the economy (Tandon, 1993). While the primacy of the notion of the civil society, is popular among its advocates, it may overemphasize some-what the role of civil society within the context of the social whole, and underestimate the role of the state and of the economy in social development. Arato and Cohen, for example, are critical of statist conceptions of civil society (1993), while Bulatao and Tiongco suggest that the new models of economic cooperation and sustainable deve-lopment can best be understood within the framework of civil society (1994).

            Although this triadic framework is proving its explanatory power in terms of understanding our contemporary social issues, the broader context of the history of ideas teaches us that civil society has not always been the primary motor of social development. The Hegelian understanding of Civil Society, for example, subsumes civil society within the state, while the Marxist version interprets civil society as a function of the economy. Adam Seligman, a contemporary critic of civil society is even pessimistic about its potential as a social project for the next millenium (1992). The problem, it would seem, is not in the notion of civil society itself, but in Seligman’s refusal to come to grips with a post-modern version of a civil society that goes beyond its ancient and modern counterparts.

            The triadic balance among civil society, the economy and the state is possible only if we ground them on a more comprehensive foundation. The principle of solidarity is the most likely candidate for such a foundation because it conditions the possibility of politics, economics and civil society. These three merely articulate a more pri-mordial condition of sociality that is "always already" given (pheno-menologically) in every social encounter. This giveness is grounded on our solidary experience of "being with" others.

            Even Habermas’ framework for civil society, which is based on communicative ethics, still presupposes the everyday context of our "lifeworld" with others (1987): the structures of communication merely mirror the structures of communal life. By analyzing the distortions in our communicative relationships, Habermas hopes also to analyze the distortions of social life. The media of money and power, expressed through economic and political structures, are seen by Habermas as distortions of everyday linguistic relationships. Thus, the tool he offers for social analysis criticizes political and economic structures from the normative standpoint of civil society.

            While not discounting the important role of the state and of the economy in the discourse of civil society, the latter insists on its autonomous space within the context of a democratic social system. Where such a space is absent, civil society creates it by striking a dent on the communicative structures of repression. Civil society move-ments have effectively allied themselves with the mass media in the establishment, protection and expansion of the public spaces oc-cupied by civil society. These public spaces usually are housed in churches, plazas and markets. The contemporary discourse of civil society, however, is being hosted also by television talk shows, news-paper editorials, radio programs and electronic-mail discussion groups. Contemporary political events testify to the significant role of communications technology in advancing the democratic space of civil society.

            The autonomy of civil society does not mean that it stands inde-pendently from the state and from the economy. Its transformative project requires that it maintain linkages with government and busi-ness. NGOs, for example, are prime sources of candidates for elec-toral and appointive positions in government because of their mana-gerial and facilitating skills. The impressive service records of NGO workers make them reliable allies of the poor if they are given the op-portunity to assume state and economic positions of authority.

            The relationships of civil society to the state and the economy are mutual. Civil society requires a democratic state and a free economy in order to maintain itself and to advance its agenda. Without a legitimate legal system to which it can appeal its case during moments of crisis, civil society could degenerate into violence. The legal avenues afforded to the organizers of the East Timor Human Rights Conference and the landmark case of Oposa vs. Factoran (where the Supreme Court decided against illegal loggers on the basis of "intergenerational responsibility"), demonstrate the protective roles played by a democratic state on civil society.

            The stability of the economy is also important for the develop-ment of civil society. Authoritarian states have curtailed civil rights on the basis of their claims to save faltering economies. Economic in-stability has been abused as an ideological foil to crush the democratic space allotted for and by civil society.

            Another important factor that affects the dynamic interplay among civil society, the state and the economy is the middle class origins of the former. Niels Mulder observed that in Southeast Asia, civil society is limited to the newspaper-reading public. According to Mulder:

            In Southeast Asia, we find an emergent educated public— probably the most essential ingredient for a civil society—that is still too small to produce much of a politically effective public opinion. Yet its members often desire emancipation from a dynastic or neo-colonial order of state where a few hold all the privilege. They aspire to the rule of impersonal law and ethics in political, in ‘public,’ affairs. Because they write in and to newspapers, and are active on the NGO scene, their voices can often be heard.The disproportionately small popu-lation of the middle class, however, could shape the development of Philippine civil society.

            The skewed Philippine social structure compels civil society to focus its discourse on the basic needs of the majority. Food, housing, peace, a sense of community and the kind of shared goods being pur-sued by NGOs and cooperatives must remain prominent in the agenda of civil society. It might become possible also that instead of merely asserting the autonomy of civil society from the state and from the eco-nomy, it may diplomatically have to complement the social reform pro-grams of the state and of the economy.

            Civil society, nevertheless, has the privileged dual function of criticizing the state and the economy when they fail to address the needs of the population, and of alleviating the social conditions of the poor so that the latter may also share the privilege of participating in civil society.

            Upon closer analysis, radio talkshows where poor people voice their views in the vernacular could prove to be a powerful fulcrum in raising people s consciousness regarding the possibilities of equal participation. Eventually, this could lead to a clamoring for economic and social reforms beyond speech acts and political discourse. The advent of communications technology brings hope for the coming of new forms of communal existence.

CIVIL SOCIETY: ITS REALIZATION IN THE PHILOSOPHY

            After 300 years of life in a convent (the Spanish colonization), and after more than 50 years of Hollywood (the American occupation), the Filipino people are again beginning to enjoy the freedoms gua-ranteed by a liberal democracy. This responsibility was brought about by human and natural events. The human event was the non-violent uprising against the Marcos dictatorship in 1986, and the natural event was the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo on June 12, 1991--our annual Inde-pendence Day celebration against the Spanish regime.

            These historical data are relevant for the emergence of civil society in the Philippines. The 1986 uprising symbolized the height of political mobilization before and after the dictatorship. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo destroyed the American military bases which had be-come the focus of political movements. The volcanic eruption also symbolized the evolution of non-governmental organizations. Most of these were organized as initial responses to our fragile environment, for we are located in the so-called volcanic ring of fire, along the ty-phoon belt of the Pacific, and at the edge of the one of the earth’s tectonic plates.

            The 1986 uprising also broke our communist movements, while non-communists sought new modes of political participation which could overcome the hurdles of a skewed economic structure. These problems led social activists and development workers to reflect on the new liberal-democratic terrain inaugurated by the 1986 uprising. The notion of a civil society emerged as a real alternative to dogmatic forms of socialism and the spectre of a brutal form of capitalism. After the notion of "sustainable development", the notion of civil society is emerging as the new mantra of social development workers.

Concrete Solidarities

            Several examples may be cited from the Philippine context. The senatorial election held on May 8, 1995, is a testament to the festive character of our people who compelled hard-nosed politicians to sing, dance and crack jokes before the public. It was predictable therefore that several movie actors and comedians would win the elections. The leading senatorial candidate even admitted to having imitated the pose of a popular movie actress in her campaign poster; she claims further to have made use of the people’s fiesta mentality as part of her campaign strategy (The People’s Journal, May 15, 1995).

            The senatorial election three years earlier was a hard lesson for civil society candidates, showing that their politics of ideas was too far beyond the personalistic culture of our people. At a post-mortem to that election in which a comedian won the first place in the senate, it was suggested that civil society workers should first join the movies before presenting themselves to the electorate.

            Civil society’s efforts at economic empowerment, however, are receiving a modest level of success through cooperatives and liveli-hood programs. Some civil society advocates therefore concluded that the electoral process may not be their legitimate arena of social par-ticipation. Instead they suggest that in the long run it would be more advantageous to work for the development of better social con-ditions which eventually could promote an issue-oriented electoral process. Indeed, most social movements have been participating in the political process indirectly: not by fielding candidates, but by en-suring that the votes be counted correctly and quickly.

            The success or failure of civil society, the state and the economy therefore depends on the rootedness of its programs in the solidary life of the people for whom these programs were geared in the first place. Consequently, some non-government organizations are even "inc-lined to call a moratorium on outside ideas and concentrate on digging into local history, culture, and spirituality" (Murphy, 1994). Such an iso-lationist position, however, is impossible within the context of contem-porary telecommunications technologies.

            If civil society is to advance beyond ideological squabbles it must address the solidary concerns of the contemporary world: the environment, human rights, peace and order. These issues have emerged as the battle cries of today’s generation of activists. Young people today are finding in these social movements new identities as environmentalists, human rights activists, feminists and peaceniks. Such identities are relatively more inclusive when compared to the labels of previous generations: socialists, communists, capitalists and anti-imperialists.

            Civil society advocates differentiate themselves from political and economic movements (Francisco, 1994). Within the context of the Philippine left, such a strategy offers social space for those who would like to participate in social transformation without necessarily aligning themselves with partisan ideologies. Civil society dwells on concrete social issues wherein competing ideologies can agree to work toge-ther. As a result of the advocacy of civil society, government and businesses are also beginning to package their campaigns and adver-tisements around issues that strike at the heart of the community.

Communities of Existence

            Communities, however, may be classified into at least two types: communities of action and communities of existence (Wojtyla, 1981). The former are constituted by shared activities, such as listening to a lecture or digging a canal; while the latter are constituted by our being with others, such as being in the family, the nation and the global community of persons. Although the first type of community is relevant in terms of understanding the temporary interests that bind some social movements (Graham), we shall focus our attention on the second type of community because it is the one that directly touches on the principle of solidarity in its relation to economic and political systems.

            We may illustrate this distinctions in terms of the following schema:

political economic

systems                        systems

civil society

communities of action

Communities of Existence, being with others, communal lifeworld (here what is italicized establishes the grounds for Natural Law and an environmental ethics).

            Again, there are abundant examples within the Philippine context. Foremost in our collective consciousness is the celebrated case of Flor Contemplation, the Filipino domestic helper hung while seeking employment in a foreign land in order to support the education of her children. Outraged by this event, the Philippine people rallied in the streets and burned effigies and flags to symbolize their protest. This social movement compelled two cabinet secretaries to resign from their posts, while several government officers were charged administratively for their negligence. Contemplation’s example pro-duced such an emotional reaction because it hit a discord among the various levels of solidarity: the family, the nation, the human community.

            Another unpublicized case involved solidarity with future generations. This is the case of Oposa vs. Factoran. filed on behalf of children. The Supreme Court ruled against illegal loggers on the basis of "intergenerational responsibility". Oposa himself was recently named one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines.

            It might seem that such cases could apply only within a liberal democratic context. Indeed, civil society rejoices in the rights and privileges afforded by a democratic legal system. But even under less favorable conditions, the internal logic of civil society can produce democratic social spaces. For example, foreign correspondents were the first to know of Mr. Marcos’ decision to call the snap election which led to his defeat. The cultural value of his spoken word as a "palabra de honor" paved the way for the public, through the same com-munications technology, to assert their legitimate right to vote.

            After the dictatorship, civil society continued to assert itself through television talk shows, newspaper editorials, and radio pro-grams. An initial reading of our contemporary situation might lead to the conclusion that participation in civil society is limited to the middle class who write, read and listen to the English language media. A closer investigation of radio talk shows held in the vernacular, how-ever, reveals that participation in civil society has nothing to do with economic class. The intensity of radio discourse reveals the heigh-tened political consciousness of the people as they debate current events and issues which confront our nation. This politics of everyday life offers a glimpse into the dynamism of people’s participation in con-temporary social issues.

            The power of communication in the formation of communities re-veals the dialectical element in Habermas’ insight about com-municative ethics. Communicative action serves as a mirror image of communities, but it also can produce communities insofar as it can bring people together beyond the boundaries of time, space, class, gender, sect, etc. With the lopsided distribution of power and money within a skewed social system, civil society must rely on com-munications technology to build its strength. Furthermore, the heigh-tened social consciousness generated by the media can build bridges for those who have been marginalized by social systems--the poor, the outcast, the barbarian, the slave--so that they too can participate in civil society, government and the economy.

            Such a conception offers hope on the basis of the structure of the human person as dynamically oriented towards the truth and good-ness of being with others. Such a dynamism may be stunted tempo-rarily by bureaucratic states and a capitalist economic system. Never-theless, such systems can be subjected to critique and transformation because of the reflective character of human rationality and the capa-bilities of human freedom to rebound. The history of ideas has demon-strated this dynamic capability to which the emergence of civil society as an alternative paradigm for social transformation stands as a testament.

Philosophy Department

Anteneo de Manila University

Manila, Philippines

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bulatao, Victor Gerardo, "An Innovative Approach to Rural Development", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10 (October, 1994).

Cohen, Jean and Arato, Andrew, Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992).

Francisco, Oscar, "Coming to Grips with Civil Society", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10 (October, 1994).

Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1987).

Ibana, Rainier, NGO Terminologies: Their Philosophical Contexts (Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs, 1994).

Murphy, Dennis, "New Concepts Must Come from Local History and Culture", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10 (October, 1994).

Seligman, Adam, The Idea of Civil Society (New York: The Free Press, 1992).

Tandon, Rajesh, "Civil Society is the First Sector", Participatory Development InfoNotes, vol. 2 (Society for International Development, Italy, August, 1993).

Tiongco, Jose, "Revolutionizing Health Care in the Philippines", Intersect, vol. 8, no. 10 (October, 1994).

Wojtyla, Karol, Toward a Philosophy of Praxis, ed. by Alfred Bloch and George T. Czuczka (New York: Crossroads Publications, 1981).

DISCUSSION

            The paper stresses the interest and involvements of the elements of civil society in such human welfare issues as health, envi-ronment and peace; indeed cooperative efforts in these regards constitute the components of a civil society. But it should be noted that as these are interests of government as well, there is need to clarify the significance of civil society.

            Should it be said that civil society is important as a point of political transformation, as in the Philippines?

            Or should one say that civil society could be important in areas which long had been under colonial rule unresponsive to the culture of the people, because it now gives the people a voice?

            Or should it be said that civil society could be important for deve-loping countries which are under pressure from multi-national cor-porations which respond rather to world market conditions them to the economic realties of a developing country?

            In fact, all three instances are examples of the multiple modes in which civil society as a combined voice of the people is important; but these are by no means the only circumstances. Rather, civil society is much more broadly needed to the degree that it is recognized: (a) that the knowledge and the concerns of the people are important in themselves, (b) that the proper course of action must be at least influenced by those who are close to the issues and the locales in which action is to be taken, and (c) that this course of action is not something that can be determined abstractly on a theoretical basis, but needs to be worked out by interchange between those involved. What is good for this community is not knowable a priori or from a distance, but needs to be worked out in terms of the knowledge, interest and sensibilities of all who are involved.

            Further, civil society works on a different logic than the political and the economic orders. Where the political order works in terms of power and uniformity, civil society proceeds in terms of consensus and diversity. Where the economic order works in terms of profit, civil so-ciety works rather in terms of distribution. Hence, it appears that civil society is a third dimension of a modern society and is important for the well-being of the whole.

            Indeed, some would day that civil society needs to be the first among the three. Others would fear that if it dominated the others it would render them dysfunctional for it lacks the instruments and capabilities proper to those fields. It seems important to think rather of a coordination and collaboration between the three. But if so this cannot be in terms of a univocous line of power, but in terms of each sphere proceeding according to its proper nature and making its proper contribution. Hence it may not be anymore helpful for the civil society to dominate the economy than for it to be simply subordinated to the state, but it is essential that the economic and the political orders work for the human ends of the people involved and according to human norms. The articulation of these and direct engagement in their implementation is an essential contribution of civil society.

            Civil society is necessary also precisely as a society. When one is alone one’s voice cannot be heard, nor does one have the courage to take up issues which are important and in which one may have true competencies or valid interests. It is rather in unity with others that these can be brought forth in the public arena. Civil society then enables the person and reflects not only one’s social nature but the structure of the public arena.

            Further civil society is needed not only when the state is too strong, in order to protect smaller groups and the individual, but also when the state is too weak, for then it is even more important that the people be interrelated and effective, that their sense of their culture and its values be brought forward in days of darkness, and that they proceed to rebuild the nation when this becomes possible. Poland is a prime example of this role of civil society through long periods of foreign domination, suppression and even division between other states.

            There can be dangers in this, as in all human realities, e.g., if civil society were to seriously diminish the power needed by the state or the efficiency needed from the economy, or if its expression of the culture of a people were to turn inward chauvinistically or become intolerant of diversity. All of this must be guarded against; ethics must guide the exercise of freedom here as elsewhere. No structure can substitute for or dispense from this obligation.

            There is hope, however, in the fact that there now are communications media which enable all to speak and to bring forth their insights and concerns so that a public opinion can be formed which reaches beyond the concerns of the few. This is not automatic, nor is it assured that from such public discussion there will emerge truth and justice, love and concerns for peace. These must come from the philosophical ethics and religion. These must be integral parts of civil society for they are the wellsprings of humanity and must be ope-rative if society is to be healthy and helpful.