Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014).

Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social

sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
Concept and Nature of Civil Society

By:

Kingsley Chigozie W. Udegbunam

Peace and Conflict Resolution Unit,
School of General Studies,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka

Introduction

It has been argued that the concept of civil society has remained a subject of debate among many

scholars, writers and researchers. The dynamic nature of the concept itself has fuelled the debate

thus creating a sizeable number of literatures on the subject. Many scholars and writers since

Socrates have had needs to discuss the concept thereby contributing to the body of knowledge

upon which we build our analysis of civil society. The interests in the concept of civil society

reflect the importance attached to it by social scientists who understand the need for the state to

have a “conscience” in the people. This need is the foundation for the reconstruction of the idea

of civil society. In this paper, therefore, we attempt to examine the concept of civil society more

closely with the aim of identifying its historical evolution, dynamics and shift in meaning,

various perspectives, characteristics, functions, and objectives.

Civil Society: A Conceptual Discourse

The Macmillan student encyclopeadia of sociology states that the concept of civil society

(CS) has undergone some levels of reconstruction since around 1594 when it was used to refer to

men living in a community. Civil society is historically viewed as referring to political

association that governs social conflict by imposing rules and restraining citizens from harming

one another. It was in this sense that 18th century Scottish society viewed CS. To the Scotish civil

society meant a civilized society possessing no autocratic policies and people with polished
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
manners. The concept of CS is very broad and scholars apply the idea to capture a large range of

empirical cases. It has further been argued that there is no agreement among scholars as to the

theoretical and empirical meaning of civil society, nor does any consensus exist as regards the

analytical distinction between civil society and other social relations (Gotham, 2005). As a result,

different descriptions and explanations of CS reflect different theoretical and empirical leanings.

Classical Conceptions of Civil Society

In the classical era, when man and the society became the central focus of Greek

Thoughts, a vague idea of civil society emerged. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, conceive civil

society to mean the good society where there is justice, rationality, courage, and wisdom. These

attributes, among others, produce an ideal society or state where citizens cooperate according to

their skills. This cooperation in turn produces civility in the polis. There was no attempt to

distinguish between civil society and the state rather classical theorists view both as inseparable.

Similarly, Thomas Hobbes (1651) (Tuck, 1996) and John Locke (1689/1965) see no

reason to distinguish between the state and civil society. Instead, they contrast civil society with

the state of “nature”. Basing their argument on a hypothetical state of nature, where people had

no laws, no common purposes, and no other forms of social control mechanism, they maintain

that the emergence of the state is to help maintain civility. For Hobbes human actions are

motivated by self – interest and the multiplicity of such self – interests leads to anarchy where

life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. To avoid this level of anarchy, there is the need

for the creation of a powerful state, the Leviathan, to protect the citizens and prevent the

condition of war of all against all. Thus the Leviathan imposes civility and order in what was

hitherto an anarchical society.

Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
Locke shares a similar view with Hobbes on the state of nature and the origin of the state

but differs from him in that he holds that the state cannot possess absolute power. Rather, the

citizens having entered into a social contract to constitute a common authority with the power to

enact laws and maintain order, retains certain rights against which the state must not abuse. Such

basic rights, for Locke, include rights to life, liberty and property. Thus Locke, like Hobbes,

views civil society to be synonymous with the state where the public authority (the state) and the

citizens have reciprocal obligations where citizens submit to the authority and the authority

guarantees their fundamental rights. In these is civility attained for the common good of all.

Emile Durkheim (1978) argues that there are several domains of civil society. These domains are

political society or the public sphere, the family, voluntary association, and social movements.

These spheres have internal logic and a set of distinct practices that contribute to social

integration, individual freedom, and societal solidarity. A major problem with Durkheim domains

of civil society is that it includes the private and the public domains as part of his civil society.

This makes his view of civil society blurred and not in any significant way different from earlier

thinkers who fail to distinguish between the state and the public sphere. Durkheim’s political

society certainly encapsulates the state implying that he sees no difference between the state and

the civil society. For him, therefore, there is a civil society with different spheres or

manifestations. To have included the political society (encompassing the state) and the family as

constituting civil society shows that Durkheim did not depart from early thinkers’ perception on

civil society.

Adam Smith (1981) conceptualizes civil society as economic activities involving

competition and market change. He departs from early thinkers to argue that the political domain

is different from the economic and market domain. This economic domain, where there is
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
individual freedom for the pursuit of self interest and contribution to the common good of the

society, is what Smith recognizes as the civil society. Smith’s inclusion of the economic domain

as part of civil society smacks of capitalism. This is understandable given Smith’s wider

academic interest and contributions. This view is too narrow because it implies that citizens’

freedom and self-interest is only limited to economic activities. Again, this conception of civil

society will not be possible in a non-capitalist society. What Smith intends is to use the idea of

civil society to further the cause of capitalism. While we see nothing wrong in his furthering a

cause, we argue that such attempt only limits his conception of the subject-matter and therefore

lacks wider application.

A clearer discussion of civil society emerged in G. W. F Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

(1967) where he makes a clear distinction between the state and civil society. Hegel argues that

civil society is one of the three elements of the Ethical Life. The other two are; the family and the

state. For Hegel, civil society is located between the family and the state. And it is the sphere of

social life where individuals are at liberty to pursue their own selfish interest within universally

recognized bounds. The family is the private realm involving close bonds while the state pursues

universal interest thus creating the gap which is filled by civil society. It is the social domain

with no restrictions on the individual’s rights to participation, socialization and acquisition.

Conflicts due to clash of interests are resolved by the state. The state also makes laws that guide

the pursuit of such interests. Hegel’s view has great influence on today’s conception of civil

society as it is popular with scholars and a number of global bodies as we shall see later.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels conceive of civil society as a distinct economic sphere that

emerged as a result of the rise of modern states. Gotham (2005) explains that Marx observes that

the idea of the state being separate from civil society is a modern one because it is only in the
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
post-medieval era that “the sphere of interest, especially economic interests become part of the

private rights of the individual and as such separate from the public domain”. Central to civil

society is the free individual, who possesses political rights and liberties based on private pursuit

of economic gain. Similarly, Biswas and Kanti (2013) state that Marx claims that civil society

was the “base” where productive forces and civil relations were taking place, whereas political

society was the “superstructure”. Marx, who believes that Hegel stood social theory on its head,

expectedly rejects Hegel’s claim that the state mediates conflicts that arise within civil society

due to clash of interests. Instead Marx opines that the state represents and legitimizes the

interests of the dominant class in furtherance of the capitalist social relations. For Marx,

therefore, civil society is a collection of socio economic relations, and the state is a manifestation

of these relations and their conflicts. Marx further holds that civil society contributes to the

destruction of real community by splinting the society into political, social, and economic

domains. For him, civil society constitutes individuals as competitors whose aims are interest

maximization at the expense of other members of the society.

In Antonio Gramsci’s expansion of Marx’s view of civil society, he contends that civil

society goes beyond the individual to include private organisations. Civil society is fused with

the coercive nature of the state, and the economic domain of productions. Civil society

encourages inequality in social relations by supporting capitalist exploitation of the proletariat in

the name of individual pursuit of private interest (Gramsci, 1971).

Louis Althusser (1971), while not defining CS, uses the concept of “ideological state

apparatus” to explain the function of CS. Thus in tandem with Marxian views, Althusser argues

that the state and CS are connected. And that CS plays crucial role in gaining consent for social

order without the use of state coercion.

Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
Marxian views of CS, even though acknowledges the public sphere, grant that the state

only uses such sphere to legitimize class inequality, and ensure social order. And there is little or

no much positive value attached to civil society by Marxians. Such position is understandable

given the whole central thesis of Marxists. However, such view of civil society is not empirically

correct. At best, it serves the Marxist analytical purposes. Global experiences acknowledge that

civil society as public domain stand up against the state especially where the action of the state is

not popular with the masses that constitute the bulk of civil society groups. Granted that the state

sometimes infiltrates civil society groups, this is only a question of exemption to the rule. Such

infiltration is not strong enough to blur the distinct character of the state and civil society. If for

anything, it confirms there being different hence the need for infiltration. What Althusser

considers as the use of civil society groups (CSOs) by the state to attain social control is simply

the inherent civility that forms part of the set of behaviour rules of civil society. In addition,

CSOs reward legitimate government with cooperation, trust and empathy but rise against

despotic and totalitarian governments with inhuman policies.

Civil Society as the Public Sphere

Since Hegel, the concept of civil society has come to be associated with the public

domain clearly distinct from the family (private domain) and the state. This perspective is more

popular in both contemporary scholarships and business community. This popularity of CS as

public sphere is seen in the definitions adopted by many global bodies. For instance, the World

Bank (2010) defines it thus:

The term civil society refers to the wide array of non – governmental and not
– for – profit organisations that have a presence in public life, expressing the
interests and values of their members or others based on ethical, cultural,
political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
Similarly, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2006)

explains CS as:

The multitudes of associations around which society voluntarily

organises itself and which represent a wide range of interests and ties.
These can include community – based organizations, indigenous
people’s organisation, and non – governmental organisations.

The Encyclopedia of Social Theory (2005:98) sees CS thus:

Civil society refers to the realm of interaction, institutions, and

social collation that sustains public life outside the spheres of the
state and economy.
The United Nations University for Peace (2003:19) conceives CS as:

A sphere of society distinct and independent from the state

system, the means of economic production, and the household.
This collective realm, or “public space”, included networks of
institutions through which citizens voluntarily represents
themselves in cultural, ideological, and political senses

Oxford concise dictionary of politics defines CS as;

The set of intermediate associations which are neither the

state nor the family; civil society includes voluntary
associations, firms and other corporate bodies

Other definitions that concede to CS as public domain or sphere include Hall’s, (1995:1) who

sees civil society as “a space in which social groups could exist and move something which

exemplified and would ensure softer (and) more tolerable conditions of existence”. Bayart

(1986:11) views it as “a society in relation with the state... in so far as it is in confrontation with

the state, or more precisely, as the process by which society seeks to breach and counteract the

simultaneous totalisation unleashed by the state”. And finally, Scholte (2005: 322) conceives it as

“a political space where voluntary associations deliberately seek to shape the rules that govern

one or the other aspect of social life”.

Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
Civil society as public sphere has also been criticised by feminists who contend that the

distinction between the private and the public is used to achieve women’s domination and

oppression by men. Such proponents argue that interpretations of private and public is gender –

biased with women activities seen as private and thus to be restricted in the family while the

public domain is dominated by men.

This criticism is a product of extension of feminist quest for women liberation and

empowerment especially in the contexts of global quest for gender equality and gender

mainstreaming and the history of men’s domination in a primarily global patriarchy. However,

except for theoretical purpose, the “public” sphere of CS does not discriminate against women.

Empirical evidences support the fact that women participate freely in CS activities. In fact, the

very nature of CS makes it impossible for women to be discriminated against because women

groups constitute part of the bedrock for civil society.

Characteristics of Civil Society

Some of the major features of civil society are highlighted below;

Public Life

As seen in our definitions above, CS refers to the realm of public social relations where the

individual is free to participate in political, religious, economic, community, etc activities. This

realm is clearly distinct from state activities such as governance as well as from family

relationships.

Exist within State Legal Framework

The individual’s social relations are guided by existing state legal provisions. In other words,

such public life is governed by civil conduct. It is freedom within the law. This notion of

freedom within the law helps in differentiating civil society activities from criminal gangs and
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
organisations. Thus Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram networks, Al-Shabaab terrorist organisations cannot

claim to participate in public life by virtue of their activities.

Dynamism
CSGs are highly active and changing in nature. Membership is always changing. Leaders arise as

occasion demands. There is a constant flux within civil society groups as membership and

leadership arise and disappears. The demands of civil society groups change as often as the

policies of the state requires. There is a clear purpose to pursue and this is done in most cases

with lots of vigour.

Voluntariness
Decision about membership, formation and leadership of civil society groups stem from the free

will of the actors involved. In some cases, where it involves mass social movement, actors are

not paid. Suitable examples include the actors in the mass nonviolent civil society protests in

most of the Arab states and the January 2012 oil subsidy mass action in Nigeria. Citizens

volunteered to participate; citizens emerged as leaders without pay. Thus participation became a

function of personal conviction and sacrifice.

Autonomous
As stated earlier, civil society is independent from the state. CS groups are not agencies of the

state; they are not funded by the state nor are their membership regulated by it. However, certain

groups within civil society such as Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs) and religious bodies

may need to be registered with the relevant government agencies and may be required meet

certain conditions. Aside this, the general activities of civil society groups are totally independent

of the state. This must not be misconstrued to mean that no relationship exists between civil

society and the state. In fact, the very emergence and proliferations of civil society groups is a

function of the growing failure of political leaders to provide essential services to the people

(Albert 2009). By this failure a lacuna is created and civil society groups emerge to fill this gap.
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
Similarly, the wider the interest of the state is from that of the people, the stronger and more

acceptable civil society groups become especially as the conscience of the polity.
Nonviolence

Civil groups confrontational activities are usually made through various non-physical violence

methods. Gene Sharp (1973) enumerated hundreds of nonviolent methods. They include protests

and persuasions, non-cooperation, and nonviolent intervention. The point here is that CS groups

do not employ physical violence in pursuit of their goals.

Types of Civil Society

There are many groups that make up CS. And classifying them is best done using identifiable

objectives pursued by CS actors. Scholte (2005) has identified three types of objectives pursued

by CSGs. They are conformist, reformist, and transformists agenda. Civil society actors who

pursue conformist objectives insist that existing rules should be adhered to. The agitations

become stronger in the face of violations of rules, regulations and laws by public officials and

state agencies. Groups that insist on constitutionalism, due process, rule of law, etc will come

under this category.

Other CSGs pursue reformist agenda and may thus focus on change, improvement and

removal of defects in a given society. Thus CS actors who agitate for constitutional or rule

amendments to correct noticeable faults will be said to pursue reformist agenda. For instance, in

Nigeria, a section of CSGs have persistently agitated for constitutional review with the aim of

correcting constitutional blunders imposed on the people by the military.

Civil society actors could also pursue a transformist agenda demanding for a total and

dramatic change of all or certain aspects of a polity. Most of the activities of civil society actors

in the Arab spring (excluding militia in Syria and Libya) could be classified as transformist given

their radical demands for changes that touch the very foundation of the society. In Nigeria,
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
agitations by some civil society groups in terms of structure of the state, type of government,

devolution of powers etc can also be classified as transformist.

Functions of Civil Society

It will be difficult to identify all the specific functions of CS especially in the light of the fact that

there are many groups under its umbrella. We shall limit our study on those general and obvious

areas where CS impacts.

Public Awareness Creation

Civil society groups engage in educating the public on critical issues within the polity. This

affects the way these issues are seen and thought about thus raising the social and political

consciousness of the people. Such consciousness helps to galvanise and mentally prepare the

masses on how best to react to those issues. The awareness is usually conducted through mass

media, and recently, the social and new media. The issues are critiqued and opinion formed.

Issues range from politics to economy, religion, education, etc. This awareness constitutes part of

civic education provided by the CSGs for the public. From awareness creation CSGs mobilise

the masses to resist policies that they believe are detrimental to the welfare of the people. A

chronicle of how CSGs have forced the state back to the tracks of accountability, transparency

and the rule of law is not intended but history is full of such.

Participate in Development
Civil society groups, especially NGOs, participate in various levels of development

projects in cities, towns and villages of many states. Both domestic and foreign CSGs partner

with other development agencies and institutions to embark on projects such as water, malaria

control, disease preventions, skill acquisitions and empowerment. The projects usually cover

most aspects of the society and fill the vacuum created by either government irresponsibility or

insufficient funds on the part of the state for capital development.

Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
Peacebuilding
Civil society groups equally participate in preventive and post conflict peacebuilding activities.

These activities range from conflict termination to assisting post-conflict societies to stabilize

after violent conflict. There are clear cases where civil society groups actively participated in

conflict termination and aided peace processes. One of such is the activities of Mano River

Women’s Peace Network (MARWOPNET) that prevailed on the actors in the conflicts in

Guinea, Sierra-Leone and Liberia to return to the negotiating table. MARWOPNET women used

protests, peace vigils in front of parliament, radio discussions and meeting with rebel groups to

get the actors in the conflicts to reach a peace accord.

Civil society groups have also effectively participated in structural peacebuilding through

Security Sector Reforms (SSR) and rebuilding socio-political institutions in post conflict states.

Some of the specific peacebuilding activities include; counselling for victims of violence (many

women and girls suffer various levels of abuses violent conflict), disarmament, demobilization

and reintegration (DDR) of ex-combatants, basic and referral medical care, reuniting families

scattered by wars, inter-ethnic confidence building, to mention but a few.

Civil society groups constantly engage the state through campaigning against structural

violence that makes positive peace a mirage. Thus we witness CSGs insisting on social justice,

social equality, good governance and youth employment and empowerment. Current agitations

by civil society groups in most countries in the Arab world and elsewhere is informed by the

quest for positive peace through removing all the unjust structures and institutions that impede

individual, group and societal development.

Promotion of Democracy
Biswas and Kanti (2013) discussed the extent to which civil society promotes democratic

ideals. There are well known cases where civil society groups have successfully challenged

despotic and totalitarian regimes. Civil society groups have at various times and in different parts

of the globe used nonviolent means to fight against social injustice, achieve national
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288
independence (e.g. India’s civil protests led by Mahatma Ghandi), undermine dictatorship and

authoritarian regimes (Thailand in 1992, Chile: Augusto Pinochet’s regime in the late 1980s),

resist inert bureaucracies or spur them to actions, protect human rights (Lebanon in 2005, the

Mothers of the Plaze de Mayo in Argentina in 1977, Nepals in 1990, 2006, Nigeria under

military regimes, the Arab World since 2010), reform government policies, to mention but a few

(King & Christopher, 2006).

In addition, CSGs fight for the enthronement and sustenance of democratic ideals in

emerging democracies. Central in these struggles include demands for constitutionalism, human

rights and rule of law, transparency and accountability in governance. Others include free and

fair elections, independence of the judiciary and equitable distribution of the commonwealth

especially in multi-ethnic states. Writing with Nigeria in mind, Albert (2009) contends that CSGs

deepens democracy by promoting political access, reduce electoral violence, promotes gender

mainstreaming, and civic education.

Conclusion
The progressive development in both the theory and practice of civil society is germane to the

reconstruction of social order for positive relations between the people and the state. Such

reconstruction reflects the power of the ordinary citizen through active participation in CS

activities which has an end use. Such end use revolves around the protection of citizens’ interests

in a world where the line between the practice of representative democracy and state interest is

ever widening. This is particularly so in emerging democracies where there is a disconnect

between the people and their representatives thus necessitating the strengthening of CS groups.
Udegbunam, C.W.K. (2014). Concept and nature of civil society, in P-J Ezeh (ed) Social
sciences in peace and conflict studies, vol. 1. Enugu: SAN Press. pp 271-288

References
Albert, I.O. “Civil society organisations and cross-cutting election themes”. In Praxis of
political concepts & clichés in Nigeria’s fourth republic. Ibadan: Bookcraft
Althusser, L. (1971). "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." In Lenin and Philosophy
and Other Essays. Pp. 127-186 Translated by Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly
Review
Bayart, J. (1986). Civil society: theory, history, comparison. London: Polity
George-Williams, D. Bite not one another; selected accounts of nonviolent struggle in Africa.
Addis Ababa: UPEACE.
Gotham, F. (2005). “Civil society”. In Encyclopeadia of social theory. (Ed) G. Ritzer (pp.98-
102). California: Sage Publication
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Q. Hoare
& G. N. Smith. New York: International Publishers
Hall, J. (1995). “Civil society and democracy in global governance”, in R. Wlkinson (ed.), The
global governance reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1821/1967). Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Trans by T. M. Knox. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Tuck, R. (1996) Hobbes: Leviathan. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press
King, E. M. & Christopher, A. M. (2006) Teaching model: Nonviolent transformation of
conflict. Addis Ababa: UPEACE
Locke, J. (/1689/1965), Two Treaties of Government, New York: Mentor.
Mann, M. (ed) (1983). Macmillan student enclyopeadia of sociology. London: Macmillan
Press.
McLean, I. & McMillan, A. (2006). Oxford concise dictionary of politics (2nd edition). Oxford:
Oxford University Press
OECD (2006). Applying strategic environmental assessment: Good practice guidance for
development co-operation. Paris: OECD
Smith, A. (1981). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, Indianapolis:
Liberty Press.
The World Bank (August, 2010). Defining civil society. Retrieved from:
http//go.worldbank.org/4CE7WO46KO on March 15, 2014.