Charity No
313712
Introduction
It is a truism that civil society is what we, as active citizens, make it, but it is also true that 'social energy', or 'willed action', is the spark that ignites civil society as a force for positive social change. The determination to do something because it is the right thing to do, not because we are told to do it by governments or enticed to do it by the market, is what makes associational life a force for good, provides fuel for change in the practices of states and business, and motivates people to raise their voices in the public sphere. Michael Edwards1
Few would disagree that Nelson Mandela, the black South African lawyer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, human rights activist, and former President of the democratic republic of South Africa, is among the modern world's great leaders. During his struggle against apartheid as a member of the African National Congress he eventually came to favour militant tactics against a recalcitrant government as opposed to an earlier policy of non-violence. Later, during his long imprisonment, he moderated his militant views, reverting from a revolutionary to a more co-operative and moderate political stance in pursuit of his goals of freedom and equality for black people.
For his biographer, Anthony Sampson, prison life enabled Mandela to become detached, to reflect, and to empathise with and persuade others to his view, including some of his warders.2 In what came to be known as 'the university of Robben Island' (an informal culture of learning for the prisoners, which included interested warders) he became the dignified and respected model for others. He is described by Sampson as having been "Socratic" and "fiercely candid", cross-examining himself and others, exposing vagueness and clarifying ideas, and getting fellow prisoners to see both sides of an argument.3 Many years later we are told, "Mandela sometimes sounded like a philosopher-king", and continued to refer to "first principles ... [of] reconciliation, human dignity and love."4 "His prison ordeal had transformed him into
1 Michael Edwards, Civil Society, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2004, p.lll.
2 Sampson, A., Mandela: The Authorised biography, London, Harper Collins, 2000, p.203. See also Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to freedom, London, Abacus, 1994.
3 Sampson, op. at., p.237.
4 Sampson, op. at., p.505.
12
a much more reflective and influential kind of leader ... [who] showed far more intellectual depth and originality than his early anti-colonialist cliches; and ...[who was] persistent in getting to the truth, however uncomfortable."5
Now, your editors are not suggesting that we all need a spell in jail in order to become clear and principled thinkers. We may benefit from learning the art of disciplined dialogue, however. For simplicity, we can distinguish between structured formal and facilitated dialogue such as modern Socratic Dialogue (SD) - or, as it is sometimes known, Neo-Socratic Dialogue (NSD) - and unstructured informal dialogue which is ordinarily what we understand by talk, chat, or conversation.
What is this modern practice of SD? The modern version of the method does not revolve around a central figure like the Socrates of old, or a modern Mandela for that matter. It is a multilateral form of group dialogue rather than the bilateral (one-to-one) traditional form. The revival of SD began in pre-Nazi Germany at the University of Gottingen where it was used primarily as a pedagogical tool by the philosopher Leonard Nelson. Later, in their struggle against fascism, trained German Socratic facilitators found SD helpful to the resistance workers in their small circle in the clarification of the motives behind their resistance. Since then, although it remains a little-known activity, its use has spread to other countries in Europe and is increasingly in use in other parts of the world. Although education remains its main field of application it is also now used in many other settings, including the world of business and commerce, and in public sector organizations.
Its underlying values and principles are Socratic. In essence, Socrates asked questions rather than provided answers. He maintained that all true knowledge was a form of self-insight, that comes from within and is waiting to be discovered, and also that a slave has the same rational potential as a person of rank (see the Platonic Dialogue 'Meno'). The idea was revolutionary: that Man is capable of knowing himself through the exercise of rational thought.
We were specifically interested in this volume in considering the potential role of dialogue, especially modern SD, to help to answer some of the ethical questions and issues arising in civil society. In this we hope to contribute to the debate about the role of dialogue in general in promoting the ethical effectiveness of civil society.
5 Sampson, op. at., p.581. 12
13
Democracy and Citizenship
It is often said that disciplined public dialogue was the hallmark of classical democracy, that participation in political debate was expected of the whole citizenry, the polity, and that issues were settled in and through public debate. There was the ever-present danger, however, of the misuse of dialogue and rhetoric by the unscrupulous and ignorant, but the logical process of dialectic could serve as an antidote to such abuse. In Plato's Dialogue 'Gorgias' Socrates maintained that debate or oratory was to be used only in the service of "the right" - by which he meant in the service of the just, or in the service of ethics. Gorgias was himself a professor of oratory and he was engaged in debate with Socrates over the nature of his art. The real substance of the dialogue is actually ethics. For Socrates the whole purpose of life was ethical, by which he meant the avoidance of injustice. As modern Socratics, it follows that it is the ethics of civil society which should also engage us.
It is common belief that the birth of democracy, as a simple form of direct democracy, flourished under the unique conditions and the political order of Pericles in the self-governing city-state of ancient Athens. At the time, Athens prospered more than any other Greek state, where for once the warrior ethic gave way to 'civic'6 virtues where the rule of law, philosophy and the arts of free public debate and dialogue flourished in the polis.
To another great classical philosopher, Aristode, politics and ethics went hand-in-hand and the polis was an association of virtuous citizens. As a member of the polis, the Greek citizen was assumed to be a political being by nature and equal under the law. Citizenship has ancient roots, therefore. It must also be said that in ancient Athens democracy was a double moral standard which excluded women and slaves and it was not therefore a genuine democracy. Woman's place was quite categorically in the home.
6 'Civis' is Latin for citizen and 'civic' is proper to citizens. Civic society is a community of citizens. In ancient Rome the citizen was a legal member of the 'res publica' and dialogue and political debate took place in the public civic space of the forum. 'Civicus' was to enjoy freedom as a citizen of one's town; he who was not a citizen was a barbarian by definition.
7 See helpful texts for a detailed illumination of this ideology and its continuing legacy to the present day by: Squires, J., Gender in Political Theory, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1999; Steans, J., Gender and International Relations, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1998; and Nash, K., Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics and Power, Oxford, Blackwell, 2000.
14
Citizenship these days is a central political concept in the West. It has a long and complex history and has been defined in different ways. Interest in it was revived in the 1980s as the need to deal with social divisions and tensions at home was becoming increasingly recognised. It excludes as much as it includes - excluding exiles, immigrants, refugees, the chronically homeless and so on. It is a legal status defined, conferred and protected by the modern state with the citizen bearing rights (such as property rights, and the possession of a passport) and obligations. Since 'civic' is a legal idea which pertains to the citizen and the city it should not be conflated with 'civil' which implies something broader, less specific, and is a non-legal term as such.
The modern world is a far cry from that of the ancient city-state of Athens. Many centuries later the modern state has grown vastly in size and power. The growing states of the great powers of the developed world became nation-states. Democracy developed into complex systems of representation. But there is a pressing modern crisis. Inflamed by dogma, terrorism has become an ever-present menace. With the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the collapse of the latter after the fall of the 'iron curtain' in 1989, space has opened up for the resurgence of extremist nationalist sentiment which has taken a fundamentalist form in some disturbed and insecure areas of the world.
Civil Society and the 'Third Sector'
A main interest of this volume is that of the nebulous and complex idea of 'civil society'. What do we mean by civil society? Civil society is not an homogeneous entity.8 To use modern jargon, it is a 'fuzzy' concept with fuzzy boundaries. Because of this ambiguity, civil society may be defined by default, by what it is not, that which is not state - or market. In Western political theory civil society has been clearly distinguished from the state. To add to our confusion, civil society is taken as private when opposed to the state, and public when opposed to the personal. Civil
8 For Kate Nash, civil society is "an ideal of liberal democracy", and represents that sphere which is outside the scope of the state but includes individuals and private associations and institutions protected by the state. See her Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics and Power, Oxford, Blackwell, 2000, especially the glossary on p.273.
15
society is often now also called the 'third sector", whereas previously the Voluntary sector' or 'charity sector' was a more popular term.
On their own, individuals cannot achieve much to improve their life chances and need local grassroots initiatives and networks of ordinary people joined together in a common cause or project. A crude distinction can be made between the political and non-political associations of civil society. Associations may be quite clearly political organisations (such as anti-war protest movements), but they are often not at all political (such as Women's Institutes, church and religious groups, games and sports or social clubs of one kind or another). Allow us to return briefly to a little English history to illuminate this point.
Under the harsh conditions of work with the advent of the market economy during the first great wave of industrialisation in Britain, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the English working classes created 'Friendly Societies' to provide their members with mutual financial and community support, and opportunities for leisure and companionship. These early 'unions' were not explicitly political organi2ations and were a first experience for many workers of organized self-government. They gave individuals a sense of dignity, belonging and purpose. They afforded opportunities for ordinary people to hold office - although office in a voluntary capacity in a voluntary organization.
More precisely, in 1792 in radical 18th century London, a small group of tradesmen founded the London Corresponding Society.9 Its purpose was the education of its members and ordinary people in history and politics. It also acted as a pressure group on the government for reform. Importantly, it acted as a co-ordinator of many similar popular reform groups. Barrell sees it as the first national political movement in Britain and with an influence far exceeding its size. There was at that time no government control over the conditions of labour and no organized trade unions. Clubs and groups in civil society which grew up in 18th century England convened in shared social and public spaces such as coffee houses and town centre meeting houses as well as in private homes.
There are many civil groups and associations today with clear-cut political objectives such as nationally-based NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) like the UK's Liberty (set up to protect human rights and civil liberties from encroachment and violation by the state), and, increasingly, international NGOs (INGOs) like Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and Jubilee 2000. Some are reputable pressure groups, and
9 See Barrell, J., 'Divided We Grow', in London Review of Books, June 3, 2003, pp.8-11. 15
16
some less scrupulous. To complicate matters there are hybrid groups which are ostensibly non-political, such as a local conservation society or a medical charity, but which may use political lobbying, typically lobbying government authorities, to better achieve their objectives. Others are clearly non-political in their aims and practices.
Many civil society associations are informal and loosely-structured, but many others have taken a formal legal route becoming registered with 'articles of association' or 'articles of incorporation' - perhaps as a registered charity, or as a limited company with non-profit-making status. In the UK these voluntary groups are primarily self-regulating, but because they have a legal base are also under the control of the state. Charities are arguably the core, the heart of civil society. They are defined in the UK as bodies which are owned and governed by unpaid volunteer trustees approved by the appropriate official state agency - the Charity Commission - the state agency which regulates them at arms length.10
In the UK today it is estimated that there are 22 million adults (about 40% of the total population) engaged in some form of voluntary work; a form of labour which has been historically omitted from official labour statistics. Such unpaid labour is now considered to more than double the income of the 'third sector'.11 There are about 170,000 registered UK charities which are bodies meant to benefit the public interest and which share a public service ethos. The UK charity sector's budget is about £20billion and a large part of this (about 40%) comes from government sources.
As an institution, the voluntary association in Britain goes back to the craft guilds of the late Middle Ages; the medieval fraternities which marked the beginnings of a structured and formal civil society. The
10 For more information see: www.charity-commission.gov.uk
11 A similar point has long been made by feminist theorists, who have sought to draw attention to the economic value of women's unpaid labour in the home. Out of sight and out of the equation. Recently, Shirley Burggraf has argued that the Western family is an economic unit taken for granted by 'privatization' of the domestic sphere, and so overlooked by economic science. She suggests that the (unmarried) economist Adam Smith was naive, and she highlights women's vast but unpaid labour as rearers and caretakers of children who are the future workforce, polis and citizenry. Burggraf sees the family unit as the primary source of human capital: .ree her book The Feminine Economy and Economic Man: Reviving Family in the Post-Industrial Age, Reading, Mass., Perseus Publishing, 1999. At the time of writing we do not know whether official statistics on the value of voluntary work include domestic labour and there is room for a productive debate on how one defines and distinguishes Voluntary' work.
17
guilds appear to have furnished an escape from domestic ties and feudal hierarchy.12 They were also an early form of quasi-professional body for the protection of market privileges; trade 'closed shops' which eventually came to form a wealthy middle class in the UK.
Modern Politics and Globalization: The Analogy of the Three-legged Stool
For democracy to have a good chance of working in practice, ideally certain conditions and criteria have to be met. In a modern Western liberal democracy these criteria are conventionally taken to be: universal suffrage and a representative government; an effective opposition to the ruling administration in power (the system is not one-party); an independent and effective judiciary and the rule of law and equality before the law; a free press and mass media; and an active vibrant civil society which enjoys freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.
These different conditions are meant as countervailing forces to central authority; to act as barriers to a potentially overweening state - a check on the state's tendency towards excessive power which could be exercised through the coercive apparatus of the police and the military. A fashionable analogy to convey the notion of this balancing process is that of the three-legged stool. The three main arenas of democratic power are likened to a stool, with the three legs of the stool - the central state, the market (the economy), and civil society - all kept in dynamic and harmonious balance.
The three-legged stool of state/market/third sector is thought by many commentators today to be seriously unbalanced in an era of state cutbacks and privatization. They see an imbalance in the direction of the growth of the power of corporate capitalism and the markets which encroaches on the political and threatens the sovereignty of individual states. Many are alarmed by the global expansion ('globalization') of the big corporations and multinationals which are able to exploit an international division of labour and undermine the sovereignty of nation-
12 See Bossy, J., Christianity in the West: 1400-1700, Oxford, Oxford Paperbacks, 1985. These associations were for Bossy a form of "social glue" or "social miracle", in which market rivalries were set aside for the social exchanges of "greeting, meeting and eating". (The term 'social capital' is more frequently used these days).
18
states by taking their business elsewhere to developing countries whose governments tax and regulate them less than do the home governments of the developed world, and where labour costs are considerably lower.
One response by governments is to roll back the frontiers of the state and to persuade other sectors, the private market, or the third sector with its reserve army of unpaid voluntary labour to take over some of the tasks which have been historically the function of the state. The hunt is on for the volunteer. One paradox is that the less space there is available for public meeting (places like public libraries and civic community centres) because of cutbacks in state funding and the increasing take-over of these spaces by commerce and business, the less opportunity there is for a thriving civil society to function.
Reasons for this Volume
This volume originated in an international conference, held at Newman College, Birmingham (UK), in the summer of 2002.13 The conference experience exceeded our expectations and the warmth of the dialogue and exchanges will inspire us for many years to come.
Our theme was inspired by two broad and interrelated sets of issues, local and international. Firstly, looking inwards, there are domestic questions which threaten to undermine democracy. There is the question of whether and how to build unity and a common civic identity, a flourishing civil society and peaceful internal relations in today's fragmented societies. There is also the so-called 'democratic deficit' of how to guarantee the survival of democracy in an era of media and TV politics, low voter turn-out, growing disillusionment with representative forms of government and diminishing participation in formal political systems. What, in short, is the role of civil society in a modern democracy?
Secondly, the work was motivated by concerns about the supposed threats from a number of contemporary international developments, such as the laissez-faire globalization of deregulated capitalism over the past
13 This was the 4th in a series of international conferences sponsored jointly by the SFCP and PPA,
19
20 years.14 Then there are the ethical issues of the new biotechnology (of genetic testing, GM crops and the transplanting of animal parts into human patients). Also, at a time of European Union enlargement to 25 member states there is a particular interest in the effects of the recent collapse of the Soviet Union on the former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and on the Union itself.
Finally, together with most contributors to this volume, we have wide experience as volunteers serving in civil society at home and abroad and were struck by ethical problems and potential conflicts of interest encountered in that sector, by how such problems might sometimes hold back its efficacy, and (granted that much more than this is needed to improve matters) by how training in skilled dialogue might help alleviate some of these problems.
This volume is a result of a wider and longer term international collaborative project sponsored jointly by the SFCP and the PPA, and we hope it will be a modest contribution to a growing international and cosmopolitan civil society. There are at least 13 countries represented among our authors, and four papers have joint authors each based in different countries. The 17 papers in the volume are of roughly two main kinds. In Part One there are four lead papers, by authors from Germany, the UK, Bosnia, and Mexico, who were invited to offer a more general and theoretical slant to our topic. These set the scene for the 13 papers that follow in Part Two, which are more specific and, in some cases, more practice-oriented. In some of the latter the use of modern Socratic Dialogue (SD) in practice is described.
For the vast majority of our contributors, English is not their first language. However, all of these non-English speaking writers have contributed papers in English. We hope that the distinct national and cultural backgrounds of our contributors still comes across through their own use of what is an increasingly international medium.
14 Like civil society 'globalization' is a fuzzy concept to define with several dimensions to it, although most commentators focus on the economic dimension. In What is Globalization?, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2000, p.20, Ulrich Beck likens it to nailing a blancmange to a wall. According to the editor of The Ecologist, Zac Goldsmith, today just 500 corporations control 70% of world trade and, with their financial power, it's impossible to exagerate their political influence - a state of affairs which he thinks is neither necessary or desirable. See Goldsmith's article 'Progress to Nowhere' in Resurgence, 219, 2003, p.22-23. For Ann Pettifor, Director of Jubilee Research at the New Economics Foundation, globalization is "the marketisation of society" (Resurgence, 219, 2003, p.26). See www.jubileeresearch.org. 19