...intellectuals have also contributed the clarification of civil society objectives in Iran. Notwithstanding genuine intellectual and political efforts to support the democratization process inside Iran, one can neither ignore nor dismiss the fact that Western ideas, as well as economic and political interests, have influenced the promotion of civil society in Iran. In particular, certain donor countries and affiliated international agencies are instrumental in providing economic and ideological support for what I call the "civil society project."

In this paper, I first argue that as an ideological concept, civil society is a historical product of a postmodern, late capitalist global economy. While the post-Cold War era's debates have mainly revolved around Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis to legitimize the coming of a new capitalist world order, the civil society projects are prescribed for post-socialist and developing countries so that they can presumably make a smooth transition to a market economy. Next, I review and evaluate the merits of the civil society project as it is defined by the donor agencies such as the USAID and the World Bank. I then provide a brief comparative account of six interpretations of civil society by Iranian intellectuals and political activists, demonstrating their overall compliance with the programmatic guidelines set forth by the said donor agencies.

Finally, I review the internal and external structural impediments of establishing a civil society in Iran, and conclude that the project is neither feasible, nor might it be desirable in Iran. Using Gramsci's interpretation of civil society, I provide a conceptual model to demonstrate the "problematic" of democratization in Iran, linking it to her subordinate position within an international capitalist division of labor.

Post-Modern Theoretical and Ideological Roots of the "Civil Society" Project

Historically speaking, the emergence and evolution of "civil society" as a concept goes hand in hand with the emergence and evolution of capitalist market economy and its domination over all other economic forms. The earlier definitions ranged from finding a social sphere for citizens to protect their property rights (Locke 1968), to guaranteeing the privileged classes' right to have economic, political, and cultural freedom (Hegel 1967), and enabling the bourgeoisie to control and organize the production of commodities and market relations (Marx 1972). With further development of capitalism in the twentieth century, some theorists regarded civil society as an auxiliary social sphere controlled by the state. For instance, Gramsci (1980) considered civil society a system of control over the political and economic practices through non-violent means, hand-in-hand with the coercive arm of the state (political society). According to Gramsci, while the latter exerts control through police force, surveillance, taxation, imprisonment, and control of the judiciary, the former uses cultural and ideological means to control the subordinate classes:

It should be remembered that the general notion of state includes elements which need to be referred back to the notion of civil society (in the sense that one might say that state = political society + civil society), in other words hegemony protected by the armour of coercion. (Gramsci 1980:263).

The concept of "civil society" has been revived in the last two decades in an eclectic and non-critical fashion, mostly by Western governments and affiliated donor agencies. I will argue that the civil society project is, in fact, a revised postmodern version of earlier modernization projects of the 1950-1980 decades and their economic, political, and ideological objectives. For instance, the post-WWII efforts by Western capitalist economies (notably the United States) promoted modernization projects in the "Third World" in order to expand their spheres of economic and political domination. But this was done with the help of an ideological package that allegedly sought to fight communism on one hand and help poor developing nations to achieve economic development on the other.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and increasing hegemony of global capitalism has effectively undermined the possibility of successful insurgent movements that seek to establish independent and progressive nationalist regimes in developing countries. On the other hand, the Soviet Union's sudden demise as the main ideological force behind centralized socialist governments has allowed the West to promote the civil society project both in post-socialist and developing countries. However, this is being done without addressing the "problematic" of developing nations' structural dependency on the West, or questioning the shortcomings of a corporate-dominated global capitalism and its ideological legitimacy.

One of the earliest ideologues of postmodern politics was Daniel Bell (1974), whose "post-industrial society" thesis popularized the assumption that industrial-capitalism is reaching its zenith whereby labor and capital will no longer be in conflict. In an earlier work, by capitalizing on the defeat of fascism in Germany and the failure of the Stalinist socialist policies in the Soviet Union, Bell (1962) concluded that: (1) ideological projects have an appeal only in less developed and Third World countries; (2) maturation of political systems and liberal democracy in the West has become capable of supporting pluralism in politics; and 3) social revolutions are no longer a historical necessity, as political and economic reforms are now fully possible within the context of the industrial-capitalist system.

It is within this context that Francis Fukuyama's "the End of History" thesis (1992) finds a receptive audience in the West and, in my opinion, provides ideological support for the "civil society" as a postmodern project. In brief, Fukuyama argues that liberal democracy has finally overcome all other ideologies, and has put an end to all ideological conflicts in the world. He concludes that Western liberal democracy has become a universally acceptable concept, one that all nations will move to embrace. Thus, the post-Cold War advocates of this "new world order" argue that the globalized, industrial-capitalist system is no longer threatened by alternative political and economic systems such as socialism:

There will not be three "worlds" but only one world, a world in which countries at various levels of development interact in a multitude of diverse and mutually beneficial ways. The development model that largely prevailed from the 1950s to the 1980s and that was characterized by non-democratic, authoritarian dirigisme, and social engineering aimed at "modernization" has indeed been washed away by the tide of history. (Madison 1998:188)

The underlying message of the civil society advocates is that the project is viable based on two assumptions. First, all the nation building efforts of the twentieth century, from Third World modernization projects to nationalist liberation movements, have failed. Second, Western industrialized nations have achieved a state of "civility," and hence can serve as a model for other "uncivil" or "less civil" societies to follow. As Keane (1998:116) has aptly observed, the hypocrisy of this claim lies in that it serves "as a mask for the conniving egoism and violence of men with a reputation for refined manners" as they advance their economic interests through colonization. (1) One of the earliest criticisms of "Western civility," is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's rather harsh remarks on Hobbes' notion of civil society:

I open the books on rights and ethics; I listen to the professors and jurists; and, my mind full of their seductive doctrines, I admire the peace and justice established by the civil order; I bless the wisdom of our political institutions and, knowing myself a citizen, cease to lament I am a man. Thoroughly instructed as to my duties and my happiness, I close the books, step out of the lecture room, and look around me. I see wretched nations groaning beneath a yoke of iron. I see mankind ground down by a handful of oppressors. I see a famished mob, worn down by suffering and famine, while the rich drink the blood and tears of their victims at their ease. (Rousseau, 1917:124-5) [Italics added]

Rousseau's assessment of a nascent civil society in an industrializing Europe ravaged by civil wars may not conform to today's reality. But his implicit reference to the ideological nature and limits of a Western "civil order" still has relevance. In particular, two factors should be taken into consideration as we assess the merits of the civil society project. First, the development and sustenance of a late capitalist, "just-in-time," flexible production in advanced industrialized societies is only possible with the transfer of mostly labor-intensive production to less developed regions of the world. There, a repressed and cheap work force, deprived of basic working rights and conditions, is put to work in the interest of a global market. (2) A pre-requisite for this postmodern stage of late capitalism, is repression of organized labor at home, along with the creation of unionfree production sites such as the export processing and free economic zones in developing countries. (3) Second, while the Cold War era dictated a positivist-conservative ideology dividing the world into the irreconcilable and contradictory "democratic capitalist West" and "totalitarian socialist East;" the post-Cold War, post-modern "civil society project" has equally served a similar purpose. That is, with no factual documentation this positivist-conservative ideology assumes that all non-Western and post-socialist countries are both willing and capable of achieving a Western-style democracy. The inherent flaws in both ideological positions should not be discounted. As an ideology, the "East-West" dichotomy blamed the "East" for all the things that have gone wrong in their nation-building efforts, without even taking into consideration all the "West's" efforts to sabotage their projects. The post-Cold War civil society project also assumes that a Western-style capitalism and democracy in developing and post-socialist countries is possible, ignoring that the latter are unequal partners in this globalized, late capitalist economy (Chaichian 1998:195-97).

To conclude, the civil society project is being promoted at a crucial historical juncture with two distinct features. First, global capitalism faces no viable alternative economic and ideological contenders that might undermine its hegemonic status. Second, capital- and resource-poor, less developed and developing countries are not only incapable of achieving an independent economic and social development, but are also increasingly incorporated into an unequal and immensely hierarchical global division of labor that only benefits advanced capitalist economies.

Global Trends in Formulating a New Understanding of Civil Society

With the increasing globalization of capitalism and new shifts in world politics during the post-colonial phase (1960s to the present), new definitions of civil society are gaining currency. These interpretations are both initiated and promoted by certain Western countries with economic and political interests. Keane (1998:12-31) identifies three phases of the "contemporary renaissance of civil society." The first phase that took shape in the late 1960s in Latin America and Japan, was based on a new interpretation and redefinition of the concept where a neo-Gramscian account of civil society was used as a theoretical weapon against dictatorship (Mengotti 1998; cf. Keane 1998:12). In Japan, for example, using a neo-Gramscian analysis, Marxist theorists broke away from European social sciences and their definition of civil society that bore no relation to the Japanese cultural reality. Instead, they tried to understand "civil society" related to the peculiar nature of Japanese capitalism that was based on "communalism" and lack of individual power vis-a-vis an omnipotent state (Keane 1998:13-14).

The second phase of this renewed interest began during the...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from International Journal of Comparative Sociology
A game of three cities: negotiating Jewish indentity in Israel's footb..., June 01, 2003
Shahrukh Rafi Khan. ed. 2002. Trade and Environment: Difficult Policy ..., June 01, 2003
Coffey, Amanda. 2001. Education and Social Change.(Book Review), June 01, 2003
George, Vic and Paul Wilding. 2002. Globalization and Human Welfare.(B..., June 01, 2003

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.