Civil Society and its Limits
Civil society continuesto be one of the central topics in modern social sciences and tends to become a popular subject of interdisciplinaryresearch. But the theme is also important in political actuality of democratic states, thatpartly explains the wide range of public debates. The authors try to answer such controversial questionsas: What do we understand by civil society? Can civil society be comprehended analytically?Where does civil society begin and end? In order to answer these and other questions they outline thetheoretical, analytical and practical limits of civil society.The theoretical limits are set by the sum of philosophical, political and sociological dimensions ofthe civil society concept. According to the philosophical-normative concept, civil society is a perfecttype of social order being settled in Modern time. In political practice the concept is being used asslogan of political movements and parties in their struggle for power, thereupon its meaning varieswith political goals of individual groups. As analytical concept of social sciences civil society has threeinterpretations: institutional level of political sociology, phenomenon in the region of values and convictions,descriptive-analytical concept of political science being applied to all the collective citizenactivities of public utility in private sector.The analytical limits are concluded from the concept of interest intermediation. Guided by U.Alemann's interest groups classification supplemented with a category of material and immaterialinterests, the authors figure a four-sector model of interest intermediation. A nonpolitical, social sectorof associations pursuing both material and immaterial interests is a civil society sector.The practical limits are exposed by analysis of civil society history carried out by means of negativeand positive freedom concept applied to the Central-East European and Western countries. As theauthors argue, the civil society history springs from the second half of the 19th century and is linked tothe rise of bourgeoisie. Using the concept of negative and positive freedom, the authors analyze differentprogress of civil society in West and East. They conclude, that the limits of civil society organizationsoperating under democratic conditions are different from those operating under pre-democraticconditions. Organizations striving for negative freedom break down after having prevailed, while thelimits of those enjoying positive freedom are defined by social interests in the pre-political area.
Keywords
гражданское общество,
свобода,
группы интересов,
Европа,
civil society,
freedom,
interest groups,
EuropeAuthors
| Shubert Klaus | University of Mu"nster (Germany) | klaus.schubert@uni-muenster.de |
| Kochev I.A. | National Research Tomsk State University | igor_kochev@yahoo.com |
Всего: 2
References
Абакумов С.А. Гражданское общество в России. М.: Галерия, 2005.
Anheier H.K. Civil Society. Measurement, Evaluation, Policy. London; Sterling, 2004.
Baker G. Civil Society and Democratic Theory. Alternative voices. London; New York, 2002.
Cohen J.L., Arato A. Civil Society and Political Theory. New Baskerville, 1999.
Hildebrandt R. Staat und Zivilgesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M., 2011.
Берлин А.Д. Гражданское общество в России: надежды и реальность. М., 2005.
Die Praxis der Zivilgesellschaft. Akteure, Handeln und Strukturen im internationalen Vergleich. / Bauerkamper A. Frankfurt a.M., 2003.
Future of Civil Society. Making Central Euro-pean Nonprofit-Organizations Work / Zimmer A., Priller E. Wiesbaden, 2004.
The Third Sector in Europe. Prospects and challenges / Osborne S.P. Abingdon; New York, 2008.
Демократическое правовое государство и гражданское общество в странах Центрально-Восточной Европы / Ин-т международных экономических и политических исследований РАН. М.: Наука, 2005. С. 84-173.
Seligman A.B. The Idea of Civil Society. Princeton, 1992.
Гайдар Е. Дни поражений и побед. М., 1996.
Дмитрий Медведев поговорил с общественниками // Российская газета. 2008. 20 марта.
Dahl R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.
Lijphart A. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensual Government in Twentyone Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
Durkheim E. Professional Ethics and Civic Morals. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1958.
Вебер М. Избранные произведения / Под ред. П.П. Гайденко. М.: Прогресс, 1990.
Schubert K., Klein M. Das Politiklexikon. Bonn; Dietz, 2006.
Alemann U. von. Organisierte Interessen in der Bundesrepublik. Opladen, 1989.
Lepsius M.R. Interessen, Ideen, Institutionen. Wiesbaden: VS, 2009.
Фергюсон А. Опыт истории гражданского общества / Пер. с англ. И.И. Мюрберга. М.: Росспэн, 2000.
Schmidt J. Zivilgesellschaft. Burgergesellschaftliches Engagement von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag, 2007.
Reichardt S. Civil Society - A Concept for Comparative Historical Research // Future of Civil Society. Making Central European Nonprofit-Organizations Work / Zimmer A., Priller E. Wiesbaden: VS, 2004. S. 35-55.
Аристотель. Сочинения в 4 т. / Пер. с древнегреч. М.: Мысль, 1984. Т. 4.
Black A. Guilds and Civil Society in European political thought from the 12th Century to the Present. New York: Ithaca, 1984.
Kocka J. Zivilgesellschaft in historischer Perspektive // Neue Soziale Bewegungen. 2003. S. 29-37.
Стенограмма лекции профессора М. Урбана «Почему принято считать, что в России нет гражданского общества?» [Электронный ресурс] // Международный институт гуманитарно- политических исследований. - Режим доступа: http://www.igpi.ru/ info/people/urban/ 113758
Тулупов В.Г. Русь Новгородская. М.: Эксмо, 2009.
Гражданское общество. Мировой опыт и проблемы России: ИМЭМО / Отв. ред. В.Г. Хорос. М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 1998.
Степанский А.Д. Общественные организации в России на рубеже XIX-XX вв. М., 1972.
Карипов Б.Н. Концептуальные основы политической доктрины русского классического либерализма // Вестник ТГУ. Философия. Социология. Политология. 2011. № 3 (15). С. 120-125.
Bonker K. Akteure der Zivilgesellschaft vor Ort? Presse, Lokalpolitik und die Konstruktion von "Gesellschaft" im Gouvernment Saratov, 1890-1917. // Die Praxis der Zivilgesellschaft. Akteure, Handeln und Strukturen im internationalen Vergleich / Bauerkampf
Городецкая И.Е. Становление «третьего сектора» и добровольчества // Гражданское общество в России: структуры и сознание / Отв. ред. К.Г. Холодковский М.: Наука, 1998. С. 128-153.
Howard M.M. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Berlin I. Two Concepts of Liberty // Four Essays on Liberty / Belrin I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. P. 118-172.
Pelczynski Z.A. Solidarity and "The Rebirth of Civil Society" // Civil Society and the State. New European Perspectives / Kean K. London, 1988. P. 361-380.
Каротерс Т. Помощь Запада становлению гражданского общества в Восточной Европе и бывшем Советском Союзе // Конституционное право: восточноевропейское обозрение. 2000. № 1. С. 2-9.
Lomax B. The Strange Death of "Civil Society" in Post-Communist Hungary // The Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics. March 1997. Vol. 13. P. 58-60.
История южных и западных славян: учебник для вузов: в 2 т. / Под ред. Г.Ф. Матвеева, З.С. Ненашевой. Т. 2: Новейшее время. М.: Изд-во МГУ. 2001.
Bobbio N. Die Zukunft der Demokratie. Berlin, 1992.
Pateman C. The Fraternal Social Contract // Civil Society and the State / Keane J. London: Verso, 1988. P. 101-128.
Bell D. American Exceptionalism Revisited: The Role of Civil Society // The Public Interest. 1989. № 95. P. 38-56.
Taylor C. Modes of Civil Society // Public Culture. Fall 1990. Vol. 3, № 1. P. 95-118.
Walzer M. Zivile Gesellschaft und amerianische Demokratie. Berlin, 1992.
Dahrendorf R. Der moderne soziale Konflikt. Essays zur Politik der Freiheit. Stuttgart, 1992.
Habermas J. Faktizitat und Geltung: Beitrage zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Frankfurt a. M., 1992.
Rucht D. Soziale Bewegungen und ihre Rolle im System politischer Interessenvermittlung // Die Zukunft der Demokratie. Herausforderungen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung / Klingemann H.-D., Neidhardt F. Berlin, 2000. S. 51-69.
Cohen J. Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements // Social Research. 1985. Vol. 52, № 4. P. 663-716.
Thatcher M. Aids, education and the year 2000 // Woman's Own. 23.09.1987. P. 8-10.
Janicke M. Staatsversagen. Die Ohnmacht der Politik in der Industriegesellschaft. Munchen: Piper Verlag, 1992.
Giddens A. The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.
Mikfeld B. Fuhrt der Dritte Weg in ein neues Zeitalter der Sozialdemokratie? // Blatter fur deutsche und internationale Politik. April 1999. S. 437-449.
