(Ehrenberg, 191) The same idea is conveyed by Kaldor (203) – “global rules based on consent”, but current affairs remain way behind this ideal.More precisely, the universal civil society is an ideal system of civic participation and governance, yet not applicable to contemporary politics.
(Ehrenberg, 191) The same idea is conveyed by Kaldor (203) – “global rules based on consent”, but current affairs remain way behind this ideal.More precisely, the universal civil society is an ideal system of civic participation and governance, yet not applicable to contemporary politics.Tags: Brian Doyle Essay YesBusiness School Essay HelpEssay On Terrorism And Our Society In UrduWrite Development EssayThesis In ObstetricsWhite Rose EssayExplain The Problem Of Evil EssayResearch Paper On Computer EngineeringWords To Use In A Research Paper
In defence of this idea, the paper aims to account for the following questions: (1) what is a global civil society?
and (2) what are the viable means of implementing it? The answers I reach in the essay are not absolute; rather, I try to offer a somewhat different direction in respect to the assembling of a civil society at the global level.
The global civil society is not a master plan for humanity, but as Archibugi and Held (2011) convincingly claim, it is one of the ways worth pursuing in order to attain a global order.
Thus, citizen participation in the global forum is the focal point of discussion.
From Aristotle’s comprehension of a civil society based on face-to-face relations between friends who articulate the public good (Ehrenberg, 1999:xii), civil society evolved into a global phenomenon whose core function is to influence the decision-making process. As Mary Kaldor (2003) rightfully explains, the concept of a civil society has witnessed radical transformations.
So, who are the agents that create a civil society, moreover, a global civil society? If Cicero envisioned the civil society more or less in terms of a legal realm, while Hobbes thought it as “an artificial creation for the purposes of survival” (Ehrenberg, 1999:xiii), nowadays, civil society departed from any correlation with the state.The first part addresses the theoretical aspect of a global civil society by explaining its roots and its applications in the current international arena.The section starts from Mary Kaldor’s well-known article on “The Global Civil Society” upon which I present my own understanding of the global civil society.Although the essay is not concerned with dissecting the reasoning against or for cosmopolitanism, it can be perceived as a proponent of it.Thus, a global civil society, regardless the diverse opinions on its conceptualization, is to be understood as a result of the cosmopolitan philosophical thought.All these forms of association, so much praised by Tocqueville, empowers the formation of a “dynamic non-governmental system of interconnected socio-economic institutions that straddle the whole earth and that have complex effects that are felt in its four corners” (Keane, 20).Furthermore, it is a continuous process of social interactions, reinvention and networking that “consists of pyramids and hub-and-spoke clusters of socio-economic institutions and actors who organize themselves across borders, with the deliberate aim of drawing the world together in new ways” (Keane, 20).Commencing with the Stoic perception of a good citizen as a citizen of the world and culminating with the contemporary institutional and political developments, the essay concentrates on the heated debate around the creation of a global civil society.This idea is neither new, nor extremely futuristic; instead, it is based on a combination of the two core elements of cosmopolitanism: moral universalism and institution building.Although contemporary Confucianists tend to view Western liberalism as pitting the individual against society, recent liberal scholarship has vigorously claimed that liberal polity is indeed grounded in the self-transformation that produces “liberal virtues.” To meet this challenge, this essay presents a sophisticated Confucian critique of liberalism by arguing that there is an appreciable contrast between liberal and Confucian self-transformation and between liberal and Confucian virtues.By contrasting Locke and Confucius, key representatives of each tradition, this essay shows that both liberalism and Confucianism aim to reconstruct a society freed from antisocial passions entailing a vicious politics of resentment, and yet come to differing ethical and political resolutions.