View article

Most scholars agree that civil society is an arena of activity that is distinguished from the private realm of the family, the self-interested behavior of the economic sphere, and the state. Yet they set different boundaries on the scope of citizen interaction that falls within that space. Larry Diamond argues that civil society is" the realm of organized social life that is voluntary, self-generating, at least partially self-supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by legal order or set of shared rules," and it is distinct from society in general as it" involves citizens acting collectively in a public sphere"(1999, 221). Citizens' associations tend to be the most obvious element of" organized social life." Other analyses of civil society, such as that of Cohen and Arato (1992) explicitly include social movements as part of their definition although these movements are not an element of institutionalized political life. Others debate the question of whether social networks, organizations based on exclusive ties, or" uncivil" groups that pursue their aggrandizement through violent or illegal means should be included. We will briefly consider these debates.

The debate featured most prominently in this volume considers whether or not informal social networks should be included within the definition of civil society. Do informal social networks contribute to norms of trust, which many, particularly Robert Putnam, have connected to levels of citizen engagement and subsequently stable democracy and prosperous economies (Putnam 1993, 2000)? Looking specifically at postcommunist states, Marc Morjé Howard argues that reliance on personal networks leads to less involvement …