It's undeniable that claims of legitimacy helps a organization or civil society grow and gain respect in a society. To be able to claim that a group is a natural response to the state or society is not only saying that it is legitimate, but that it is a direct product of the government and the community. This gives it a sense of necessity. But what can determine whether an organization is actually organic? Apparently not much. Perhaps more important than being organic is being seen as organically grown, as it gives strength to the members and status in the community.
If a civil society is in response to the government, than how could it not be, in at least a small sense, political. I agree with the statement that (very paraphrased said) a civil society should be for the community and apart from goals of authority. In other words, not for the furthering of the self but for improving situations for the whole. Whether a traditional, 'civic' or hybrid, a civil society organization is most successful when it can make the most amount of people care and hopefully get involved (whether civilians or the government), and the effectiveness of each type greatly varies in different regions, even within different countries. It makes sense to me that such CSOs can share the same goals with different reasoning, and therefore together can be very strong forces.
I agree with the point that civil society is political; if it affected by politics, or it is searching for political reform, then it is political. I also believe that this gets in the way of civil society, as well as does the question of "civic" versus "traditional' society. As you said, Justine, "a civil society organization is most successful when it can make the most amount of people care and hopefully get involved.." I agree wholeheartedly; while CSOs are based on different structures and have different goals and views, they are still based on this fundamental idea, and that is what should be the most important and what should be emphasized the most.
ReplyDelete