Understanding “Uncivil Society”: Logics and Organizations

• In Event: Crisis Impact and Societal Response of Civil Society

Abstract

The 1990s were born on the promise of a golden age for civil society, considering the so-called global associative revolution gave visibility to the voluntary and associative activity developed by private, non-governmental, and non-profit organizations (Salamon, 1994). This promise of a robust civil society, which counterbalanced state power, was firmly rooted in a liberal tradition that became hegemonic among researchers (Osborne, 2021) and also international agencies (Srinivas, 2022) intending to establish a global liberal democracy.

However, this normative vision treats civil society monolithically, not as a field of dialogical disputes (Alves, 2004) and contestation (Kopecky & Mudde, 2003). More specifically, this vision of civil society cannot encompass internal struggles that lead groups within civil society itself to fight against democracy, taking uncivil positions (Kopecky & Mudde, 2003; Segatto et al., 2023).

In the last decade, due to changes in the public sphere in authoritarian and hybrid regimes, some studies began to analyze the actions of organized groups, called “uncivil society,” in supporting and legitimizing these regimes. These regimes, on the one hand, weakened rights defense organizations by reducing resources for them, closing spaces for participation, and increasing barriers to accessing information and, on the other, expanded the funding and role of organizations.” neutral” in the provision of public services and strengthened religious and nationalist-based organizations (Toepler et al., 2020).

Seeking to go beyond a definition that divides society into good and evil, progressive and conservative, “uncivil” is understood as groups that reject deliberative democracy in its bases, processes, and decisions (Bob, 2011). “Uncivil” is not exclusively related to the defense of conversational ideas and values but to rejecting institutional processes and mechanisms that support deliberative democracy. These groups use “othering” practices and mechanisms as action strategies, persecuting and obliterating opposing groups in the public sphere (Alves et al., 2021).

Based on the idea of institutional logics, which consists of patterns of material practices, beliefs, and values produced and reproduced, legitimizing particular meanings given to social reality (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999), some studies analyze different institutional logics and their interactions, such as religious and civil society (Gümüsay, 2020). This study analyzes the interaction between religious, civil society, and state logics based on a study on the influence of conservative and religious groups on societal changes in Brazilian educational policy, especially from 2010 to 2022. The empirical research included document analysis, publications, and semi-structured interviews with managers from the Ministry of Education and non-governmental organizations, experts, and other key actors. It seeks to advance the discussion on “uncivil society” and its influence on public policies in general.

References

Alves, M. A. (2004). O conceito de sociedade civil: em busca de uma repolitização. Organizações & Sociedade, 11, 141-154.

Alves, M. A., Segatto, C. I., & Pineda, A. M. (2021). Changes in Brazilian education policy and the rise of right‐wing populism. British Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 332-354.

Bob, C. (2011). Civil and uncivil society. In M. D. Edwards (Ed.), Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 209–219). Oxford University Press.

Gümüsay, A. A. (2020). The potential for plurality and prevalence of the religious institutional logic. Business & Society, 59(5), 855-880.

Kopecký, P., & Mudde, C. (2003). Rethinking civil society. Democratization, 10(3), 1-14.

Osborne, T. (2021). Civil society, populism and liberalism. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 34, 175-190.

Salamon, L. M. (1994). The rise of the nonprofit sector. Foreign Affairs, 73(4), 109-122.

Segatto, C. I., Alves, M. A., & Pineda, A. (2023). Uncivil society and social policies in Brazil: The backlash in the gender, sexual, and reproductive rights and ethnic and racial relations fields. Public Administration and Development, 43(1), 60-69.

Srinivas, N. (2022). Against NGOs: A Critical Perspective on Civil Society, Management and Development. Cambridge University Press.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

Toepler, S., Zimmer, A., Fröhlich, C., & Obuch, K. (2020). The changing space for NGOs: Civil society in authoritarian and hybrid regimes. Voluntas, 31(4), 649–662.

Authors

• Mario Aquino Alves, EAESP, Fundação Getulio Vargas

• Catarina Segatto, .

• Andrea Martini Pineda, EAESP, Fundação Getulio Vargas