Global Governance Global Civil Society:

Global Governance

Global Civil Society: A Possible Ideal

Over the course of history, the organization of the world and its governance has taken many forms. One of the earliest forms, the feudal model, involved kingdoms and provinces that were ruled by a single ruler. Power would often change hands when these kingdoms would go to war with one another. The Catholic Church was one of the first overarching systems of governance to be applied to these kingdoms in Europe, as it was recognized as a political authority. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia created the system of governance now used throughout the world, that of the nation-state. But as of late, the sovereignty of nation-states has been questioned, as world organizations -- both intergovernmental organizations and Nongovernmental Organizations -- such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace have begun to emerge. Further, unions such as the European Union and African Union have arisen as regionally-based sources of governance claiming jurisdiction in areas that have traditionally been considered sovereign. Their existence and actions are often at the heart of controversies regarding global governance in the world today, but their implementation is a direct result of issues that are no longer regional, but global, in scope. These include global warming, terrorism, the nuclear threat, economics, and others. Keane (2003) describes this situation when he writes, "A new world-view radically different from any that has existed before, has been born and is currently enjoying a growth spurt: it is called global civil society" (pg. 1).

Indeed, the global civil society is an idea that, if implemented, could see the end of much of the world's problems. It is a construct that proposes a global village, a new political order that involves the complex interaction among actors in the international realm, an idea that can be described as a normative, moral, or political structure (Keane, 2003). Although Lipshutz (1992) defines the global civil society as "a parallel arrangement of political interaction, one that does not take anarchy or self-help as central organizing principals, but is focused on the self-conscious constructions of networks of knowledge and action, by decentered, local actors that cross the reified boundaries of space as though they were not there" (pg. 390), Keane (2003) specifically points out that the global civil society is difficult to define. Indeed, it is in its abstractness, and as a result of it's different forms, that a global civil society is difficult to pinpoint exactly. Meyer et al. (1997), however, note that the existence of world models is nothing new. In addition, they hold that world models are now beginning to explain the organization of the world at an unprecedented rate. Perhaps the easiest answer for why this is the case goes back to the fact that decisions made on the sovereign, national level impact the world as a whole (Held, 1995). In addition, scholars state that world society theories explain how those cultures that have seemingly extreme differences manage to function in similar manners (Meyer et al., 1997). In addition, world society models can be used to explain how these kinds of cultures are able to interact together at all, although that interaction may be strained. Through an examination of the spread of cultural norms, politics, and democracy, this paper argues that a global civil society or world society may soon be the form of governance taken by the international world, but that this cannot be implemented without a significant degree of change and strife.

According to Keane (2003), shared beliefs about the cosmos have been what have kept human kind united to the degree that it is united today. Thus, it follows that a global civil society or a world society will require a spread of cultural norms. To a degree, this has already happened through globalization. Shared economic interests, travel interests, and entertainment have brought the world closer on a level that has never been experienced before. Still, some of the most potent conflicts in the world are fueled by cultural differences. For instance, terrorist organizations with ties to extremist or fundamental religious groups certainly have not accepted the spread of cultural norms. In areas of the Middle East where the Taliban still claim that the United States is associated with religious evil, Western norms are by no means accepted. According to Keane (2003), the definition of the global civil society has many manifestations, one of which is a normative ideal. Keane suggests that many believe a global civil society to be the ideal form of global governance, and the term is often used as a way to suggest the "undesirable or unworkable consequences of practical efforts to weaken or abolish the institutions of global civil society, for instance through unilateral military intervention" (pg. 4). What Keane (2003) suggests here is that some see global civil society not as a theory currently in practice, but a normative ideal, perhaps one that can never quite be achieved. While global civil society can, indeed, be achieved at one point, Keane's comments regarding the spread of cultural norms point out the degree of change and strife that would be needed in order to implement this new world order. Despite the fact that many continue to use the idea of the global civil society as the appropriate cultural norm, the fact that its continued use is needed suggests the degree to which cultural norms are still not shared.

Still, many agree that cultural norms are the way to global civil society. Indeed, some argue that it is a particular set of cultural norms that will aid in the creation of that world society. Finnemore (1996) writes that sociologists have long understood that "social realities influence behavior," but more importantly for the international village, sociologists have begun to suggest that these social realities and behaviors are in direct opposition to both liberal and realist theories (pg. 325). In fact, Finnemore (1996) states that the continued spread of Western cultural norms may be the conduit through which justice, equality, progress, and the like can be achieved. Whether those norms are Western or otherwise, however, Finnemore (1996) argues that it is social norms that explain behavior that political theories cannot explain. Thus, if it is culture, not necessarily politics, that define how societies are constructed, then the global civil society model of global governance is possible, but is almost entirely dependant on the spread of cultural norms. The rise of international NGOs is a testimony to the importance of culture in the emerging global civil society. In fact, the rise of these organizations can signal the development of the global civil society in today's modern world. Boli and Thomas (1997) make this clear when they state that "culture is increasingly global," also noting that "a transnational legal world order operates with considerable independence from states" (pg. 172). That new world order is achieved through governance that relies heavily on international NGOs to establish those cultural norms. Further, Finnermore (1996) argues that the bureaucracy, which "transcends culture," (pg. 30) is actually supported by cultural values, suggesting that even the political norm is reliant on culture. They are even problematic because of their overabundance on Western rationality. Through spreading cultural norms, it may not be necessary to have such bureaucratic governance. Instead, the spread of cultural norms may allow states to have enough in common that they are able to operate on another model -- perhaps the model of a global civil society.

But bureaucracy has been a part of the modern world for so long that many consider it to be a norm in itself. In fact, Finnemore (1996) writes, "people form a committee or create a bureaucracy because it is the appropriate, socially sanctioned way to address a social task" (pg. 330). Thus, politics is a major force with which one must deal when contemplating the global civil society. The fact that politics are such a major force may be in part because they are not needed to run such a world society. In fact, Meyer et al. (1997) remarks that world societies are created and maintained primarily through culture and associations. According to Meyer et al., "the social sciences are more than a little reluctant to acknowledge patterns of influence and conformity that cannot be explained solely as matters of power relations or functional rationality" (Meyer et al., 1999, pg. 145). But political scientists are not the only ones reluctant to note the importance of culture and associations over politics in a global society model. Indeed, the political elites of the world may be reluctant to accept the fact that they will have little control in a world society system. Clearly, however, politics have little to do with the way that societies change. According to Myer et al. (1999) the nation state is not a rational actor, but has rather been derived from culture and that "the culture involved is substantially organized on a worldwide basis, not simply built up from local circumstances and history" (pgs. 147-148). This is in direct opposition to models that stress politics, such as the world-system theory and competition theory. In these constructs, the nation-state is seen as the outgrowth of global political arrangements, as global desires for money and power shape the globalizing world (Meyer et al., 1999). But the primary weakness in this paradigm is the fact that a globalized world constructed through political means would be just that, a globalized world, but not necessarily a global civil society. Indeed, such an organization would fail to meet the requirements of an idealized global civil society. In addition, models that stress politics as the driving force of the global civil society forget that the contemporary driving forces of the global civil society are issues that all the world has an interest in, such as global climate change and emissions, terrorism, and the development of nuclear weapons. Further, those models forget the importance of culture and shared cultural values in the world system. Evidence of this is the degree with which non-state actors are playing a role in the globalized world. In fact, in their 1997 study, Boli and Thomas found that the International NGOs have "helped construct a world polity that cannot be reduced to networks of economic and political interaction" (pg. 171). Further, that world polity continues to grow with the spread and linking of NGOs, who have become more and more powerful in their ability to affect change. Anheier, Glasius, and Kaldor (2001) show that global civil society is becoming "thicker" based on an unprecedented growth of international NGOs in the past decade, in addition to their ability to link together and with IGOs like the UN (pg. 4).

Thus, politics plays an important role in the formation of the global civil society, but it is more as something that should be overcome than as a contributing factor. Because a global civil society is organized more around shared cultural values than around a political bureaucracy. This will pose significant challenges to the formation of the global civil society, as political actors will be reluctant to give up their power for an idealistic system.

Having established that the emergence of the global civil society will he highly reliant on the spread of cultural norms and the eradication of political structure, it is time to now evaluate the global civil society, considering whether or not the developed society is one that will spread justice and democracy throughout the world. Of course, this is what Keane (2003) implies when he introduces the model of the global civil society as the ideal construct for the world. According to Lipshutz (1992), the global civil society, with its various international NGOs, will affect change in the area of human rights. The author argues that "a broad range of organizations has come into existence as a response to the global institutionalization of norms relating to human rights" (Lipshutz, 1992, pg. 394). Not only has the global civil society helped achieve justice when it comes to human rights, but this organization has also fostered the link between human rights and environmental groups, furthering the degree to which global justice is pursued (Lipshutz, 1992). Further, the increasing involvement of these international NGOs, in addition to the developing concept of international law's authority, creates a new system in which accountability and justice are lauded.