I've written a text entitled "Digital Networking as a tool for civil society building", soon to be released, at a glance (abstract):

In the era of new technologies, information exchange processes , resources, mutual support and opportunities , led by an adequate network of mutual relations take on a new meaning. The same applies to preventive measures taken in the network in order to prevent social problems. Contemporary art of networking means the appropriate use of available digital tools, while maintaining the principle of reciprocity in terms of our " contacts " . We recognize that today the creation of a network is much easier and faster , taking into account the speed and range of modern communication tools. Digital networking, in a much greater extent, is based on the principles of freedom and equality of individuals. Large digital network based on weak interpersonal relationships and modes of interaction available online, in fact, promotes collective action and helps to achieve the objectives of civil society in the digital age.

----

If i have the pdf version and bibliographic data I could send it to You :)

Please do, I would be happy to read it. Is it published or on its way to get published?

Civil Societies as a form of networks is a widely studied subject. A few relevant papers are Foley and Edwards (1996) The Paradox of Civil Society; Taylor (2004) The New Geography of Global Civil Society; and Castells (2008) The New Public Sphere....; all available in open source. Fukuyama (2004) may also be a useful paper although that focuses on social capital.

Another relationship would probably be that of partnership among various civil society organizations. The funding agency-implementing agency relationship and the block grant groups also form strong relationships. Such relationships are often strategic and are stronger than networks.

Relationship with other actors (if relevant to you) like that of community, government, media, judiciary also provide important insights.

Thank You Pradeep for your recommendations!

I am familiar with these texts but what I try to do is follow more a Philosophical understanding found in Critical Theory.

The notion that I follow is that the distinction between a public and private sphere are not really sustainable in the face of extensive and institutionalized networks. Yet at the same time I am critical/normative against the heralded view of networks as better and softer form of governance than simply state governance and wish to question the democratic potential of networks.

Best regards

Thanks Oscar for pointing out the nuances of networks. I am not much acquainted with the literature that you seek an answer in. But there can be an analogy with the international relations literature where the realists look the international system as an anarchy and suggest that actors (nations) behave accordingly. But with emergence of international organizations (like UN) the behaviour of actors change. With new forms of institutions coming into a governance system the set of relationships changes.

Similarly in a state also networks of civil societies often pose as advocacy groups thus challenging the state's power and position themselves as a centre of power. Hence often the literature on civil society would romanticize it. But it does not match the sovereign power; maximum it can be complimentary. My opinion is that network governance system would always remain soft because of its political weaker standing. But such relationship may be differ from country to country. If the state's power is very strong, the civil society network's power would be weak and vice versa. In any case, the sovereign strength of state still remains. That that is the hallmark of state's systems (against that of civil society).

Democratic potential of networks may be critically looked into in this context. If there any relation between legitimacy of authority and democratic potential, then this may be a useful aspect to look into.

Dear Pradeep!

That is a good way of phrasing it, I am looking for an unromantic view of civil society actors and their involvement in public politics. You state that networks cannot match sovereign power. Please take notice of my article on precisely that issue were I argue that networks do in fact have sovereign power/power over the public sphere and the state.

Best regards

Oscar

Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector (Salamon, 1999) may be useful to you in defining civil society organizations outside the networks context that describes relations to both states and populations within states--there is not very much on international civil society organizations, however.

Thanks for the suggestion Jennie! I look into it!

2013 was declared as The European Year of Citizens, and it reflects the efforts of European policymakers to lighten the way towards recovery of the EU as a whole. Please find in attachment an article regarding the importance of EU citizens' involvement in overcoming the current challenges related to socioeconomic and demographic crisis.

Hi Oscar,

I've argued on the basis of an analysis of a political process that civil society includes political parties in general, since they are voluntary organisations. Though once they win seats in parliament (most parties standing for election don't) they play a role in political society and can become institutionalised, and even ignore their networks in and channels to civil society. And they can be disbanded at the will of their members and disappear, because their is no democratic law certifying that any specific party must exist.

This amounts to a philosophical dilemma: no specific party needs to exist, but the concept of a party needs to become a really-existing organisation for any and every democratic election to take place. In theory independents can stand for election, in practise they rarely win a parliamentary seat. And a person with no organisation is unlikely to win a Presidential election as a one-man band - though I rue the day!

Monica Threlfall

See (2008) ‘Reassessing the role of civil society organisations in the transition to democracy in Spain’, Democratization, Vol.15, Issue 5, pp.930-951. DOI: 10.1080/13510340802362521

Thanks Monica! Interesting argument, make sure to look into it!

I think Ashutosh Varshney's paper on "Ethnic conflict and civil society" (2001)will be a good reference.

Hello Oscar, there is a myriad of literature on civil society from a more dynamic perspective which understands CS rather as a space or list of actors as specific forms of agencies or their consequences. Many of these sources I have utilised in my article Müller 2006 in BJPIR where I discuss my own relational concept of SC which I applied elsewhere e.g. Müller 2014 (CEJISS). Please, let me know about your article, when finished, cheers (-: Karel

Hi Oscar; I'm very interested in what happens if we think about CSOs as Complex Adaptive Systems:

'Systems that are made up of a diverse set of actors whose multiple interactions produce behaviours in the whole system not found in any of the actors. They generate adaptation by changing, both intentionally and indirectly, in the face of new circumstances in order to sustain themselves. Examples of complex adaptive systems include the stock market, social insect and ant colonies, and any human social group-based endeavour in a cultural and social system such as political parties or communities.' (Baser et al., 2008)

Key qualities of CAS: emergence, adaptability, non-linear/unpredictability.

sounds interesting. I am currently working on a manuscript about network governance and different kinds of power relations.

Oscar, you might be well over with your project/text, but I wonder why nobody mentioned so far Habermas, who exactly defines civil society as a network ("of associations that institutionalizes problem sovling discourses on questions of general interest inside the framework of public spheres"). I am planning for a while a network theory analysis of European NGOs, but so far no quantative analysis. Here are two reports on civil society for Bulgaria - (2013) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308918633_Civil_society_in_Bulgaria_Between_Social_Entrepreneurship_and_State_Capture and (2010) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303806191_Civil_Society_in_Bulgaria_Trends_and_Risks  

Book Civil society in Bulgaria: Between Social Entrepreneurship a...

Book Civil Society in Bulgaria: Trends and Risks

Todor, thanks for your input. The paper is submitted bu the work continues and the mentioning of Habermas is highly interesting, as well as your books and reports. I will make sure to read them. Do you have any further info on Habermas, a reference maybe.

What I have suggested in a recent submitted article is that civil society requires non-hierarchical relations between individuals and organizations. However, if networks include some actors but not others and give rise to specific policy outcomes they exert power over non-participants without the possibility of sanctions and reciprocity. The result is a relationship of domination within civil society. I hope to be able to share this piece on RG soon. 

thanks

The exact citation I used is from Habermas, J., 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Mit Press. However, you might find interesting this one as well: Habermas, J., 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.

thanks!

This question remains highly relevant and still attract some attention. May I direct attention to my two latest contribution on the topic,

One paper is a conference contribution whereas the other one is a published article in Critical Policy Studies. Both are accessible from my profil and attached below.

The core argument that guides both papers is that the pluralist notion of networks as dispersion of political power is a simplification that tend to place political power solely within the state and it's apparatus. Thus, a wider conceptualization of power allow us to analyze how networks enables private actors to dominate other private actors without the presence of the state and that the discourse of pluralism, deliberation and increased participation makes it far more difficult to resist and engage in counter-conduct to policies that comes out of collaborative efforts, however faulty these may be.

Thanks for all previous input