Summary Of Hegel's Dichotomy On Civil Society

The term ‘civil society’ has many different definitions, and there is little agreement on its precise meaning, though much overlap exists among core conceptual components. The idea of civil society goes back to ancient political thinking of the Western’s tradition. However, although the origin of civil society is associated with the work of ancient Greek philosophers, its traditional understanding was not different from the state. Its modern conception firstly appeared since the post 18th century (Nisar, 2013:68). The various forms of expression that has given to civil society by different people and at different time are not always consistent. The historical conceptualization of civil society has been focused on how to build a good society

Importantly, however, Hegel posited the first dichotomy between civil society and the state in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Civil society becomes the ‘realm of difference, intermediate between the family and the state’ (quoted in Kaldor, 2003:7). Moreover, this distinction is evoked not to portray civil society as a tranquil and humanely sphere but one imbued with chaotic thriving for selfish economic wants and passions. It negated the ethics of common interests that binds members of the family: ‘In civil society each member is his own end, everything else is nothing to him’ (quoted in Ehrenberg, 1999:125). Thus, if the realm of civil society was left unmonitored by a powerful authority such as the state it would advance private interests as opposed to the ‘public good’, hence it was the root cause of poverty and destitution. Thus, where earlier liberal philosophers saw the dearth of republican virtues in society as related to uncontrolled quest for private wealth, which produced despotic politics that needed to be rid off by civil society, Hegel argues that the latter has no moral or ethical unity to be a positive agent of social change outside state control and moderation. Hegel argues that the umbilical cord of civil society, historically enjoined to capitalism, potentially defines it as a realm of chaos and inequality (Baker, 2002:5). The ethical unity of society therefore was guaranteed by the universal state, which aided by its ‘universal class’ (i.e., the civil servants) (Kaldor, 2003:7) exercised its rule and authority to guide civil society off its propensity for private