Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:44:13.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberation and global civil society: agency, arena, affect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2010

JAMES BRASSETT  and
WILLIAM SMITH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article provides a critical analysis of the role and function of global civil society within deliberative approaches to global governance. It critiques a common view that global civil society can/should act as an agent for democratising global governance and seeks to explore the importance of global civil society as an arena of deliberation. This more reconstructive aim is supplemented by an empirically focused discussion of the affective dimensions of global civil society, in general, and the increasingly important use of film, in particular. Ultimately, this then yields an image of the deliberative politics of global civil society that is more reflective of the differences, ambiguities and contests that pervade its discourses about global governance. This is presented as a quality that debates about deliberative global governance might learn from as well as speak to.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 413 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Deliberative approaches are normative accounts of global governance that seek to maximise the influence of reason in global or transnational decision-making. See William Smith and James Brassett, ‘Deliberation and Global Governance: Liberal, Cosmopolitan and Critical Perspectives’, Ethics & International Affairs, 22:1 (2008), pp. 67–90, for a fuller discussion.

2 In particular, see James Bohman, Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi, (Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 2007) and John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006).

3 We stress the word ‘downplay’, so as not to imply ‘ignore’ or ‘deny’. It would misrepresent the arguments of the deliberative theorists that we examine in this article to suggest that they do not attach strong value to the plurality and multi-perspectival nature of global civil society. Bohman and Dryzek both draw attention to the capacity for critical reflexivity implied by such pluralism. In what follows, we consider whether their theories employ the best conceptual tools for addressing or engaging with the ambiguities of civil society.

4 We stress the word ‘overplay’, so as not to imply ‘assert’ or ‘affirm’. Again, it would be ungenerous and inaccurate to contend that deliberative theorists develop naïve or uncritical accounts of global civil society. According to Bohman, ‘practices of empowerment by NGOs may have paradoxes built into them, such as when less well off civil society organizations become accountable to better-off organizations in exchange for resources and assistance’ (Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, p. 70). And Dryzek suggests ‘one should treat with great caution any connotations of virtuous civil society activists confronting and eventually transforming established relations of power in the international system’ (Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, p. 123). Bohman and Dryzek are acutely aware of the ethical and political deficiencies of global civil society, relating to inequalities of resources between groups, power hierarchies within and between organisations and the potential for co-optation by particular interests.

5 James Brassett, ‘Cosmopolitanism vs. Terrorism? Discourses of Ethical Possibility Before, and After 7/7, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 36:2 (2008), pp. 121–47.

6 Molly Cochran, ‘A Democratic Critique of Cosmopolitan Democracy: Pragmatism from the Bottom-Up’, European Journal of International Relations, 8:4 (2002), p. 530.

7 Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg (Cambridge: Polity, 1996), chs. 7–8.

8 William Smith, ‘Civil Disobedience and Social Power: Reflections on Habermas’, Contemporary Political Theory, 7:1 (2008), pp. 73–6.

9 Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, p. 487.

10 Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, pp. 39–40.

11 Ibid., p. vii.

12 Ibid., p. 33.

13 Ibid., p. 36.

14 Ibid., pp. 45–55.

15 James Bohman, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions’, International Affairs, 75:3 (1999), p. 500.

16 Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

17 Bohman, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance’, p. 504.

18 Ibid., pp. 506–7.

19 Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, p. 360.

20 Bohman, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance’, p. 506.

21 Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, p. 24.

22 Ibid., p. 25.

23 Ibid., p. 27.

24 Ibid., p. 144.

25 Ibid., p. 27.

26 A discourse is defined by Dryzek as ‘a shared set of concepts, categories, and ideas that provide its adherents with a framework for making sense of situations, embodying judgements, assumptions, capabilities, dispositions, and intentions’ (ibid., p. 1).

27 Ibid., p. 154.

28 Ibid., pp. 160–1.

29 John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 93. Cf. Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, pp. 42–4.

30 Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, p. 123.

31 Ibid., pp. 54–8.

32 Ibid., pp. 61–4.

33 Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, pp. 65–6.

34 Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, p. 52. For further discussion of this feature of Dryek's view, see Smith & Brassett, ‘Deliberation and Global Governance’, pp. 87–8.

35 Ibid., p. 10 (emphasis added).

36 Ibid., 124.

37 His analysis of the alter-globalisation movement arguably does not match the complexity of his earlier assessments of environmental movements and their competing discourses (see John S. Dryzek, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

38 See Richard Higgott, ‘Contested Globalization: the Changing Context and Normative Challenges’, Review of International Studies, 26:5 (2000), pp. 131–54.

39 Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); R. Cox, ‘Civil society at the turn of the Millennium: prospects for an alternative world order’, in Review of International Studies, 25:1 (1999), pp. 3–28; J. A. Scholte, ‘Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance’, Government and Opposition, 39:2 (Spring 2004), pp. 211–33; G. Baker, ‘Problems in the Theorisation of Global Civil Society’, in Political Studies, 50:5 (2002), pp. 928–43.

40 L. Amoore, and P. Langley, ‘Ambiguities of Global Civil Society’, Review of International Studies, 30:1 (2004), pp. 105–6; J. Bartelson, ‘Making Sense of Global Civil Society’, in European Journal of International Relations, 12:3 (2006), pp. 371–95; M. De Goede, ‘Carnival of Money: Politics of dissent in an era of globalizing finance’, in L. Amoore (ed.), The Global Resistance Reader (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 379–91.

41 Amoore and Langley, ‘Ambiguities of Global Civil Society’, pp. 105–6.

42 Marieke De Goede, ‘Carnival of Money: Politics of dissent in an era of globalizing finance’, in Louise Amoore (ed.), The Global Resistance Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 380.

43 Ibid.

44 These kinds of divergences in the arguments for the reform of globalisation are neatly captured by Walden Bello's opposition between the ‘Back to Bretton woods gang’ and the proponents of ‘de-globalization’. Within global civil society it might be useful for illustrative purposes to consider the alternative objectives of reformist NGOs like War on Want and decentralised, ‘anarchist’ organisations like ‘CIRCA-the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army’, {http://www.clownarmy.org/}.

45 Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, p. 60.

46 Ibid., pp. 80–1.

47 It might be objected that this commitment to non-domination is too demanding. This may be true, but it should be remembered that many – if not all – theories that develop a normative framework for global deliberation or international cooperation require participants to develop ties of mutual concern and attachment. Habermas, for instance, requires global citizens to recognise the universal human rights of all. An ethic of ‘cosmopolitan solidarity’ must underpin a general willingness to promote the interests of a ‘cosmopolitan community’, even if this entails going against a narrow interpretation of the interests of their nation (Jürgen Habermas, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, trans. Max Pensky (Cambridge: Polity, 2001), pp. 111–2). John Rawls requires that the populations of well ordered peoples develop ‘mutual concern for each other's way of life and culture and […] become willing to make sacrifices for each other’. He thinks that strengthening weak or non-existent ties of ‘affinity’ between peoples is an urgent challenge if the requisite support for his ‘duty of assistance’ is to be forthcoming (John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (London: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 112–3). Though ‘non-domination’, ‘cosmopolitan solidarity’ and ‘affinity among peoples’ are radically different notions, all these theorists confront an essentially similar challenge: how to promote a potentially demanding ethos of enlightened mutual concern across diverse populations. This challenge simply manifests itself in a particularly acute form in Bohman's deliberative approach. Thanks to an anonymous referee for pressing this objection.

48 Archon Fung, ‘Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11:3 (2003), pp. 338–67.

49 Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, p. 88 (our emphasis).

50 See also Daniel Weinstock, ‘Prospects for Transnational Citizenship and Democracy’, Ethics & International Affairs, 15:2 (2001), pp. 53–66.

51 Similar points about the beneficial consequences of participation on the value horizons of citizens are advanced in Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, pp. 57–8 and Cochran, ‘A Democratic Critique of Cosmopolitan Democracy’, p. 538.

52 Brassett, ‘Cosmopolitanism vs. Terrorism?’, pp. 121–47.

53 De Goede, ‘Carnival of Money’, p. 381.

54 The role of affective modes of communication in deliberative democracy, at least in domestic contexts, has been extensively explored by Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), ch. 2.

55 For instance, as well as playing a number of his films, the 2004 London Social Forum gave a platform to Ken Loach for discussion for his work and political views.

56 {http://www.waronwant.org/Videos+12493.twl}.

57 {http://www.waronwant.org/War+on+Want%27s+WTO+Film+12336.twl}.

58 Brassett, ‘Cosmopolitanism vs. Terrorism?’, pp. 121–47.

59 For a powerful discussion of these kinds of narrative see J. Edkins, Whose Hunger? Concepts of Famine, Practices of Aid (London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000).

60 John Gaventa with Marj Mayo, ‘Not about us without us’: Linking Local and Global citizen Advocacy', A research proposal. Working Group on citizenship and Engagement in a Globalised World January 2006).

61 As Andre Spicer recounts: ‘Indy media is a global online activist media network. It is made up of over 150 autonomous Indymedia collectives around the world. Each collective typically operates a website which allows anyone to upload new stories and comment items for public viewing. The news which tends to appear on an Indymedia site has a definite orientation towards issues that concern progressive activists.’ (Unpublished Working paper).

62 R. Bleiker and A. Kay, ‘Representing HIV/AIDS in Africa: Pluralist Photography and Local Empowerment’, in International Studies Quarterly, 51:1 (2007), pp. 139–63.

63 Pat Norrish, The First Mile of Connectivity: Advancing telecommunications for rural development through participatory communication, {http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0295e/x0295e00.htm}.

64 IKNotes, World Bank, No 71, {www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/default.htm}.

65 Garrett Brown, ‘Safeguarding deliberative global governance: the case of The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria’.

66 See {http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/17/film.filmnews}.