> Mr P.A. Van Heusden wrote:
>
> >Doug, I think you're a little bit wrong here - 'civil society' in
> >Gramsci's terms is basically a concept established in opposition to 'the
> >state' - a bit of a difficult thing to get a handle on, but essentially
> >that layer of people who constitute the body politic who are not part of
> >the state apparatus. He developed the concept in terms of the idea of how
> >a particular group of society exercises leadership over the society as a
> >whole - i.e. how the political programme of the bourgeoisie conditions
> >the political programme of the 'subaltern groups'.
> >
> >He also raised this question in the light of the question of how a working
> >class might draw behind it the 'intermediate classes' - people like the
> >specialist workers who blur the line between the working class and the
> >petit-bourgeoisie.
>
> I understand the role of c.s. in establishing the hegemony of a
> ruling class, but I thought that part of Gramsci's program was to
> develop working class institutions in opposition to the hegemonic
> ones. I also thought - and maybe Patrick Bond can elaborate on this -
> that South African leftists, following Gramsci, had been talking
> explicitly about the importance of developing a working class civil
> society.
That's correct - or rather, to develop institutions which would fight for working class hegemony. The 'civil society' in question is, however, if I recall my Gramsci correctly, seen as a 'common terrain' - the general political movements which include, and are influenced by, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So, basically its a question of reach - on the one side of the fence, you have the bourgeois intellectuals - members of the bourgoeisie who are self-consciously aware of their interests.
On the other side you have the working class intellectuals - members of the working class (+ members of other classes who take up the cause of the working class) who are self-consciously aware of their interests.
In the middle is 'the state' and 'civil society' - i.e. the structures of society, which organise day-to-day life under capitalism, in the interests of capital.
In the South African case, 'civil society' has come to mean those politically active and interested groups outside of government who can influence government - so that's NGOs (which in South Africa historically played an important role in the 'progressive' movement), CBOs (Community Based Organisations - the 'civics' which grew up to represent township residents in the 1980s), and so forth. One of the arguments put forward by some people on the 'left' in South Africa is that coalitions of this 'civil society' - i.e. political activity outside of the government and the ANC - could be the basis for working class consolidation and organisation against the government.
While there is something to be said for the argument (and Patrick B. could probably say it with more force), there is very often a danger that participation in 'civil society' could mean little more than a talk shop organised on the basis of foreign donor funding.
Peter -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower. - Karl Marx
NOTE: I do not speak for the HGMP or the MRC.