As published 3/6/97, p. 54:

Coming to terms with "Civil Society"

By Putnam Barber

Judging from the ubiquity of its usage, "civil society" is fast rapidly supplanting "non-profit sector" as the term of choice to describe the institutions of society that fall outside the spheres of government and private business.

Familiar the phrase may be, it is easy to see why "non-profit sector" has fallen out of favor. Indeed, its weakness as a collective label becomes immediately apparent when one has to explain across a friendly dinner table--or at the start of testimony before a Congressional Committee--what links together the mish-mash of enterprises to be found under its umbrella.

The breadth and obscurity of the newly popular "civil society" clearly can cut both ways. Still, many of us who work in the field have been looking for a phrase that carried a little more resonance, offered a slightly grander vision of the enterprises we undertake, than 'non-profit sector." That desire gains particular urgency at a time when governments at all levels are making cuts and when we seek wider understanding for the importance of our efforts. An abstract negative is a weak foundation for building common cause among the diverse organizations that serve communities nationwide.

Does the term "civil society" have a strong enough claim to be added to our resources of self-definition? Certainly it has its own problems. Sometimes, for instance, it has been used to distinguish between large categories of nations--the command-and-control cultures of the former Communist nations versus the liberal societies of the West. Clearly the sweep of that application is too broad to be of much use in explaining to cordial strangers the role of the United Way, the dangers of the so-called Istook amendment to restrict charity lobbying, or the scope of the charitable deduction.

There is also the tempting, if distracting, notion of politeness that is implied by the term. Who among us would not welcome a political culture in which the maxim "keep a civil tongue in your head" was more consistently honored? But a civil society is not the same as a more-polite society. Its workers do not need to put Miss Manners' volumes on their shelves near the manual about charitable remainder trusts.

Even when used to mean "that part of society which stands opposed to the political structure," to use Ernest Gellner's words from his book Conditions of Liberty, "civil society" embraces a wider range of activities and institutions than springs to mind "non-profit world" is mentioned. That breadth is part of the charm of adopting the term. The care, attention and day-to-day acts of discretion that are essential to the continued health of the institutions of civil society are not limited to the arena of tax laws and non-profit-corporation statutes; we should not let ourselves be limited in our self-awareness by the boundaries implied by the Internal Revenue Code.

Civil society, like any other public good, requires countless small acts of generosity and concern from throughout the community. Our nomenclature has obscured that breadth of responsibility. The many overlapping but partial terms we have been using to suggest the fullness of our work have exposed us to a continuing need for reminders that what we do is not "just about this" or "limited to that." It is better to apologize every now and again for not always being able to do all we have chosen as our task.

The small type at the bottom of our brochures and annual appeal letters--the familiar words "a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization"--is unlikely to disappear entirely. But in our larger discourse, we should unite to encourage civic-mindedness among ourselves. Indeed, there is an urgent need to do so. Much damaging confusion is afoot in those wider circles where stronger approbation and deeper understanding of what we do are essential to the success of our endeavors and to the recognition of the legitimacy of our various causes.

So I'm willing to sign on as a "civil society" activist. It is, after all, what I do--what we all do.

Adopting the "civil society" label will help us identify ourselves as people committed not only to our organizational forms but also to the health of the community at large. It will stabilize our own internal compasses. And it will remind observers and political leaders of the larger values at stake in the everyday struggles that give meaning to our work.

I have just one question: Does this mean we are all civilians now?