Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the neoliberal transformation of civil society through Mitchel Foucault’s insights concerning knowledge, power, and governmentality. The objective of this paper is to trace the evolving understandings of civil society and how they relate to governmental rationalities and technologies of power. The traditional notion of civil society as a distinct and autonomous sphere has shifted toward an intermediary associations approach under neoliberalism. I posit that the mobilization of non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations by states, international organizations, and donor agencies since the 1990s constitutes a form of governmental technology, influenced by neoliberal rationalities. This technology serves the neoliberal agenda of undermining the social state, promoting market creation, and encouraging non-partisanship. This argument suggests that the rise of civil society as intermediary associations coincides with the decline of society.

Keywords

civil society Michel Foucault governmentality neoliberalism society power

Introduction

Since the 1990s, a significant historical development known as the ‘associational revolution’ (Salamon, 1994) has unfolded, marked by the proliferation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide. International organizations (IOs) and governments have increasingly turned to civil society actors, particularly NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs), to assume or transfer traditional state responsibilities (Brass et al., 2018; Haque, 2010; Schnable et al., 2021). As a result, the involvement of NGOs/CSOs in public policies has become a foundational concept, proposal, and governance practice (Anheier, 2004: 114).

This process has been viewed positively by many scholars as an indication of political change.¹ In this view, NGOs/CSOs are considered essential to democratization, as their engagement in governance creates new venues for citizens to participate in politics, and these organizations limit the excesses of the state and corporate sector. Scholars also see potential in civil society to integrate structurally differentiated spheres in society. Still others associate civil society participation with building the general will from the bottom-up, creating social capital, and encouraging deliberative spaces within which citizens can discuss politics and social issues.

However, despite the promotion of civil society as a means to enhance democracy and governance, progressive authors and skeptics have expressed concerns regarding the close relationship between neoliberalism, governance reforms, and the exportation of Western state-society models to the global South. These critics argue against the reinforcement of neoliberal policies (such as privatization and structural adjustment programs) through the inclusion of civil society, or the third sector in new governance (see, for instance, Adunbi, 2016; Ayers, 2006; Della Porta, 2014; Hearn, 2007; Mercer, 2002; Merz, 2012; Porter and Craig, 2004; Swyngedouw, 2005). Moreover, some authors go further to argue that the discourse on participation itself can be seen as a new ideology, raising questions about its underlying motivations and implications (Cooke and Kothari, 2001).

In this paper, I seek to contribute to the existing civil society literature by conceptually problematizing the remarkable growth in the number of NGOs/CSOs and their extensive global expansion since the 1990s. In particular, I aim to establish a connection between the rise of NGOs/CSOs and the rationalities and technologies employed in neoliberal governance. Furthermore, I posit that the transition of the meaning of civil society in liberal governmentality from a social sphere to intermediary associations has facilitated the conditions necessary for neoliberal transformation of civil society.

To critically engage with the neoliberal transformation of civil society, this paper adopts an analytical framework inspired by Michel Foucault. Specifically, the analysis pursues a genealogy of the concept of civil society, highlighting its emergence and transformation in connection to changing governmental rationalities. Nonetheless, Foucault’s reflections on neoliberalism are not sufficient for a critical analysis of civil society’s neoliberal transformation. Foucault’s treatment of civil society as a technology of liberal governmentality did not problematize its role in neoliberal governmentality (Dean, 2018; Dean and Zamora, 2021; Zamora, 2014). This may be due to his lectures on neoliberalism being delivered prior to its widespread implementation around the world. He did not witness the implications of the original neoliberal ideas beyond the case of Chile under Pinochet. He did not either witness the neoliberal transformation of the state and civil society through new public management and managerial reforms. In addition, some authors suggest that Foucault drew upon neoliberalism not to critically engage with its political project, but rather to experiment with his own ideas for a left governmentality beyond the disciplinary power and regulation of the state (for instance, see Zamora and Behrent, 2015; Behrent, 2009).

In light of these limitations, my analysis of how neoliberal ideas and practices reshaped civil society does not draw solely on his lectures on neoliberalism, but rather on his insights into governmentality and the interplay between evolving patterns of political power and knowledge. Framed in this manner, my analysis contributes to the existing literature that has employed Foucault’s framework to critically examine the transformation of the welfare state and the emergence of neoliberal governance (Brown, 2015, 2019; Dean, 1999; Rose and Miller, 2010)

Throughout the article, this framework is employed to explore how debates surrounding the meanings of civil society in social theory are interconnected with governmental rationalities. Two main dimensions of this framework are elucidated: (1) Foucault’s treatment of civil society as a novel form of knowledge and object of government, arising from the governmentalization of the state; and (2) Foucault’s genealogy concerning the relationship between power and knowledge. Using this analytical framework, the transformation of civil society is examined in relation to changes in governmental rationalities and technologies.

This article begins by proposing a decentered perspective on civil society, aiming to elucidate the interplay between its theoretical conceptualizations and its practical application as a governmental technology in governance settings. Subsequently, it investigates Michel Foucault’s account of the emergence of the modern concept of civil society as an object governed by liberal governmentality. This section also sheds light on an alternative conceptualization of civil society as intermediary associations proposed by Alexis de Tocqueville. It is noteworthy that Foucault overlooked this perspective, yet it would later serve as a significant theoretical inspiration for scholars studying civil society in the 1990s. The history of the prevailing definition of contemporary civil society can be traced back to this perspective, which did not originate from neoliberalism but acquired its neoliberal connotation since the 1990s.

The following section critically explores the modernist legacy of conceiving civil society as a singular sphere in social theory, and suggests Tocqueville’s intermediary approach was either integrated into or challenged this legacy during the 1990s. Attention then turns to the neoliberal transformation of civil society in the 1990s. Next, an influential theoretical account of the neoliberal depiction of civil society put forth by Friedrich Hayek is critically examined due to its inclination to undermine society and the social, reflecting the logic of neoliberalism. Finally, concluding remarks are offered to discuss the practical implications of this neoliberal understanding of society, wherein NGOs/CSOs assume governance functions, albeit within a depoliticized framework.

Decentering Civil Society

Currently, discussions about civil society tend to represent the concept as if it is an objective reality with an inherent essence; specifically, that state and civil society are autonomous entities with distinct structures. Within this framework, practitioners and social scientists associate civil society with NGOs and other citizen-led groups outside of the state, or CSOs (Ismail and Kamat, 2018; Kutay, 2014, 2021; Mercer, 2002; Swyngedouw, 2005).

However, such interpretations and uses of civil society should not be accepted at face value. The search for an ideal or objective meaning of civil society can skew our understanding of how the discourse of civil society has always been connected to power relations and the governance of society. Therefore, to fully grasp contemporary political discourse on civil society, one must link it to patterns of rule and practices. The key point is that civil society only holds meaning when considered within the context of governmental practices, rationalities, and technologies (Bevir, 2010; Dean, 1999; Rose and Miller, 2010; Walters, 2012).

It is commonly overlooked that there is a widespread interpretation of civil society that considers it as being comprised of intermediary organizations, which has allowed NGOs and CSOs to take on governing responsibilities. In effect, civil society has been predominantly linked with NGOs. However, this definition of civil society should not be accepted without critical examination. This interpretation has gained dominance because the knowledge that defines civil society, outlines its functions, and imposes normative expectations aligns with the needs of new governance and the neoliberal governmental rationalities. Hence, the utilization of civil society in the form of CSOs and NGOs can be seen as a form of governmental technology.

By resorting to Michel Foucault’s ideas, we can understand the impact of the connection between knowledge (in this instance, theories of civil society and governance) and power (in this case, the creation of civil society subjectivities through NGOs and CSOs) on our perception of society, and how this knowledge is utilized to govern populations, individuals, and the state. Foucault’s insights, linking the relationship between the human sciences and larger political processes and practices, offer an analytical toolbox to reflect on the implications of governance turn on civil society, and the exertion of political power, which is performed by a diverse array of actors including both the state and non-state actors.

Foucault’s approach to governmentality sheds light on the emergence and evolution of the state. For Foucault, the state is not the origin, but rather a result of power relations. Instead, he aimed to construct a concept of the state through an inductive method by illustrating the idea that what is currently referred to as the state is an assemblage of practices, rationalities, and technologies. Foucault approached the state as if it did not exist, or as if the concept of the state itself did not exist:

I start from the theoretical and methodological decision that consists in saying: Let’s suppose that universals do not exist. And then I put the question to history and historians: How can you write history if you do not accept a priori the existence of things like the state, society, the sovereign, and subjects. (Foucault, 2008: 3)

My proposal is that Foucault’s approach to the state, which links scientific knowledge to power relations, can be adapted to the concept of civil society. This involves examining civil society as if it didn’t exist and accounting for the changing representations of civil society in scientific theories. The objective of this approach is not just to understand the definition of the concept in different periods, but to reveal the intersection of knowledge and the exercise of political power through sovereignty, discipline, or government. Thus, my argument is that theoretical images of civil society have always been connected to a field of power relations related to the governance of society. Changes in patterns of rule, such as the shift from hierarchical bureaucracies to networks and neoliberal governance, have necessitated new knowledge about civil society, which has been used to legitimate political power. This legitimacy effort draws upon knowledge rediscovered from the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1990s.

A Foucault-inspired, decentered approach to civil society recognizes that the concept is a historically and contextually dependent one, shaped by multiple meanings, discourses, and political rationalities. Foucault’s ideas help to shed light on these complex relationships. This method of analysis goes beyond a mere examination of the institutions of civil society and instead focuses on how scientific discourses and technologies of power shape associations, particularly NGOs and CSOs.

To decenter civil society, it is important to challenge new practices and the role of NGOs and CSOs in governance and to study the historical evolution of the understanding of civil society in social scientific theories and how it relates to governing rationalities. This decentered approach to analyzing civil society acknowledges that the subject of civil society, including organizations, operates within a network of power relations. This means that no single entity or person completely dictates or controls another. The subject of civil society is not static, unchanging, or isolated from its context and cannot be understood independently of it.

This approach diverges from searching for the defining characteristics of civil society or evaluating CSOs based on predetermined theoretical functions. Instead, it shifts the focus away from the concept of civil society and citizens’ associations and examines the social facts, events, ideas, and practices that provide a more nuanced understanding. It also involves analyzing the practices and knowledge developed by practitioners and scientists in other contexts that have been imported into the realm of civil society. The decentered approach helps unpack the power-knowledge relationship, as Foucault believed that knowledge shapes practitioners’ understanding and decision-making, but it doesn’t dictate actions. Instead, it influences their perspective.

Knowledge, Power, and Governmentality

Foucault’s theoretical framework brings a unique perspective to the relationship between power, knowledge, and governmentality. According to Foucault, power and knowledge are inextricably linked and cannot exist without one another. The establishment of areas of expertise enables the exercise of power relations and, in turn, the production of knowledge serves to reinforce and sustain these power relations. Furthermore, scientific discourses and power relations are mutually constitutive, shaping and informing each other. This highlights the importance of considering the power dynamics and knowledge production inherent in any discourse, including that of civil society. In this perspective, it is only possible to exert power over something that ‘techniques of knowledge and procedures of discourse were capable of investing in’ (Foucault, 1978: 98).

To start with, Foucault’s conception of political power and reason focuses on the secularization of political power rather than the principles that ought to guide or restrain political action. Unlike moralist political philosophers, Foucault examined the rationalization of political action intrinsic to society and situated this rationalization within specific social problems. This focus on distinct rationalities that led to the emergence of the modern state, and his research program delved into the interplay between knowledge and power. Thus, Foucault’s perspective on politics emphasizes the contextual factors that shape political action and decision-making.

Foucault’s insights emphasize the close relationship between scientific knowledge and power relations, suggesting that the human sciences play a crucial role in governmental programs. These programs reflect the goals of those in power, and to be successful, they require an understanding of the reality in which they are intended to act and the ability to organize that reality into a programmable entity (Gordon, 1980: 248). By exploring how institutions exert power on bodies in various societal settings, such as hospitals and prisons, Foucault (1977) highlighted the role of knowledge production and disciplinary techniques in shaping and maintaining power relations. In his later works, Foucault (1991, 2009) shifted his focus to the political rationalities behind the exercise of power by the state. He posits that political power is exercised through practical knowledge and the organization of social reality. This highlights the significance of understanding the power dynamics and knowledge production involved in the governance of the state, institutions, and individuals through political rationalities.

Foucault’s theory of police (here, implying policy) focuses on the use of a shepherd-flock metaphor to understand the underlying reason for the government to gather and store detailed information about individuals in a community. The exercise of pastoral power, as described by the theory of police, was disciplinary in nature, as it relied on the assumption that the shepherd governed the flock, rather than presupposing the freedom of its members (Foucault, 2009: 169–170). However, the modern state adopted the pastoral role of the shepherd and combined it with its sovereign power, but approached citizens not as a flock, but rather as a population to be governed more efficiently (p. 141). This was made possible by the knowledge of political economy, which played a crucial role in effective governance (p. 142).

Liberal governmentality, Foucault argues, is based on governing with freedom and an image of a self-regulating society. According to Foucault (2008: Chapter 3, 2009: Chapter 13), the rationalities of liberal government of the state and its population do not rely on the theory of police, but rather, adopt the aspect of pastoral power from this theory (Foucault, 1979). The governance of the liberal state and its population relied on techniques that aimed to manage and regulate individual behavior, rather than solely relying on physical coercion. This was achieved through the creation and deployment of what Foucault referred to as disciplinary power (Foucault, 1977) and the establishment of the concept of disciplinary society (Foucault, 1979). The liberal governance of the state aimed to create a self-governing individual, who would regulate their own behavior through internalized norms and values. The liberal state thus relied on the dissemination of knowledge and the management of discourses to shape individuals into the desired form. In this sense, knowledge production and the establishment of discourses were key tools of governance in the liberal state (Foucault, 2008).

In this framework, civil society emerged as a central concept linking the population and the political economy (Foucault, 2008: Chapter 12):

Civil society is not a philosophical idea [. . .]. Civil society is, I believe, a concept of governmental technology, or, rather, it is the correlate of a technology of government the measure of which must be juridically pegged to an economy understood as process of production and exchange. [. . .] And I think that civil society—which is very quickly called society, and which at the end of the eighteenth century is called the nation—makes a self-limitation possible for governmental practice and an art of government, for reflection on this art of government and so for a governmental technology; it makes possible a self—limitation which infringes neither economic laws nor the principles of right, and which infringes neither the requirement of governmental generality nor the need for an omnipresence of government. An omnipresent government, a government which nothing escapes, a government which conforms to the rules of right, and a government which nevertheless respects the specificity of the economy, will be a government that manages civil society, the nation, society, the social. (Foucault, 2008: 296)

To clarify this long quote, on one hand, civil society implied an autonomous sphere of society distinct from the state. On the other hand, it referred to the self-regulating sphere of market relations and the system of needs, which was structured according to the knowledge of political economy. More specifically, liberal governmentality drew on the concept of civil society put forth by Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith, which emphasized that the theory of police should not play a dominant role in governing. The modern state faced significant challenges in directly governing each individual and the entire population, so it adopted the theory of political economy as a means of more economically governing the state and its population. Political economy introduced the separation of the state from civil society and society from the state, and viewed society as a self-regulating sphere. To ensure this self-regulation, liberal governmentality focused on governing the conditions necessary for this to occur, including protecting market relations from political interference, ensuring individual freedom to participate in market society through commodity exchange and labor, and protecting property owners from threats from other groups.

Foucault’s analysis in the liberal art of government focuses on the technologies of totalization and individualization that emerged under the modern state (Foucault, 1979). He identifies these two effects of political rationalities, but does not delve into how liberal governmentality drew on a theoretical image of civil society and utilized institutions within that sphere to govern society effectively. This is an important aspect to consider, as the modern state not only established rational-legal bureaucracies, but also relied on institutions within civil society. Therefore, it is crucial to re-examine the genealogy of civil society as a governmental technology to understand that governing through civil society did not solely rely on the image of civil society developed by Scottish political economists. The knowledge and practice of governing through intermediary organizations was already familiar to Americans by the end of the 19th century and was later adopted by practitioners as part of new governance reforms and the neoliberal transformation.

In the 19th century, the institutionalization of the state, as the formation of stable and organized associations, extended to the sphere of civil society. Tocqueville, without knowing that his ideas would later shape social sciences and governance practices, described the tendency of citizens to establish associations as the ‘new science’ (Tocqueville [1840] 2003: 600, Vol. 2, Part 2, Chapter 5). His focus was to understand the dynamics of democracy in America, and his approach to civil society re-emerged under the new governance, aligning with neoliberal reforms and networks. Tocqueville’s approach became dominant in civil society studies, displacing the Enlightenment tradition, which treated civil society as a system of needs (Fine, 1997; Kumar, 1993).

Foucault’s analysis of liberalism demonstrates that he studied the works of Scottish political economists closely (Foucault, 2008: Chapter 12). However, Foucault did not fully consider Tocqueville’s liberal understanding of civil society, which emphasized intermediary associations, in his analysis of liberal governmentality. Although Foucault engaged with Smith and Ferguson to understand the rationalities of liberal government, he did not delve deeper into the various reflections on civil society in the 19th century, quickly moving on to ordo-liberals in Germany and the neoliberal thought collective organized under the Mont Pelerin society.

Modernist Approaches

The modern concept of civil society emerged within the context of the development of political economy, where thinkers such as Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith described modern society through the use of theoretical concepts such as economic man, spontaneous order, and limited government. In contrast to Tocqueville’s understanding, the Enlightenment tradition associated civil society with the growth of market relations and commercial society, but it also established the idea of a self-regulating market that would serve the common interests unless intervened by political institutions. The Enlightenment tradition situated civil society within the problems related to the liberal art of government, such as limited government, the emergence of political economy as a field, the separation of the state and economic relations, the growing influence of the bourgeoisie class, and the problems of reconciling the particular interests of the bourgeoisie with those of the common good (Foucault, 2008: Chapter 12). This understanding allowed liberalism to use the knowledge of political economy to govern society effectively.

Liberal political reason, therefore, brought about a new understanding: it defined society as a single entity (Hindess, 1998; Smith, [1776] 1993). This vision of society was continued by structural approaches, which portrayed society as functionally differentiated spheres. This modern view affected social and political theory: the civil society sphere was described as a single sphere. This modernist view shaped social sciences. Hindess (1998: 64) argues that ‘knowledge of society, it seems to be suggested, is a product of liberal government and there is no liberal government without such knowledge’. This understanding of society and civil society as a unified and self-regulating entity has been a dominant perspective in social theory, shaping the way scholars and practitioners approach the concept in their research and policy-making.

Modernist theories, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, emphasized the use of structural differentiation in social theory to comprehend the effects of technological progress on society. Influential theorists such as Talcott Parsons, Niklas Luhmann, and Jurgen Habermas adopted a systems approach to understand society, viewing it as composed of smaller parts that serve distinct functions in society’s functioning. This view perpetuated the Enlightenment idea of imagining a self-regulating sphere separate from the state. Although the term ‘civil society’ was not widely used during this time, the meaning of the concept was subsumed under the broader concept of society. Modernist theories are functionalist in that they assign specific functions to each of the spheres that make up society (state, society, economy, and family), such as administration, norm-creation, production and exchange, and reproduction, respectively. In essence, functionalist theories view civil society as a means to integrate structurally differentiated spheres in society.

In modernist theories, CSOs were considered part of the social sphere. For instance, Habermas identified civil society with the life-world, but still viewed it as a singular sphere (Habermas, 1996: Chapter 8). Civil society was perceived as the sphere of undistorted communication, in which the bureaucracy’s instrumental rationalities and the economy’s profit-oriented actions distort communication. According to this perspective, the essential values of the political community could only be derived from civil society. Others saw civil society as a ‘lifeworld capable of rationalization’ (Cohen and Arato, 1992: 422).

In the 1990s, the concept of civil society underwent changes. With the new governance arrangements of the time, CSOs took on roles that aligned with theories of structural differentiation and new institutionalism. This included the distribution of responsibilities that were traditionally held by the state, particularly in the provision of services, to CSOs and the third sector. This role was further reinforced by theories of social capital, such as Robert Putnam’s reintroduction of Alex de Tocqueville’s insights on the role of intermediary organizations in building democratic societies. Despite Tocqueville’s legacy being largely overlooked until the 1990s, his approach to civil society was rediscovered by Putnam (1993), who sought to theorize the emergence of social capital and trust in society through CSOs. Tocqueville’s definition of civil society has been the most widely accepted understanding of civil society since the 1990s. This approach diverges significantly from the Enlightenment thinkers who conceptualized civil society as a system of needs (Ehrenberg, 2017: Chapter 4).

According to Putnam’s theory, social capital is generated through citizens’ interactions within associations. When citizens interact with each other to manage their common affairs without relying on centralized state control, they strengthen their sense of belonging to their community. Local organizations also serve to limit the state’s unwanted interference and arbitrary power. Social scientists adopted social capital theories to provide alternative grounds of legitimacy for new governance, where unelected actors often make decisions. They presumed that social capital and trust within governance actors, as well as citizens’ trust in them, may replace or compensate for the legitimacy structures established by liberal representative democracy.

According to the new institutionalist perspective, CSOs play a key role in connecting the structurally differentiated spheres of society. These organizations are viewed as a transmission belt or bridge between citizens and policy-makers, creating an immune space for undistorted communication for citizens (Nanz and Steffek, 2004). New social theories aimed to recover from the damage of neoliberalism by connecting citizens’ associations to a structural vision of society. They emphasized the division of labor in contemporary societies under technological progress.

Therefore, the legacy of 19th-century social and political thought has never fully disappeared. It re-emerged when neoliberal reforms faced opposition and were not accepted by the public. Classical liberal ideas were only recalled modifying the neoliberal reforms, rather than providing an alternative social and political imagination. The political discourse on civil society, whether in the form of public spheres (Kant’s legacy), a social sphere (Hegel’s legacy), or intermediary associations (Tocqueville’s legacy), has been incorporated into the dominant neoliberal discourse. To use a term borrowed from Hegel, classical liberal ideas did not negate neoliberalism but instead modified it. The reemergence of 19th-century social and political thought did not challenge the neoliberal ideas and practices, but rather served to reinforce them.

In general terms, functionalist and new institutionalist theories seek to continue the modernist legacy of considering the social world to consist of functionally differentiated spheres. They associate a legitimating function with civil society and CSOs, as these organizations generate values through communicative interaction undistorted by the bureaucratic instrumental rationalities and vested interests of business groups (Habermas, 1987; Schmidt, 2008) and create solidarity and a sense of belonging to the political community through engaging in organizational activity (Putnam, 1993).

Nonetheless, this viewpoint fails to consider the impact of neoliberal policies and mindsets. In fact, it can be argued that these policies reinforce neoliberalism by aligning with its assault on politics and the social realm. Techno-administrative governance, which undermines partisan politics, shirks the state’s responsibility for governing society. Although modernist theories have expressed hope for rejuvenating self-regulating social spheres, they have become ensnared in the neoliberal tenet of state aversion and consensus-based governance models. The rediscovery of civil society in the 1990s was tied to new challenges arising from changes in the state and governing societies. The new approach to government has shifted toward governance without or beyond the state. Scientific discourses and practitioners either invoked an anti-statist interpretation of civil society or emphasized NGOs and other groups. When civil society reemerged, it found a context vastly different from the early Enlightenment era: the era of neoliberal governance.

Furthermore, the limitation of modernist theories lies in their tendency to either reify civil society by attributing structural or systemic characteristics to it, or to assume that the relationship between citizens’ associations and the concept of civil society is a given and not a discursively constructed one. When modernist theories treat civil society as a singular, objective concept, they run the risk of reifying it, viewing it as a self-regulating sphere of social interaction where individuals’ free choices organize market relations and produce wealth and prosperity. But, civil society cannot be seen as a naturally occurring entity with an essence, and the idea of a reified and structural civil society is untenable.

Neoliberal Governance

Neoliberalism encompasses a range of policies and ideologies that prioritize marketization, capital liberation, and the reduction of barriers to foreign direct investment, including measures like low taxes and tariffs.² A primary objective of neoliberal policies is to expand markets into domains traditionally controlled by public institutions and to privatize public assets. This often entails the elimination or reduction of redistributive measures and the regulation of organized labor. The introduction of neoliberal policies originated with a pilot initiative in Chile in 1973, which subsequently influenced other countries in the Global North. In the Global South, neoliberal policies were frequently enforced through structural adjustment programs and debt, often under the auspices of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. However, it is important to note that the implementation and impacts of neoliberalism can vary significantly depending on the specific contextual circumstances.

A Foucault-inspired critique considers neoliberalism is a form of governmentality that influences the actions of individuals, groups, and the state (Brown, 2015, 2019) On this account, neoliberalism is a new political rationality, which reprograms liberalism and spreads market principles to broader domains of society (Barry et al., 1996; Foucault, 2008; Gordon, 1991; Hamann, 2009; Lemke, 2001). Market principles, such as competition and effectiveness, shape and organize the state, society, and individuals (Joseph, 2012; Larner, 2000). This leads to the formation of new subjectivities. While states adopt these principles through new public management and governance, civil society institutions such as universities and consultation companies also disseminate them throughout society.

The implementation of governance reforms—such as new public management, privatization, and marketization—played a pivotal role in the proliferation of neoliberal rationalities (Brown, 2015: Chapter 4). Neoliberal governance has adopted the privatization and marketization of public services, and also involves the participation of NGOs as partners and contractors in providing external contributions and services.³

Neoliberalism’s emphasis on market-oriented solutions led to a shift in governance arrangements, where power and authority were decentralized away from the traditional bureaucracies of national states. This decentralization took place in various forms such as supra-nationalism, internationalism, and transnationalism, and involved actors other than the state in decision-making and governing practices under pragmatic governance. It also led to the empowerment of actors in spheres of local and regional governance. In this context, NGOs/CSOs have become increasingly appealing to practitioners as they are seen as a way to manage and govern society effectively. This shift, as discussed, has led to an increase in the role of NGOs in providing services, building social capital, and promoting participation and accountability in governance. Neoliberalism has redefined the concept of civil society to fit its own agenda and used it as a technology of governance, as well as a means of reducing the state’s role in society.

To achieve this, neoliberal reformers have adopted new institutionalist theories that reinterpret Tocqueville’s approach to civil society, placing emphasis on the role of intermediary organizations in building social capital, fostering trust, promoting participation and accountability in governance. Neoliberalism rejected structural social theories and relied on a different understanding of the social world, which is informed by neoclassical economics and rational-choice theories. What is peculiar to neoliberalism is that, on one hand, it has rejected the notion of society, while on the other hand, it has embraced the concept of civil society. Neoliberal governance incorporates civil society by relying on NGOs/CSOs to govern society effectively.

Neoliberal political rationalities have shaped the political engagement with civil society by providing practitioners with the knowledge and justification to reject the concept of society in favor of a distinct understanding of civil society. This discourse has enabled the abandonment of the state’s responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as this task is instead delegated to non-state actors (Adunbi, 2016; Ayers, 2006; Hearn, 2007; Mercer, 2002; Merz, 2012). In addition, practitioners have mobilized civil society actors to justify structural adjustment policies and the increasing marketization of societies (Porter and Craig, 2004). As a result, NGOs and other non-state actors took on some of the functions previously performed by the state, thereby weakening the state’s authority and its role in economic and social governance. In this sense, new governance and neoliberalism are aligned, as they both lead to the erosion of the state and the transfer of its responsibilities to non-state actors. As Rose and Miller (2010: 173–174) argue, ‘Criticising the excesses, inefficiencies and injustices of the extended State, alternatives have been posed in terms of the construction of a “free market” and a “civil society” in which a plurality of groups, organizations and individuals interact in liberty’.

The Neoliberal Ontology

As previous sections demonstrate, the meaning and functions of civil society have evolved with different political rationalities and governance arrangements. The modernist theories of the Enlightenment defined civil society as a self-regulating sphere within the context of the emergence of political economy. However, with the rise of neoliberalism, the concept of civil society has been redefined to fit the neoliberal agenda of undermining the state and creating markets. As a result, NGOs/CSOs have been mobilized to assume governmental responsibilities in those fields where the state has abandoned its governance responsibilities. Thus, the understanding of civil society is not static, but rather a constantly evolving concept that is shaped by the political and economic ideologies of the time.

To reiterate, liberal governmentality and modernist social science have perpetuated a singular image of civil society, or society, as a self-regulating sphere of interaction. Neoliberalism has challenged this theoretical construct. While liberal rationalities aimed to govern the conditions required for a self-regulating society, neoliberal governmental rationalities reject this aim, instead seeking to govern without the notion of society. Neoliberalism presents a new understanding, with Rose (1996: 61) referring to it as ‘government without governing society’ and Brown (2019: 28) arguing that ‘neoliberalism set out to destroy the concept of society, both normatively and practically’. This perspective is reflected in various ways by neoliberal theorists and practitioners. For example, Thatcher’s statement that ‘there is no such thing as society’ and the concept of the ‘Big Society’ in the United Kingdom, which envisions a new social organization where the responsibilities of the welfare state are distributed to non-state actors through privatization and partnerships. Hayek also believed that society does not exist and saw no need for sociology:

Like the ‘naturology’ that once pretended to replace all specialised investigations of nature, sociology proceeds in sovereign disregard of knowledge gained by established disciplines that have long studied such grown structures as law, language, and the market. (Hayek, 1988: 51)

This perspective highlights that while classical liberalism centered on the concept of a self-regulating society, neoliberalism instead focuses on the individual and their choices as the primary target for political intervention. This shift in focus challenges the traditional understanding of society and the role of the state in governing it. Neoliberalism, through its alignment with neoclassical economics and rational-choice theories, aims to govern by targeting individual choices and liberties, rather than society as a whole. This approach also undermines the social question that has been traditionally addressed by the welfare state (Brown, 2019: 23–55).

The main objective of neoliberal political reason was to undermine the state’s role in redistributive policies and shift the responsibility to individuals and the third sector organizations (Dean, 2007). The concept of society, as well as the social question, was seen as obstacles to achieving this goal. In other words, the rejection of the notion of society and the social question by neoliberal theorists was a strategic move to dismantle welfare state policies and strengthen the role of market forces in society. This is why the term ‘Big Society’ emerged, denoting a new social organization where the task of the welfare state is distributed to non-state actors through privatization and partnerships. It is clear that the attack on society and social question by neoliberalism is a political and ideological move:

The confusion that it spreads, within the very area wherein [social] is most used, is partly due to its describing not only phenomena produced by various modes of cooperation among men, such as in a ‘society’, but also the kinds of actions that promote and serve such orders. (Hayek, 1988: 114)

What is more, the image of civil society as presented by neoliberal political reasoning serves to reinforce a post-ideological and non-partisan approach to politics. This perspective emphasizes consensual politics and decision-making based on expert knowledge, rather than political contestation and conflict (Swyngedouw, 2005). The neoliberal emphasis on non-partisan politics is not simply a result of policy reforms, but rather an extension of the liberal tradition. Liberalism, since its emergence, has sought to protect the privileges of the bourgeoisie through a preference for non-partisan politics and a reliance on experts, unelected institutions and agencies, and courts to avoid democratic claims. This preference for non-partisan politics and avoidance of democratic contestation is a legacy of classical liberalism, which was adopted and revised by neoliberalism. Instead of relying on partisan politics, liberalism sought to mobilize civil society as a means of achieving its goals. Thus, the neoliberal rejection of partisan politics and democratic contestation can be seen as an extension of the liberal tradition, rather than a departure from it:

Liberalism is revealed, not so much as seeking to reduce the size and the scope of government in its broadest sense, but rather as aiming to change its form: it is a tactics of government that operates by shifting the work of government from state to non-state agencies. (Hindess, 2005: 395)

Neoliberal reason, as represented by figures such as Hayek, rejected the notion of society as a structural and reified concept. However, this rejection was not an attempt to decenter society, but rather to dismiss society as a theoretical object of investigation and governmental intervention. This shift in neoliberal theory laid the groundwork for reforms that sought to dismantle the welfare state and target the state’s redistributive functions. This dismantling was made possible in part due to the disappearance of ‘social’ questions and the dismissal of the concept of society:

I have seen it suggested that ‘social’ applies to everything that reduces or removes differences of income. But why call such action ‘social’? Perhaps because it is a method of securing majorities, that is, votes in addition to those one expects to get for other reasons? This does seem to be so, but it also means of course that every exhortation to us to be ‘social’ is an appeal for a further step towards the ‘social justice’ of socialism. (Hayek, 1988: 118)

Neoliberal political reasoning targeted society and the term ‘social’ not for meta-theoretical reasons, such as a preference for nominalism or a reconsideration of reified structures. Instead, this attack primarily targeted the political or ideological connotations and uses of these concepts. Neoliberal political reasoning challenged the idea that social and political orders would be organized by taking these concepts as reference points. The emergence of the welfare state in the 20th century presented a new political problem for liberal governance, as it sought to reconcile capitalist relations with the need for redistribution and integration of the working class in society. This represented a departure from the earlier liberal notion of society, which was often used interchangeably with the concept of civil society and focused on limiting the exercise of sovereign power. In contrast, the welfare state required a greater role for the state in addressing poverty and unemployment.

With the rise of neoliberalism in the latter half of the 20th century, the focus shifted away from the welfare state and toward a re-conceptualization of the individual and organizations as entrepreneurial and competitive entities. This approach bypassed traditional references to a collective entity such as civil society and society, and instead emphasized the importance of the state, NGOs, and corporations as key actors in this new paradigm. Under neoliberal governance, the discourse of civil society re-emerged, but it referred to an aggregation of citizens’ organizations rather than an abstract concept. Thus, the neoliberal emphasis on individualism and competition fundamentally challenged the earlier liberal understanding of society and civil society.

In contrast to the previous understanding, neoliberalism utilizes civil society as a technology of governance, rather than viewing it as a separate sphere. It does not see civil society as a self-regulating entity, but rather as something that can be manipulated and shaped through political power and scientific expertise. To illustrate, the emergence of NGOs and the knowledge used to create, control, administer, and spread them have been shaped by power techniques and scientific expertise. Neoliberal reforms and network governance arrangements have mobilized the concept of civil society and NGOs/CSOs, utilizing distinct rationalities and technologies for this purpose (Kutay, 2021). States and international agencies have begun funding campaigns for NGOs in the global South and democratizing countries in Central and Eastern Europe, and have developed manuals for capacity-building and project management. Universities in the West have also started NGO management programs to train a new generation of experts to manage the growing NGO industry.

A fundamental element in the neoliberal restructuring of the state and civil society is the diffusion of business or managerial practices from the corporate sphere to public institutions and civil society actors. Managerialism, when applied to NGOs, serves as the foundation for various practices including strategic planning, Logical Framework Analysis, project evaluation, and organizational assessment (Roberts et al., 2005: 1849). The reach of managerialism has been particularly concentrated in the global South, extending its impact ‘even to the smallest NGOs’ (Roberts et al., 2005: 1849). NGOs in the North have also not been immune to this process (Maier and Meyer, 2011). This exemplifies the proliferation of the neoliberal rationale, aiming to extend the enterprise model throughout various sectors of society.

As a result, many NGOs have shifted their focus from non-profit missions to profit-making activities, such as providing microcredits and training in marketing, accounting, and banking to member enterprises (Elyachar, 2005; Haque, 2010: 335; Sarker, 2005). In countries like Bangladesh, profit-making microfinance has become the primary area of operation for numerous prominent NGOs (Muhammad, 2015; Sarker, 2005). Haque (2010: 335–336) points out that ‘There is a growing tendency among NGOs to promote a market-oriented mindset among their poorer members and to treat them as customers’.

Conclusion

This article proposes a decentered perspective on civil society to examine the interplay between theoretical conceptualizations and practical application as a governmental technology. The analysis draws upon Michel Foucault’s insights to explore how civil society has acquired new meanings in relation to social theories and changing patterns of rule.

By adopting an analytical framework derived from Foucault, this approach avoids uncritically accepting the definitions of civil society provided by practitioners and mainstream social science research. The perspective that informs this analysis is that discourse formations and the construction of subjectivities are influenced by scientific discourses and technologies of power.

It is argued that modernist theories of civil society, rooted in Enlightenment thought and political economy, perceive it as a self-regulating sphere. However, this view is challenged by neoliberal governance, which aligns with theories that introduce a new social ontology and emphasize individualism while rejecting the concept of society.

However, Foucault’s analysis of neoliberalism alone falls short in providing a critical examination of civil society’s transformation under neoliberalism. His reflections on neoliberalism were based on lectures delivered prior to its global hegemony. Moreover, he did not witness the neoliberal transformation of the state and civil society through the implementation of new public management and managerial reforms.

To conduct a critical analysis, it becomes necessary to consider these processes. Neoliberal reasoning targets individual choices and liberties as arenas for political intervention, resulting in the involvement of civil society actors such as NGOs and CSOs in decision-making processes and policy implementation. This incorporation of civil society actors was intended to compensate for the retrenchment of the welfare state and the shift away from state-led solutions to societal issues. However, it also reinforced the neoliberal agenda of dismantling the welfare state and consensus-oriented governance models. Reflecting on these developments is essential for a thorough understanding of civil society’s neoliberal transformation.

The logic of neoliberalism, as embodied in Friedrich Hayek’s theoretical account, seeks to undermine the collective fabric of society and its social aspects. By divorcing civil society from abstract and theoretical knowledge, what remains is a fragmented assemblage of associations, while society itself is reduced to a mere aggregation of isolated individuals. In this context, it is noteworthy that neoliberal governance selectively embraces the notion of civil society, discarding its abstract essence, and instead aligning with Alex de Tocqueville’s concept of civil society as a network of intermediary associations.

The neoliberal transformation of civil society yields two significant consequences. First, neoliberal governance diminishes the significance of political contestation and partisanship, favoring a technocratic approach to regulation. Consequently, citizens and social movements find themselves marginalized from decision-making processes that shape the distribution of social and political resources within society. Second, the application of neoliberal power technologies perceives NGOs/CSOs as institutional structures through which practitioners can shape and direct the actions of citizens. This parallels the neoliberal rationale that views individuals as human capital, whose skills must be honed and developed to enhance their employability and engagement in market relations. In line with this perspective, practitioners promote policies, guidelines, and toolkits aimed at fostering civil society or enhancing its capacity.

Consequently, the understanding of civil society has undergone a substantial transformation from modernist theories to the neoliberal paradigm, which carries significant implications for both the perception and utilization of civil society within governance frameworks. Neoliberal governance, in its pursuit of advancing market principles and diminishing the role of the state, distorts the concept of civil society by actively seeking to create organizations that align with its own objectives. In essence, civil society is co-opted as a tool to further neoliberal governance agendas, thus undermining its original purpose and potential.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the generous comments and valuable feedback provided by the reviewers.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Acar Kutay

Notes

References

Adunbi

(2016) Embodying the modern: neoliberalism, NGOs, and the culture of human rights practices in Nigeria. Anthropological Quarterly 89(2): 431–464.

Anheier

(2004) Third sector-third Way: comparative perspectives and policy reflections. In: Lewis

Surrender

(eds) Welfare State Change: Towards a Third Way? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–135.

Ayers

(2006) Demystifying democratisation: the global constitution of (neo)liberal polities in Africa. Third World Quarterly 27(2): 321–338.

Barry

Osborne

Rose

(eds) (1996) Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Rationalities of Government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Behrent

(2009) Liberalism without humanism: Michel Foucault and the free-market creed, 1976–1979. Modern Intellectual History 6(3): 539–568.

Bevir

(2010) Rethinking governmentality: towards genealogies of governance. European Journal of Social Theory 13(4): 423–441.

Brass

Longhofer

Robinson

, et al. (2018) NGOs and international development: a review of thirty-five years of scholarship. World Development 112: 136–149.

Brenner

Theodore

(2002) Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode 34(3): 349–379.

Brown

(2015) Undoing the Demo: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.

10.

Brown

(2019) In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West. New York: Columbia University Press.

11.

Cohen

Arato

(1992) Political Theory and Civil Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

12.

Cooke

Kothari

(2001) Participation, the New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.

13.

Dean

(1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.

14.

Dean

(2007) Governing Societies. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.

15.

Dean

(2018) Foucault and the neoliberalism controversy. In: Cahill

Cooper

Konings

, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Neoliberalism. London: Sage, pp. 40–53.

16.

Dean

Zamora

(2021) The Last Man Takes LSD: Foucault and the End of Revolution. New York: Verso Books.

17.

Della Porta

(2014) Democratization from below: civil society versus social movements. In: Beichelt

Hahn

Schimmelfenning

, et al. (eds) Civil Society and Democracy Promotion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan:, pp. 137–149.

18.

Ehrenberg

(2017) Civil Society: The Critical History of an Idea. New York: NYU Press.

19.

Elyachar

(2005) Markets of Dispossession: NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in Cairo. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.

20.

Fine

(1997) Civil society theory, Enlightenment and critique. Democratization 4(1): 7–28.

21.

Foucault

(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane.

22.

Foucault

(1978) The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, vol.1. London: Allen Lane.

23.

Foucault

(1979) Omnes et Singulatum. Towards a criticism of ‘political reason’. The Tanner lectures on human values delivered at Stanford University. October 10 and 16, 1979. Available at: https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/f/foucault81.pdf

24.

Foucault

(1991) Governmentality. In: Burchell

Gordon

Miller

(eds) The Foucault Effect: The Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–104.

25.

Foucault

(2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège De France 1978-1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Foucault

(2009) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College De France, 1977–1978. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

27.

Gordon

(1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

28.

Gordon

(1991) Governmental rationality: an introduction. In: Burchell

Gorden

Miller

(eds) The Foucault Effect: The Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: The University Of Chicago Press, pp. 1–53.

29.

Habermas

(1987) The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. II: Lifeworld and System. Boston, MA: Beacon.

30.

Habermas

(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

31.

Hamann

(2009) Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies. Available at: https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/foucault-studies/article/view/2471

32.

Haque

(2010) Non-governmental Organizations. In: Sage

(ed.) The Sage Handbook of Governance. London: Sage, pp. 330–342.

33.

Harvey

(2005) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

34.

Hayek

(1988) The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. London: Routledge.

35.

Hearn

(2007) African NGOs: the new compradors? Development and Change 38(6): 1095–1110.

36.

Hindess

(1998) Knowledge and political reason. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1(2): 63–84.

37.

Hindess

(2005) Politics as government: Michel Foucault’s analysis of political reason. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 30(4): 389–413.

38.

Ismail

Kamat

(2018) NGOs, social movements and the neoliberal state: incorporation, reinvention, critique. Critical Sociology 44(4–5): 569–577.

39.

Joseph

(2012) The Social in the Global: Social Theory, Governmentality and Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Kumar

(1993) Civil society: an inquiry into the usefulness of an historical term. The British Journal of Sociology 44(3): 375–395.

41.

Kutay

(2014) Managerial formations and coupling among the state, the market, and civil society: an emerging effect of governance. Critical Policy Studies 8(3): 247–265.

42.

Kutay

(2021) NGOs, Civil Society and Structural Changes. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

43.

Larner

(2000) Neo-liberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Economy 63(1): 5–25.

44.

Lemke

(2001) ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society 30(2): 190–207.

45.

Maier

Meyer

(2011) Managerialism and beyond: discourses of civil society organization and their governance implications. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 22(4): 731–756.

46.

Mercer

(2002) NGOs, civil society and democratization: a critical review of the literature. Progress in Development Studies 2(1): 5–22.

47.

Merz

(2012) ‘Missionaries of the new era’: neoliberalism and NGOs in Palestine. Race & Class 54(1): 50–66.

48.

Muhammad

(2015) Bangladesh-a model of Neoliberalism: the case of microfinance and NGOs. Monthly Review 66(10): 35–35.

49.

Nanz

Steffek

(2004) Global governance, participation and the public sphere. Government and Opposition 39(2): 314–335.

50.

Peck

Tickell

(2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34(3): 380–404.

51.

Porter

Craig

(2004) The third way and the third world: poverty reduction and social inclusion in the rise of ‘inclusive’ liberalism. Review of International Political Economy 11(2): 387–423.

52.

Putnam

(1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

53.

Roberts

Jones

III Frohling

(2005) NGOs and the globalization of managerialism. World Development 33(11): 1845–1864.

54.

Rose

(1996) Advanced liberal democracies. In: Barry

Osborne

Rose

(eds) Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neoliberalism and Rationalities of Government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 37–65.

55.

Rose

Miller

(2010) Political power beyond the State: problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology 61: 271–303.

56.

Salamon

(1994) The rise of the nonprofit sector. Foreign Affairs 73(4): 109–122.

57.

Sarker

(2005) New public management, service provision and non-governmental organizations in Bangladesh. Public Organization Review 5: 249–271.

58.

Schmidt

(2008) Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 303–326.

59.

Schnable

De Mattee

Sullivan Robinson

, et al. (2021) International development buzzwords: understanding their use among donors, NGOs, and academics. The Journal of Development Studies 57(1): 26–44.

60.

Smith

([1776] 1993) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

61.

Swyngedouw

(2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies 42(11): 1991.

62.

Tocqueville

([1840] 2003) Democracy in America. London: Penguin Books.

63.

Walters

(2012) Governmentality: Critical Encounters. New York: Routledge.

64.

Zamora

(2014) Can we criticize Foucault. Jacobin Magazine, 10 December. Available at: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/

65.

Zamora

Behrent

(eds) (2015) Foucault and Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity.

From Social Sphere to Intermediary Association: A Critical Analysis of Civil Society’s Neoliberal Transformation

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Decentering Civil Society

Knowledge, Power, and Governmentality

Modernist Approaches

Neoliberal Governance

The Neoliberal Ontology

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

References