Latest Breaking News

But I'm of longstanding belief that "civil society" is non-military, non-governmental.

I've been in numerous civil society orgs because "civilians" thought them worthy. I've also received federal funding, via a "civil society" organization, that had no chance of being popularly funded to continue existing, much less grant grants.

For many, "civil society" is really non-profits that subsist on non-civil money. "Civil society" when I was made aware of the term was what citizens, by direct action, supported by donating time, money, materiel, locations for assembly. I don't like the shift in meaning, changing definitions mid-argument is a fallacy. With a constant definition ... "Civil society" is atrophied from what I knew in the '90s, much less the '70s. But less civic participation = more 'others are in control'. Participation is largely federal funding, partwise whose tossing $ your way--and that's often rich foundations. I'm part of the demos; not rich; a commoner. And those 'others' may claim to speak in my name, always, but they seldom speak with my voice (a truly oblique "American Pie" reference, the song and not the tv show).

If this particular non-profit is truly a part of "civil society," it means it's supported by folk like you, me, and all the other 'commoners'. If it depends on noblesse oblige, federal-style, it's not. Even if it's doing "good work" by some non-funders' lights.