whether domestic or international, such as Amnesty International, the World Wildlife Fund,
or the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Most, though not all, ascribe to global civil
society a positive association, and see networks of global civil society reigning in sovereign
states while simultaneously pushing for rights, justice, and environmental rescue. Critics, on
the other hand, often question the significance, ideological bias, and/or inherently democratic
nature of global civil society.
2
Although important, it is not the intent of our chapter to engage fully these conceptual
debates around global civil society, other than to agree with John Keane when he says that
‘‘[l]ike all other vocabularies with a political edge, its meaning is neither self-evident nor automatically free of prejudice.’’
3 We take, therefore, as a definitional starting point that the London
School of Economics’ (LSE) Civil Society Project has developed:
Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family
and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity
of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and
power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women’s organisations,
faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social
movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.
4
The LSE definition captures some of the most important elements of civil society, particularly
the theoretical (though not always practical) distinction from the state and market, the recognition of collective associations around shared political purposes, and the diversity of its many
manifestations. Adding the term global to civil society simply acknowledges those associations whose political activities take them beyond the confines of their own sovereign state.
Following Keane, it is important to note that, in spite of the ‘‘progressive’’ bias that influences the organizational examples given in the LSE definition, global civil society itself can
comprise a wide range of contrary ideological positions. What is less than clear is whether
the concept has normative content that excludes groups, like Al Qaeda, for example, that employ violence to further their ends. Historically, civil society has been strongly associated with
minimizing violence, furthering dialogue, and expanding spheres of peace. Whether and where
‘‘uncivil’’ society groups fit into this equation is a debate that falls outside of the purview of this
chapter; yet it has been precisely those militant and extremist actors that have been both significant beneficiaries and employers of the Internet, and have in turn been identified by authorities as a putative justification for policies aimed at reigning in and securing cyberspace.
To address these issues, we breakdown global civil society into three spheres of agency:
civic networks, resistance networks, and dark nets. Civic networks refer to progressive environmental, peace, and social justice movements that are most typically associated with the term
civil society. Resistance networks include those more radical groups who are opposed to the
124
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski
or the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Most, though not all, ascribe to global civil
society a positive association, and see networks of global civil society reigning in sovereign
states while simultaneously pushing for rights, justice, and environmental rescue. Critics, on
the other hand, often question the significance, ideological bias, and/or inherently democratic
nature of global civil society.
2
Although important, it is not the intent of our chapter to engage fully these conceptual
debates around global civil society, other than to agree with John Keane when he says that
‘‘[l]ike all other vocabularies with a political edge, its meaning is neither self-evident nor automatically free of prejudice.’’
3 We take, therefore, as a definitional starting point that the London
School of Economics’ (LSE) Civil Society Project has developed:
Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family
and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity
of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and
power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women’s organisations,
faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social
movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.
4
The LSE definition captures some of the most important elements of civil society, particularly
the theoretical (though not always practical) distinction from the state and market, the recognition of collective associations around shared political purposes, and the diversity of its many
manifestations. Adding the term global to civil society simply acknowledges those associations whose political activities take them beyond the confines of their own sovereign state.
Following Keane, it is important to note that, in spite of the ‘‘progressive’’ bias that influences the organizational examples given in the LSE definition, global civil society itself can
comprise a wide range of contrary ideological positions. What is less than clear is whether
the concept has normative content that excludes groups, like Al Qaeda, for example, that employ violence to further their ends. Historically, civil society has been strongly associated with
minimizing violence, furthering dialogue, and expanding spheres of peace. Whether and where
‘‘uncivil’’ society groups fit into this equation is a debate that falls outside of the purview of this
chapter; yet it has been precisely those militant and extremist actors that have been both significant beneficiaries and employers of the Internet, and have in turn been identified by authorities as a putative justification for policies aimed at reigning in and securing cyberspace.
To address these issues, we breakdown global civil society into three spheres of agency:
civic networks, resistance networks, and dark nets. Civic networks refer to progressive environmental, peace, and social justice movements that are most typically associated with the term
civil society. Resistance networks include those more radical groups who are opposed to the
124
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski