Civl society

3 Bürgin, Alfred: Zur Soziogenese der politischen Ökonomie – wirtschaftsgeschichtliche und dogmengeschichtliche Betrachtungen, Marburg 1996, p. 30.

4 Cancik, Hubert / Schneider, Helmuth (eds.), Der neue Pauly – Enzyklopädie der Antike, Stuttgart 2001, vol. 10, p. 23, s.v. Polis.

5 Funke, Peter: Die griechische Staatenwelt in klassischer Zeit. In: Gehrke, Hans-Joachim / Schneider, Helmuth (eds.), Geschichte der Antike, Stuttgart 2006, p. 166.

6 Cf. Varga, Simon: Perspektiven kosmopolitischer Menschenwürde in der Philosophie der Antike. In: Sedmak, Clemens (ed.), Menschenwürde – Vom Selbstwert des Menschen, Grundwerte Europas vol. 7, Darmstadt 2017, pp. 118–119.

7 Cf. Aeschylus: Die Perser. Übersetzt vom Emil Staiger, Stuttgart 2015, pp. 242–245.

8 Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik. Übersetzt von Ursula Wolf, Hamburg 2006, X 10, 1181b15.

9 Höffe, Otfried: Geschichte des politischen Denkens, Munich 2016, p. 54.

10 Cf. Aristoteles: Politik. Übersetzt von Franz Susemihl, Hamburg 2003, I 2, 1253a7.

11 Cf. Aristoteles: Politik. Übersetzt von Franz Susemihl, Hamburg 2003, I 2, 1253a15.

12 Aristoteles: Eudemische Ethik. Übersetzt von Franz Dirlmeier, Berlin 1984, VII 10, 1242a25.

13 Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik. Übersetzt von Ursula Wolf, Hamburg 2006, X 9, 1170b11.

14 Cf. Aristoteles: Politik. Übersetzt von Franz Susemihl, Hamburg 2003, I 2, 1253a26-29.

15 Cf. Aristoteles: Politik. Übersetzt von Franz Susemihl, Hamburg 2003, VII 4, 1325b36.

16 Cf. Varga, Simon: Vom erstrebenswertesten Leben – Aristoteles' Philosophie der Muße, Boston / Berlin 2014, pp. 183–185.

17 Wolfgang Kullmann finds it “noteworthy” that, within the framework of the state to the best of its ability , there would be the possibility of “withdrawing from political life and living “unpolitically” in manner of speaking.

18 Aristoteles: Politik. Übersetzt von Franz Susemihl, Hamburg 2003, VII 2, 1324a27.

19 John Locke: Versuche über den menschlichen Verstand. Übersetzt von Carl Winckler, Hamburg 2006, Book II, XXI 55. ( English: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/10615-h/10615-h.htm#link2HCH0024 – (Book II, 56) accessed 28.11.2020).

20 John Locke: Versuche über den menschlichen Verstand. Übersetzt von Carl Winckler, Hamburg 2006, Book II, XXI 55.

21 Kant, Immanuel: Was ist Aufklärung?, Stuttgart 2002, p. 9. (English: https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/What-is-Enlightenment.pdf – accessed 28.11.2020).

22 Kant, Immanuel: Was ist Aufklärung?, Stuttgart 2002, p. 9.

23 In the Hellenist era (directly following the Classical period), the various philosophical schools, including the Cynics, Stoics, and Epicureans, had already developed the first approaches to detach the human being from the immediate and categorical necessity of political participation. All of these schools made the attempt to relativise the political in its significance for the personal lifestyle of the individual. A basic tenet of the philosophy of the Hellenist period was that, in the final analysis, the political could not be made solely responsible for the good and successful life of the individual.

24 Beck, Ulrich: Der kosmopolitische Blick – oder: Krieg ist Frieden, Frankfurt 2004, pp. 7–10.

25 Alexander van der Bellen made an appeal to “Austrian men and women, and all those who live here” and asked for their understanding of the new measures “in the name of our community”. He continued by saying that the hardship that were to come as a result of the COVID-19 orders would be “especially difficult for some members of our community” to bear as well as that “community is not just an empty word”. Cf. https://www.bundespraesident.at/aktuelles/detail/tv-ansprache-anlaesslich-der-verordnung-zum-2-lockdown (Accessed: 10. 11. 2020).

Ernst Bruckmüller

Summary: The modern formulation of the “civil” or “civic” society describes the common commitment of people in areas outside of their family and professional spheres – and usually outside of politics. “Citizens’ initiatives” can aim at influencing politics and the administration and, in special cases, even at changing the political system (as the občanské forum 1989 – citizens’ forum – did in the Czech part of former Czechoslovakia). This essay poses the question of the extent to which previous concepts of the bourgeoisie and “bourgeois society” have anything in common with the modern phenomena of the civil society. This is because, as a rule, civil-society activity takes place within the framework of legal possibilities, such as the right to personal freedom, the right to carry on a business, the freedom to practise a religion and express oneself, freedom of the press, freedom of association and assembly, the right to petition, etc. that were achieved by “bourgeois” visionaries, pioneers, revolutionaries, and politicians.

Today, when one speaks about the civil society or citizen society, one usually means the involvement of people in a great variety of areas outside of actual “politics” as well as their family and professional spheres. This involvement expresses itself in many ways in local, regional, and superregional initiatives in the fields of culture, the environment, the third world, care and support for asylum seekers, etc., but “civilian initiatives” can also have influencing politics and the administration as their goals. In authoritarian states, the civil society can even develop into a powerful movement to change the political system. 1It is worthwhile remembering the občanské forum (citizens’ forum) in the Czech part of what was once Czechoslovakia that was established on 19 November – only two days after the beginning of the Velvet Revolution in Prague. 2The terms “bourgeois society” and “civil society”, as well as občanské forum , are oriented towards mature, actively interested citizens who are prepared to become involved.

The following considerations deal with the question of the extent to which former concepts of the bourgeoisie and “bourgeois society” of the 19 thand early 20 thcenturies have anything to do with the modern manifestations of the civil society. In modern democratic constitutional states, civil-society activity usually takes place within the framework of the legal possibilities achieved by “bourgeois” visionaries, pioneers, revolutionaries, and politicians. The central freedoms of the civil society include the right to personal freedom, the right to carry on a business, the freedom to practice a religion and express oneself, freedom of the press, freedom of association and assembly, and the right to petition. These are complemented by the protection of the private sphere (domiciliary right) and confidentiality of correspondence – although this is something that most of our contemporaries have voluntarily done away with by using the internet.

However, there is a conceptual problem in German that most other languages are not aware of. The German word “Bürger” denotes both the (fully entitled) inhabitant of a pre-modern city and the (fully entitled) citizen. French, on the other hand, differentiates between “citoyen” (citizen of a state) and “bourgeois” (inhabitant of a town, with its root in “bourg” that can mean a market or – in the form of “fauxbourg” – a suburb). English recognises the “citizen”, as well as the “burgher” (city resident), and, in Italian, we have the “cittadino” and the “borghese”. It is obvious that they have their roots in the Latin “civis” and the “civitas” connected with it, and the Germanic-late-Latin “burgus”, which originally only meant a fort but was later expanded to include “civil” settlements, markets, and cities. 3Slavic languages also differentiate between the citizen (“državljan” in Slovene) and town resident (“meščan” in Slovene – and very similar in Russian).