The prevalence of the phrase “civil society” is one of the distinguishing features of today’s political tumult. To some nonprofit leaders, the Trump administration’s actions “don’t look like just an effort to push a certain line of policies. … They look like an all-out assault on civil society,” according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy account of the president’s first 100 days.
In response to the administration’s efforts to strip Harvard of its ability to enroll international students, Ryan Enos, a professor of government at the university, declared, “This is an attack not just on higher education but on civil society more generally.”
But just because a term is invoked more frequently doesn’t mean there is sufficient clarity about what it means. At a moment when standing up for civil society is more urgent than ever, the sector needs a better understanding of what it’s defending.
No uniform definition of civil society exists. Most often, however, it refers to the spaces outside of government and business where individuals come together to promote or pursue their conception of the good. In the United States, civil society is dominated by the tax-exempt nonprofit sector, but the term also encompasses religious organizations, labor unions and trade associations, the media, social movements, and informal groups.
The term “civil society” can serve as a powerful rhetorical tool to capture the common bonds linking all these associations. Today, it reflects the range of institutions and organizations imperiled by Trump administration policies and the coalitions being assembled in their defense.
Another way to understand civil society is through a set of values that define it — pluralism, independence, and a commitment to civic engagement and social connection. When these values are championed, and the rights that allow them to flourish are upheld, the term “civil society” can communicate the importance of each value independently and in relation to each other.
Inscrutable and Vague
Yet a defense of civil society in the United States is complicated by two paradoxes. The first is that while civil society is often celebrated as one of the central planks of American exceptionalism, it’s also taken for granted. The term itself doesn’t help matters. If vaguely familiar — associated with some guy named Tocqueville? — for many, it seems inscrutable, carrying a whiff of foreign origins and removed from vital everyday concerns.
Indeed, a 2022 survey by the Civic Language Perceptions Project at Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement found that “civil society” is one of the least understood terms associated with civic engagement and democracy work.
But this confusion might represent an opportunity. Of the 21 terms surveyed, “civil society” evoked the smallest differences in responses from people of varying races, political ideology, gender, education level, and other factors. In part, that might be because they shared a common experience of not fully understanding what it meant. But the report also showed that the term is not itself a cause of polarization and conflict. It even suggested that it might help “bring us closer together,” noting that at the very least the “civic” and “civil” cluster of terms were “open for branding.”
The second paradox touches on civil society’s relationship to hyper-partisanship. The value of civil society is most often recognized when it’s under assault and can therefore take on an oppositional character with respect to the political party in power. Add to that its association with the college seminar room, and it’s easy to assume the term is a tool of the left — particularly when Republicans are in charge.
And yet, by definition and at its essence, the notion of civil society should transcend partisanship. In fact, its underlying values remain cherished across the ideological spectrum — even amid today’s polarized politics.
Valued by Conservatives
While progressive groups now march under its banner, a significant coterie of conservative organizations has invoked civil society or its cardinal values in publicly opposing Trump administration policies that would undermine the sector’s independence.
“When a U.S. president threatens the nonprofit status of a private university, the issue at stake isn’t necessarily academic freedom — it’s the principle of philanthropic freedom and the vital boundary between civil society and state power,” announced Lawson Bader, the president of DonorsTrust, the largest conservative donor-advised fund-sponsoring organization. Similar statements have come from the Philanthropy Roundtable, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and the Cato Institute.
In fact, few other issues have generated such public pushback by conservative institutions against Trump administration policies than perceived violations of the rights of civil society. These challenges take different forms. Some are framed as a matter of prudence — a recognition that whatever is done to progressive institutions could befall conservative groups in a future Democratic administration. “Some conservatives are cheering on Mr. Trump, but they might not like it when President Ocasio-Cortez is in charge,” warned the Wall Street Journal.
But many of these defenses of civil society mix the prudent with the principled. The independence of civil society, under this approach, is conveyed as a good in itself — core to the mission of religious groups, academic institutions, private charities, individual protesters, and many others. One reason for the term’s power is its ability to conjure up and reflect this shared commitment across a wide range of institutions and to communicate that act of bridge-building as core to the values being defended.
Championing civil society and building a widely intelligible public case for why it matters is both challenging and urgent. The term’s distinct meanings and associations are critical to any successful defense of the nonprofit sector.
That doesn’t mean deploying the term “civil society” is necessarily the best way to make the case. In some instances, it may be more effective to champion civil society by promoting its component values — pluralism, independence, human connection, and active social engagement.
The importance of civil society can also be demonstrated through acts of solidarity between different organizations, associations, and social groups. Leaders of small colleges can stick up for the rights of universities, and university leaders can champion the rights of religious organizations. Religious leaders can speak out for the rights of institutions of different denominations and faiths and on behalf of other nonprofit organizations facing attacks and funding cuts. And nonprofit leaders can stand hand in hand with individuals expressing their right to protest.
These manifestations of solidarity represent not merely a defense of civil society — they are the bonds and foundations that make up civil society.
Building a strong argument for civil society is not just a tactic to address current threats posed by Trump administration policies. To do justice to civil society’s values, the case must be made widely and sustained over time. That won’t be quick or easy and might require the establishment of novel networks and the burnishing of neglected relationships between large and small organizations and associations, urban and rural, religious and secular, and progressive and conservative. But it’s more than worth the effort.
