Shami 35arena of discursive interaction [that] is conceptually distinct from the
state [and] is a site for the production and circulation of discourses that
can in principle be critical of the state.”^21 In some writings on processes of
democratization, the terms civil society and public spheres tend to be used
interchangeably due to the many overlaps in the political spaces that they
both open up for investigation. In an essay addressing this issue, Craig
Calhoun points out that Habermas’s phrase, “the public sphere of civil
society” clarifies the close relationship but also the distinctness of the two
domains and processes.^22 Just as not every type of association or political
community can be considered an instance of civil society, similarly the
term the public sphere should refer only to certain kinds of discourses
and political participation. Calhoun elaborates that “the importance of
the concept of public sphere is largely to go beyond general appeals to
the nature of civil society in attempts to explain the social foundations
of democracy and to introduce a discussion of the specific organization
within civil society of social and cultural bases for the development of
an effective rational-critical discourse aimed at the resolution of political
disputes.”^23 In other words, adding the concept of public sphere to that of
civil society helps refine the latter concept by narrowing down the types
of associations for which it can be used, while at the same time broaden-
ing the terrain of political action and practice considered and adding the
discursive and processual elements without which the idea of civil society
would remain a static, structural concept.
alhoun critiques the slippage between civil society and the public C
sphere through a review of the literature on “transitions to democracy”
in Eastern Europe and in China. In many countries of the “second” and
“third” worlds, the 1990s witnessed a burgeoning of civil society associa-
tions, propelled both by domestic dynamics and the search for alternatives
outside ossified political structures, and (very importantly) by external
impetus and funding from international organizations and bilateral aid
programs. While the growth of civil society may have achieved important
domestic aims as well as created important linkages to transnational activ-
ism and advocacy groups, it is important to evaluate its success in terms
of long term changes. The impact of civil society, however lively, on for-
mal democratic processes may be extremely limited (as in Egypt for exam-
ple) and it also raises contentious and difficult questions regarding the