Dubious Link: Civic Engagement and Democratization, The

Armony, Ariel C The Dubious Link Civic Engagement and Democratization. Stanford: Stanford University Pres 2004 Tables, figures, bibliography, index, 297 pp; hardcover $55

The inquiry of civil society and social capital has flourished since Putnam (1993) propos a positive relationship between civic engagement and democratic governance. The arguments of Putnam and other "neoTocquevilleans" have generated significant debate, and in new years, scholars increasingly have scrutinized, challenged, and revised of that kind claims. With the publication of his latest work Ariel Armony joins their ranks. This well-researched, engaging work is a welcome contribution to an important area of inquiry.

A central objective of the work is to challenge the conventional wisdom linking associational life and democracy. According to the neoTocquevilleans, social capital-networks of trust and reciprocity-accumulates end face-to-face interactions in voluntary associations. These microsocial processe yield positive springs at the macropolitical level in the form of effective governance. Armony indicates in contrast, that civic engagement does not automatically bring into view generalized social trust, defined as confidence in race outside of one's immediate circle of family, friends, and assemblage members. Rather, participants in collections may use their social capital to achieve distinctly undemocratic extreme points such as discriminating against others or aggravating existing political and social inequalities. The volume thus explores civil society's "dark side" and emphasizes the aspects of civic engagement that are inimical to democracy (1)

Armony argues primarily that the political, social, and economic words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following shapes the "nature, dispositions, and orientations" of civil society, as well as its impact upon democracy (3). Civil society can propagate reinforce, or intensify broader patterns of social interaction, which many times are characterized by exclusion and subordination. Socioeconomic (in)equality and the potency or weakness of the domination of law are the greatest in quantity significant contextual factors. Armony strives that inequality undermines the direction of law, which entails "predictable and restrained governmental action," a legalistic agriculture and other institutional and societal features (41) Where the authority of law is weak, "positive predictability" is lacking: it is difficult for individuals to estimate sanctions for their have a title to behavior and that of others. This deficit, in turn round hinders the development of broader networks of social trust end civic engagement. Stated briefly, when civil society is not supported by means of the rule of law, its democratic potential is limited.

To substantiate these arguments, Armony combines qualitative and quantitative meanss First, he draws on secondary sources to analyze civic associations in the United States of the 1950 and 1960 and in Weimar Germany. For each case, he traces the results of associational life on attitudes, goals, practices, and consequences that are at odds with democracy. For instance, in the United States, white tribe formed citizens' councils to combat seminary desegregation in southern states and organized homeowners' moves to maintain residential segregation in northern cities. Civic engagement therefore perpetuated the exclusion of African Americans and thwarted the exercise of their citizenship rights. In Germany, an especially vibrant civil society (comprising collections of veterans, professionals, sports fans, and countles others) contributed to the demise of democracy by means of reinforcing social divisions and disseminating Nazi ideology. Here Armony builds upon the work of Sheri Berman, who argues that the impact of "associationism" in Weimar Germany was pendent on the "wider political context" (1997 427) Because civil society mobilized outside of-and in opposition to-existing political institutions, it helped precipitate the breakdown of democracy.

Next the author nears an in-depth analysis of contemporary civil society in Argentina, based upon original data collected during field research. Focusing upon citizenship rights groups that mobilized through every part of the 1990s around such issues as corruption, police brutality, citizen safety, and minority rights, Armony hints that civil society's contribution to democratic politics "amid a weak command of law and increasing horizontals of social stratification is paradoxical at best" (105) Associational life throw backs the adverse social and political connection in which it is embedded: growing inequality, widespread impunity, and a gap between formal laws and their implementation. Civic participation fails to bre generalized social trust, tolerance, cooperation, or other democratic dispositions and practices; therefore, assemblages refrain from linking up with single another and with government institutions, which they view as "inherently authoritarian and corrupt" (149)

To supporting cushion his case study findings, Armony performs a quantitative, cross-national analysis of data from 28 countries representing one as well as the other "third wave" and more established democracies. He begins with a trial of Putnam's hypothesis that social trust is positively related to effective democratic institutions. The regression rises confirm this relationship. However, the data do not support the other neo-Tocquevillean hypothesis, which states that civic engagement generates social trust. Instead, economic equality appears to drive the production of social capital. Armony terminates that the evidence against the received wisdom is "overwhelming," and his analysis does call into question the assertion that civic engagement necessarily creates generalized social trust, which individuals then use to advance a democratic agenda (200) Nevertheless, this debate is certain to continue. For single thing, the relationship between social trust and democratic governance is borne on the outside by the author's own statistical analysis. More generally, abundant depends on how scholars go on about specifying and measuring these phenomena; they have nevertheless to reach an agreement upon the most appropriate indicators.