-
[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]
In the light of the recent experience in Eastern Europe with "Western" models of management and democracy, it is questionable whether it is useful to concentrate on a conventional articulation of a supposedly uniform "Western" view of "civil society". Guthrie (1994) calls attention to the problems with this at the European level. Ana Maria Sandi (1992) points out that Western societies also face a challenge as a result of the bureaucratization of their civil structures:
Thus while Eastern European civil societies seek restoring those structures that were destroyed and/or perverted. Western Europeans seek restructuring of their bureaucratized civil societies. The forces willing to maintain the status quo are those interested in manipulating masses of undifferentiated people. Therefore, East and West together have to seek new forms and modalities for structuring civil societies. These societies in turn will foster people's involvement in generating values, formulating opinions, making demands on the state.
The challenge would seem therefore to be one of offering a set of catalytic images through which a range of alternative understandings of civil society may be creatively explored. For a given culture some of these may prove more meaningful and relevant than others (cf Hofstede, 1984; Gannon, 1994).
Exploration of a range of such images has recently proven very fruitful, notably within the business world, in exploring different styles of business organization (Morgan, 1986; Lessem, 1995; Trompenaars, 1994). It is unfortunate that such thinking was not applied earlier to the management challenges in developing countries, as problems in the use of "Western" management models in Africa have illustrated (Bourgoin, 1984). It is becoming increasingly obvious that seemingly intractable social problems and differences of perspective can be fruitfully approached by reframing through imagery relevant to public policy options (cf Schon, 1979; Judge, 1991).
It must also be remembered, within any society influenced by a range of institutions, disciplines, and traditions, that each of these itself constitutes a "culture" predisposed to favour or reject particular modes of association in preference to others. The "cross-cultural" challenge therefore exists within societies such as Russia as much as within and between Western cultures.
Specifically the challenge here is to evoke, from a range of Russian cultural perspectives, images that give coherence to some understanding of civil society that reflects the richness of Russian culture -- specifically with respect to the relationship between State and Society.
Failure to explore this range leads to the risk of premature conceptual rigidification from a particular perspective, excluding other perspectives that later emerge as vital to the sustainable development of society. This is especially the case with regard to those legislative and administrative procedures which could rapidly turn out to be irrelevant and even counter-productive in a Russian context.
It could even be argued that a society develops its competitive advantages most fruitfully with respect to others through the unique style with which it combines particular understandings from a wider range of possibilities. Metaphorically, it is not the set of musical notes which is important, for most may indeed be common to other cultures. Rather it is the unique way in which selected notes are dynamically combined, in melodies and musical forms, that carries the soul of a people. And clearly within a culture such as Russia, a range of such musical forms are needed to embody the many dimensions of being Russian -- whether or not some of these forms are agreeable to other cultures. There may indeed be a place for some "Western music", but it is most important to accord a place to those other forms which will together uniquely embody Russian cultural perspectives.
[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]