Current Issue

Jeroen Rijniers: Civic Driven Change

After experts like Fowler and Biekart, who have brainstormed on this with a group of professors, the term civic refers to a ‘wide range of individuals with their own points of view’; and the word change refers to ‘a completely natural process’ that ‘happens always and everywhere’ (I quote from the same Broker of October 2008). This equips us -at least in my understanding- with the following theoretical framework (or ‘narrative’): what happens is driven by thinking individuals (or: thinking individuals drive what happens).

This is so true. Take climate change (for a change). Climatic processes are definitely completely natural and happening always and everywhere. And guess what: they are nowadays indeed known to be co-created by a wide range of individuals, who certainly have their own points of view. An excellent example of CDC.

Another example: the Dutch socio-political ‘climate change’. Democracy in The Netherlands has deepened lately, because -in line with CDC theory- citizens have become co-creators of a new, in this case more inward-looking and xenophobic, societal reality that -conform CDC theory- is nicely ‘catalyzed’ by (in this case mostly populist) politicians, who indeed also take part in this change process as co-creators rather than as authorities accountable to solutions.
So far so good.

But oops. These are maybe not the kind of changes Fowler c.s. had in mind. Here the brilliant simplicity of the new narrative ends; and gets spoilt with a messy relict from the past: the normative. Worse even, next to CDC something like ‘uncivic behavior’ (and thus ‘uncivic driven change’, I guess) is introduced. Unfortunately, it turns out that ‘civic’ in fact is only about certain individuals with certain points of view, that drive only those processes of ‘change’ that CDC advocates want to label as civic. Circle closed. This sheds of course a completely different light on the earlier stated characteristic of CDC as a right and a responsibility of every individual with a point of view, always and everywhere.

So it’s not civic driven change after all, but rather a new expert-driven construction of a familiar development agenda (‘co-responsibility in sustaining the global commons for everyone’). A noble and important agenda, I admit. But too important to be left only to supposed ‘civic drivers’, and to exclude those other important drivers (government, markets, NGO’s) that, in my opinion, are definitely also needed to turn it into reality.



Readers' Comments

Civic and uncivic change
Posted by: Toon van Eijk, Tuesday 14 April 2009
Jeroen Reiniers correctly argues that CDC is not by definition 'civic' but can result into 'uncivic' behavior too. Alan Fowler emphasizes that all types of drivers of change (state, market and civil society) must apply civic norms. Ultimately, states, markets and civil societies are formed by individuals who ought to perform civic (or pro-social) behavior. The question is then whether the (always scarce) change agents themselves in states, markets and civil societies perform pro-social behavior and how they can effectively and efficiently convince other citizens to do the same. Pro-social behavior, defined as 'tolerance of difference and concern for the whole of society (including the natural environment)' by the CDC group, is not a common characteristic of citizens. In my view the most basic 'driver of change' is the collective consciousness that underlies states and markets and civil societies. If we can enhance the quality and coherence of this collective consciousness, then 'civic' or pro-social behavior of citizens can be easier facilitated by change agents. For further details see my contribution to this discussion.
Whose values count? Civic Driven as normative change
Posted by: Alan Fowler, Wednesday 04 March 2009

The comment by Jeroen Rijniers provides a welcome opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. One bird is the problem signalled in previous responses. This is the difficulties of commentary that emerge from relying on The Broker article alone to fully appreciate and get to grips with character of CDC arising from the ISS initiative. The article’s timing and intentions inevitably made the summary less than the whole. But this early communication continues to serve the valuable purpose of opening public debate. There is now more documentation available on the ISS web site as well as in the Broker. Reading what is there and is still to come will hopefully increase understanding about what CDC is and is not.

The other bird is flies on complementary wings that many commentators seem to associate with different species. One wing is, indeed, normative. The etymology, origins and essence of ‘civic’ as prosocial behaviour of individuals in their relationships. The CDC group – that was not exclusively academic - identified tolerance of difference, of ‘the other’, and concern for the whole of society, including the natural environment, as critical prosocial values made ‘civic’ by their location within the socio-politics of citizenship. Political opportunism that spawns or relies on xenophobia is not civic. The other wing is citizenship, with rights and obligations defined by polities and states in their own times and ways. This, simultaneously individual and collective identity, is not located in any one institutional type. Which leads to the CDC perspective that drivers of change in society are people in all walks of life – not sectors. Consequently, CDC challenges a sectoral view and assumed conventional primacy of divisions of labour between states, markets, civic society or families. Civic values and civic drivers are not the province, nor the sole responsibility of messy, ‘normative free’ civil society – whatever that may mean.

It is therefore important to counter the perception that CDC will replace state or market driven change. Rather, the task is to ensure that all types of drivers of change apply civic norms allied to adequate influence and control by the polity as an active, engaged citizenry.