Browsing by Author "Isometsä, Sanni"

This Master’s thesis examines civil society participation in European development governance. Traditionally civil society has been described according to its relation to states and markets. The story becomes more puzzling when one moves outside the territory of nation states. Common for divergent theories of global civil society is that they cherish a great faith in citizen participation and its beneficial consequences in global governance. It has been claimed that over-optimism and lack of a critical perspective have obscured the meaning of the concept, and more empirical research is needed. At the same time, the discussion of global governance is based on an idea of coordination and collaboration of different actors; thus neglecting the existence of power. By absorbing a critical approach to global governance, this paper aims to provide a better understanding of civil society at the transnational level. Civil society was examined from the perspective of the actors themselves by studying the language they used. The primary data was based on the reactions of civil society actors during the European Commission’s consultation period regarding the new Consensus on Development. The data was collected directly from the Commission’s Your voice in Europe web page, which manages the open consultations. These reactions were analysed by using Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis. A specific focus was placed on social roles and identities, which were named as images of civil society. The core idea was that the way one speaks also tells who one is. The analysis showed that at least three divergent images can be drawn upon the texts: a normative actor defending civic spaces, a governance image demanding stronger leadership from the EU and a professionalized expert using knowledge claims. These images are interconnected but also partly contrasting; thus blurring the conceptualization of global civil society. As the existing literature on European civil society indicated, none of the images form a clear resistance or counter-hegemony for the EU, and they more or less match the conceptualizations of a collaborator. The images differ in their subject positioning and how they justify their being. It can be concluded that self-criticism of civil society actors is needed, and civil society groups should more deeply evaluate their ways of argumentation and relations to states, intergovernmental organizations and the private sector. While establishing conflicting images, civil society is losing some of its transformative possibilities and maintaining existing power structures.