Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Paradoxical Modernity of Civil Society: The Weimar Republic, Democracy, and Social Homogeneity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Civil society theory has rarely been applied to the demise of the Weimar Republic. Emphasizing either the absence of intermediary organizations or the negative nature of Germany’s associational life, current civil society research does not integrate historical analysis with civil society theory. This essay roots civil society in modernity and individualism, thus, linking its fading during the 1920s to the inability of civil society theory to provide solutions to the complex problems of Weimar society. Paradoxically, individualism and modernity, the precondition for a liberal civil society, also paved the path to the homogenizing ideologies of the twentieth century.

Résumé

La théorie de la société civile a rarement été appliquée à la chute de la République de Weimar. En soulignant soit l’absence d’organisations intermédiaires soit la nature négative de la vie associative allemande, la recherche actuelle portant sur la société civile n’intègre pas l’analyse historique à la théorie de la société civile. Cet essai enracine la société civile dans la modernité et l’individualisme, reliant ainsi l’affaiblissement de cette République pendant les années 1920 à l’incapacité de la théorie de la société civile à proposer des solutions aux problèmes complexes de la société de Weimar. Paradoxalement, l’individualisme et la modernité, conditions préalables à une société civile libérale, ont également ouvert la voie aux idéologies homogénéisantes du vingtième siècle.

Zusammenfassung

Die Theorie der Bürgergesellschaft wird selten auf den Untergang der Weimarer Republik angewandt. Gegenwärtige Forschungen zur Bürgergesellschaft integrieren keine historische Analyse in die Theorie der Bürgergesellschaft, sondern es wird entweder das Fehlen vermittelnder Organisationen oder der negative Charakter von Deutschlands Vereinsleben betont. Der vorliegende Beitrag sieht die Wurzeln der Bürgergesellschaft in der Modernität und dem Individualismus und begründet so ihren Verfall während der zwanziger Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts mit der Unfähigkeit der Theorie der Bürgergesellschaft, Lösungen für die komplexen Probleme der Weimarer Gesellschaft anzubieten. Paradoxerweise ebneten Individualismus und Modernität, die Voraussetzungen für eine freie Bürgergesellschaft, auch den Weg für die homogenisierenden Ideologien des 20. Jahrhunderts.

Resumen

La teoría de la sociedad civil se ha aplicado en raras ocasiones a la desaparición de la República de Weimar. Haciendo hincapié en la ausencia de organizaciones intermediarias o en la naturaleza negativa de la vida asociativa de Alemania, la investigación sobre la sociedad civil actual no integra el análisis histórico a la teoría de la sociedad civil. El presente ensayo sitúa las raíces de la sociedad civil en la modernidad y el individualismo, vinculando de este modo su debilitamiento durante los años 1920 a la incapacidad de la teoría de la sociedad civil para proporcionar soluciones a los complejos problemas de la sociedad de Weimar. Paradógicamente, el individualismo y la modernidad, la condición previa para una sociedad civil liberal, también allanaron el camino a las ideologías homogeneizantes del siglo XX.

Chinese

公民社会理论很少被应用于魏玛共和国的衰败。强调缺少中间组织或德国协会生活的负面本质,当前公民社会研究未将历史分析与公民社会理论集成。本文剖析了公民社会的现代性和个人主义,从而将二十世纪20年代的衰退与公民社会理论的弱点联系起来,为复杂的魏玛社会问题提供解决方法。自相矛盾的是,作为自由公民社会的前提条件,个人主义和现代性还为均质化二十世纪的意识形态铺平了道路。

Arabic

نادرا˝ ما تم تطبيق نظرية المجتمع المدني إلى زوال جمهورية فايمار. مؤكدا˝ إما عدم وجود منظمات وسطية أو طبيعة السلبية للحياة في ألمانيا الترابطية، بحوث المجتمع المدني الحالي لا تدمج التحليل التاريخي مع نظرية المجتمع المدني. هذا المقال يرسخ المجتمع المدني في الحداثة والنزعة الفردية، بالتالي ربط تضاؤله خلال 1920 إلى عدم قدرة نظرية المجتمع المدني على توفير حلول للمشاكل المعقدة لمجتمع فايمار. للمفارقة، الفردية والحداثة، شرط مسبق لمجتمع مدني ليبرالي، مهد أيضا˝ المسار إلى مجانسةالأيديولوجيات من القرن العشرين.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Emblematically, Ernest Gellner authored two influential books on civil society and on nationalism with a clear “modernist” approach (Gellner 1983, 1996).

  2. For example, the editors of the American Historical Review commissioned a special AHR Roundtable (AHR Editors 2011) to discuss the question of modernity, and its merits and challenges.

References

  • American Historical Review (AHR) Editors. (2011). AHR roundtable: Historians and the question of “modernity.” American Historical Review, 116(3), 631–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. L. (2000). Practicing democracy. Elections and political culture in imperial Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H. K. (2007). Reflections on the concept and measurement of global civil society. Voluntas, 18(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1973 [1951]). The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

  • Berman, S. (1997a). Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics, 49(3), 401–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. (1997b). Civil society and political institutionalism. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 562–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonn, M. J. (1924). The crisis of German democracy. The Forum, 72(3), 306–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bösch, F. (2005). Militante Geselligkeit. Formierungsformen der bürgerlichen Vereinswelt zwischen Revolution und Nationalsozialismus. Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 21, 158–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broman, T. H. (2002). Introduction: Some preliminary considerations on science and civil society. Osiris, 17, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canning, K. (Ed.). (2010). Special issue: Culture of politics—politics of culture: New perspectives on the Weimar Republic. Central European History, 43(4), 567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S., & Kopstein, J. (2001). Bad civil society. Political Theory, 29(6), 837–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colas, D. (1997). Civil society and fanaticism. Conjoined histories. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, R. (1979 [1967]). Society and democracy in Germany. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

  • Dickinson, E. R. (2004). Biopolitics, fascism, democracy: some reflections on our discourse about “modernity”. Central European History, 37(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1997 [1893]). The division of labor in society. With an introduction by Lewis Coser. New York: The Free University.

  • Edwards, M. (2004). Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (1998). Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam. The American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1), 124–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eley, G. (1991). Reshaping the German right. Radical nationalism and political change after Bismarck. With a new introduction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eley, G., & David Blackbourn, D. (1984). The peculiarities of German history: Bourgeois society and politics in nineteenth-century Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (2001). Review: Is bowling together sociologically lite? Contemporary Sociology, 30(3), 223–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falter, J. W. (1992). The social bases of political cleavages in the Weimar Republic, 1919–1933. In L. E. Jones & J. Retalleck (Eds.), Elections, mass politics, and social change in modern Germany: New perspectives (pp. 371–397). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, N. (1997). The German interwar economy: political choices versus economic determinism. In M. Fulbrook (Ed.), German history since 1800 (pp. 258–278). New York: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Föllmer, M. (2005). The problem of national solidarity in interwar Germany. German History, 23(2), 202–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, P. (1996). Did Weimar fail? Journal of Modern History, 68(3), 629–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, P. (2008). The NSDAP 1919–1934: From fringe politics to the seizure of power. In J. Caplan (Ed.), Nazi Germany (pp. 48–72). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (2000). Social capital and civil society. IMF Working Papers, WP/00/74.

  • Gall, L. (1975). Liberalismus und “Bürgerliche Gesellschaft”. Zu Charakter und Entwicklung der liberalen Bewegung in Deutschland. Historische Zeitschrift, 220(2), 324–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, P. (1961). Weimar culture. The outsider as insider. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

  • Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. New York: Cornell University Press.

  • Gellner, E. (1996). Conditions of Liberty. Civil Society and its Rivals. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerwarth, R. (2006). The past in Weimar History. Contemporary European History, 15(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerwarth, R. (2008). The central European counter-revolution: Paramilitary violence in Germany, Austria and Hungary after the great war. Past and Present, 200(1), 175–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1998). The nature of civil society. Society, 35(4), 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Trentmann, F. (Eds.). (2005). Civil society. A reader in history, theory and global politics. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haltern, U. (1993). Die Gesellschaft der Bürger. Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 19(1), 100–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G. W. F. (1988 [1830]) The moral life, or social ethics. In J. Goldstein & J. W. Boyer (Eds.), Nineteenth Century Europe. Liberalism and its critics (pp. 129–153). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Heller, H. (1928). Politische Demokratie und soziale Homogenität. In A. Wolfers (Ed.), Probleme der Demokratie, Politische Wissenschaft (pp. 35–47). Berlin: Verlag Walter Rotschild.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuss, T. (1926). Staat und Volk. Betrachtungen über Wirtschaft, Politik und Kultur. Berlin: Deutsche Buch-Gemeinschaft.

  • Hoffmann, S. L. (2006). Civil Society. New York: Pelgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. S. (2005). Neither singular nor alternative: narratives of modernity and welfare in Germany, 1870–1945. Social History, 30(2), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, H. (2009). The Weimar economy. In A. McElligott (Ed.), Weimar Germany (pp. 102–126). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. E. (1988). German liberalism and the dissolution of the Weimar party system, 1918–1933. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw, I. (2000). Hitler: 1889–1936, Hubris. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchheimer, O. (1969 [1930]). Weimar—and what then? In F. Burn & K. Shell (Eds.), Politics, law, and social change. Essays of Otto Kirchheimer (pp. 33–74). New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Kocka, J. (1988). German history before Hitler: The debate about the German Sonderweg. Journal of Contemporary History, 23(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocka, J. (1995). The middle classes in Europe. The Journal of Modern History, 67(4), 783–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocka, J. (2010). Civil society and dictatorship in modern German history. Lebanon: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornhauser, W. (1959). The politics of mass society. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K. (1993). Civil society: An inquiry into the usefulness of an historical term. The British Journal of Sociology, 44(3), 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepsius, M. R. (1973 [1966]). Parteiensystem und Sozialstruktur: zum Problem der Demokratisierung der Deutschen Gesellschaft. In G. A. Ritter (Ed.), Deutsche Parteien vor 1918 (pp. 56–80). Köln: Kiepenheuer and Witsch.

  • Lepsius, M. R. (2004 [1985]). The Nation and Nationalism in Germany. Social Research, 71(3), 481–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1980 [1690]). The second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

  • Marshall, D. L. (2010). Intellectual history of the Weimar Republic: Recent research. Intellectual History Review, 20(4), 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1972 [1843]). On the jewish question. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader (pp. 26–52). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

  • Marx, K. (1972 [1844]). Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right: Introduction. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader (pp. 52–65). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

  • Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1972 [1845–46]). The German ideology: Part I. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader (pp. 146–200). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

  • Walter, F., & Matthiesen, H. (1997). Milieus in der modernen Gesellschaftsgeschichte: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. In D. Schmiechen-Ackermann (Ed.), Anpassung, Verweigerung, Widerstand. Soziale Milieus, politische Kultur und der Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus in Deutschland im regionalen Vergleich (pp. 46–75). Berlin: Schriften der Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand.

  • McElligott, A. (Ed.) (2009). Weimar Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Meinecke, F. (1919). Verfassung und Verwaltung der deutschen Republik. Die neue Rundschau, 30, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinecke, F. (1925). Republik, Bürgertum und Jugend. Vortrag gehalten im Demokratischen Studentenbund zu Berlin am 16 Januar 1925. Frankfurt am Mein: Frankfurter Societäts-Druckerei.

  • Mergel, T. (2005). Führer, Volksgemeinschaft und Maschine. Politische Erwartungsstrukturen in der Weimarer Republik und dem Nationalsozialismus 1918-1936. Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 21, 91–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, R. G. (1984). The Kaiserreich recast? continuity and change in modern German historiography. Journal of Social History, 17(4), 655–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nipperdey, T. (1972). Vorein als soziale Struktur in Deutschland im späten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert. In A. Boockmann (Ed.), Geschichtswissenschaft und Vereinswesen im 19. Jahrhundert: Beiträge zur Geschichte historischer Vorschung in Deutschland (pp. 1–44). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  • Paoli, L. (2001). Crime Italian style. Daedalus, 130(3), 157–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert, D. (1992). The Weimar Republic: The crisis of classical modernity. New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A., & Landoldt, P. (1996). The downside of social capital. The American Prospect, 26, 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Publius [Madison, J.]. (1787). The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, Continued (Federalist No. 10).

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, S. (2005). Gewalt, Körper, Politik. Paradoxien in der deutschen Kulturgeschichte der Zwischenkriegszeit. Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 21, 205–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, B. (2009). Civil society and democracy: Weimar reconsidered. Journal of Civil Society, 5(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, D. (2010). The civic foundations of fascism: Italy, Spain and Romania, 1870–1945. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satyanath, S., Voigtländer, N. & Voth, H. (2013). Bowling for Fascism: Social Capital and the Rise of the Nazi Party in Weimar Germany, 1919–1933. NBER Working Papers, 19201.

  • Schmitt, C. (1988 [1923]). The crisis of parliamentary democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Schmitt, C. (2007 [1927]). The concept of the political. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Schneider, J. C., & Schneider, P. T. (2003). The Mafia and al-Qaeda: Violent and Secretive Organizations in comparative and historical perspective. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 776–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shils, E. (1997). Civility and civil society: Good manners between persons and concern for the common good in public affairs. In S. Grosby (Ed.), The virtue of civility. Selected essays on liberalism, tradition, and civil society (pp. 63–103). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

  • Smith, A. (1976 [1759]). The theory of moral sentiments. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

  • Smith, A. (2003 [1776]). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nation. New York: Bantam Classics.

  • Sperber, J. (1997). Bürgertum, Bürgerlichkeit, Bürgerliche Gesellschaft: Studies of the German (Upper) Middle Class and Its Sociocultural World. The Journal of Modern History, 69(2), 271–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, J. (Ed.). (2004). Germany, 1800–1870. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1990). Modes of civil society. Public Culture, 3(1), 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrier, J., & Wagner, P. (2006a). Civil society and the Problématique of political modernity. In P. Wagner (Ed.), The languages of civil society (pp. 9–27). New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrier, J., & Wagner, P. (2006b). Declining deliberation: civil society, community, organized modernity. In P. Wagner (Ed.), The languages of civil society (pp. 83–99). New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrier, J., & Wagner, P. (2006c). The return of civil society and the reopening of the political Problématique. In P. Wagner (Ed.), The languages of civil society (pp. 223–234). New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tocqueville, A. (2006 [1835–40]). Democracy in America. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

  • Tönnies, F. (2001 [1887]). Community and civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Trentmann, F. (2003). Introduction: Paradoxes of civil society. In F. Trentmann (Ed.), Paradoxes of civil society. New perspectives on modern German and British history (pp. 3–46). New York: Berghahn Books.

  • Weber, M. (1946 [1918]). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77–128). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Weber, M. (1978 [1917]). Parliament and Government in a Reconstructed Germany. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society. An outline of interpretative sociology (pp.1381–1469). Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Weber, M. (1994 [1919]). The President of the Reich. In P. Lassman and R. Speirs (Eds.), Political writings (pp. 304–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wehler, H. U. (1985 [1973]). The German Empire, 1871–1918. New York: Berg.

  • Weisbrod, B. (2001). Violence and sacrifice: Imaging the nation in Weimar Germany. In H. Mommsen (Ed.), The third Reich between vision and reality. New perspectives on German History 1918–1945 (pp. 5–22). New York: Berg.

  • Ziemann, B. (2003). Germany after the First World War: A violent society? results and implications of recent research on Weimar Germany. Journal of Modern European History, 1(1), 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziemann, B. (2010). Review article. Weimar was Weimar: Politics, culture and the emplotment of the German Republic. German History, 28(4), 542–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University, 550 West North Street, Suite 301, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Peter C. Weber

Authors
  1. Peter C. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter C. Weber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, P.C. The Paradoxical Modernity of Civil Society: The Weimar Republic, Democracy, and Social Homogeneity. Voluntas 26, 629–648 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9448-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9448-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation