New on our blog
Email this page
Adam Rothwell
- Friday, June 13, 2008
The hot new thing in the charity world is ‘civil society’. The voices on high who claim to represent the charity sector have pronounced it: no longer, they say, should we call charities charities. No. Henceforth, they will be ‘civil society groups.’ This strikes me as remarkably silly. As far as I can tell, there’s no common definition of what ‘civil society’ actually is, and it’s bizarre to replace a perfectly understandable term – ‘charity’ – with a longer, more confusing one.
But I think the reason for this change in terminology might actually be quite simple. ‘Charity’, unfortunately, just doesn’t sound cool. Charity umbrella groups like the National Council for Voluntary Organizations (the NCVO) are obsessed with making charities sound important and professional. But the word ‘charity’, apparently, sounds ‘unprofessional’. So a new term has to be found.
This attitude is so annoying that it makes me want to retire to a corner of the office with a warm flannel and a cup of chamomile tea. Charities are amongst the country’s most trusted institutions, everyone knows what they do, and everyone knows that they are a massive force for good. The NCVO’s move to talking about ‘civil society’ undermines all these positive associations. And nobody agrees on what ‘civil society’ actually is.
To me, this hoo-ha over ‘civil society’ demonstrates an alarming lack of confidence across the charity sector. It seems to me that charities simply aren’t confident enough to stand up for themselves and admit to what they are. And considering the vast amount of good work charities do every day, I find that very sad indeed.
Civil society according to Google.
I instantly think of 'polite' as a synonym for civil [1], although deference is also listed in this definition.
Unfortunately, 'charity' doesn't cut it any more now we're seeing an increasing number of alternative organisations who - on the face of it - fit the Commission's definitions of public benefit but choose to go down the Community Interest Company (or Charitable Incorporated Organisation or whatever they are now) or Advisory Service route. I'm also not sure that 'not-for-profit' as a description fits the bill either as the whole point of social enterprises *is* to make a profit - it's the direction of the profits (into shareholders' pockets or to public benefit) that defines whether or not a company is a CIC/CIO.
There was considerable public confusion about responsibilities and limitations of charities as it is - for example, the assumption that charities are a bottomless pit of government money: therefore, if a request is in their remit, they are not allowed to deny or charge for the services that they provide and that "anyone" has an absolute right to benefit from those services. (RSPCA stories being a case in point here, ironic as animal charities are amongst the few that don't receive any statutory funding at all.) Civil society sounds official and will be allied, in the "public mind" with the civil service. Potentially compromising the independence of the charity sector? Who knows.
In my opinion, it would be better to improve public understanding of 'charity' than to create more jargon. (Note that nowhere in this definition is the word "free" mentioned. We infer that from cultural expectations of what a charity is.)
-----------------------------------------------
... nearly Vlad the Impaler
[1] ... better collect my P45 from the civil society organisation I work for then eh?
LMC emails me with the following link: http://www.fundraising.co.uk/node/170432. It seems it's not just me getting cross about silly charity buzzwords that nobody understands...
Adam, Intelligent Giving
Post new comment
Recent comments
10 hours 23 min ago
1 day 3 hours ago
1 day 4 hours ago
1 day 6 hours ago
1 day 7 hours ago
1 day 8 hours ago
1 day 10 hours ago
2 days 3 hours ago
2 days 9 hours ago
3 days 5 hours ago