Civil Society is made up of the sum of voluntary socio-civic organizations that are the backbone of society together with the coercion-backed structures of the state and the commercial institutions. Globalization has made it possible for civil society groups to have branches abroad. It is not, however, straightforward to transpose the concept of civil society into the concept of global civil society since the key to understanding what is new about contemporary meanings of civil society is precisely its global character (Kaldor, 2003: 7). Sakamoto (1997: 209-211) outlines various conceptualizations of ‘civil society’ as put forth by Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, and Gramsci. His definition emerged during the 1970s and its concomitant struggle against state socialism. His definition is relevant to the contemporary world (Sakamoto, 1997: 211-212) because of the rising importance of civil society vis-à -vis the power of government and major transnational corporations in the modern world. Civil society has also been defined as a political space where voluntary associations explicitly seek to shape the rules (in terms of specific policies, wider norms, and deeper social structures) that govern one or other aspect of social life’ (Foster, 2005: 209). As movements have mobilized across borders, a transnational civil society is emerging in which activists and citizens are developing common grievances, organization, and identities of resistance’ (Bandy & Smith, 2005: 246-247). One notable example of this Globalised discontent is Greenpeace.
In recent years we have observed the emergence of an increasing number of areas that attract civil society organizations and active citizens to express concern about capitalist globalization’(Teivainen, 2002: 622). Greenpeace is perhaps one of the first precursors of this movement. Founded in the turbulent 1970s Greenpeace advocates environmental conservation. In the past it has used direct action, leading to the arrest of its members, lobbying, and research to promote its agenda. Headquartered in Amsterdam, Greenpeace has regional offices in 46 countries and claims up to 3 million financial supporters.
The first recorded act of Greenpeace direct action was on 15 September 1971 when they sent the boat Phyllis Cormack from Vancouver to oppose the United States’ use of Amchitka, Alaska as a nuclear testing site. Even though the boat was turned back this was hailed as the first action of Green Peace. The organization’s current priorities are whaling, bottom trawling, global warming, old-growth, nuclear power, and genetically modified organisms (Weyler, 2009.).
Green Peace was widely considered a radical organization in its early years. Its radical methods have resulted in the arrest of many members. Some of its radical acts include shadowing, traveling very close, fishing or whaling boats, spray painting baby seals to make their fur worthless, and obstructing oil tankers from entering harbors. They have also allegedly exaggerated the rate of deforestation in the Amazon.
As a result, Greenpeace has been criticized as being too radical and too alarmist (Washington Post, 2006). They have even been branded as resorting to eco-terrorism for themselves doing damage to the environment in their attempts to push their agenda. Agendas are not always environmentally or economically sound. Greenpeace has also been accused of pushing non-human causes over human causes. For example, in protesting the destruction of the Amazon Greenpeace failed to account for the millions of South Americans who depend upon the logging industry for their livelihood. Another example is their early extreme prejudice against the proliferation of nuclear power despite the fact that the alternative, fossil fuel power, is even more polluting and dangerous.
The radical past of Greenpeace has even led to a schism when Canadian Ecologist Patrick Moore abandoned Greenpeace in 1986 when the organization lent its influence to a campaign to ban chlorine in drinking water. A former advocate of Greenpeace, Moore has since abandoned support for the group, claiming that it is motivated by politics instead of science or conservation. In fact, he alleges that none of the directors had any formal scientific background.
The Greenpeace organization soon had branches around the world which soon encountered many organizational difficulties. Thus, they were reorganized in 1979 under an aegis organization called Greenpeace International. The new structure required the regional offices to remit part of their income to the international organization that would take charge of determining the overall direction of Greenpeace.
The reorganization meant that the international organization would be able to apply its full resources to a more focused set of environmental conservation issues. David McTaggart’s successful reorganization of Greenpeace allowed it to have a centrally coordinated, hierarchical organization which allowed greater focus on its agenda and allow its sub-organization more resources for more long-term engagements in pressing issues. This lent more bite to the organization. However, this has also led to two major criticisms against Greenpeace. First, the centralized choice of what agendas to pursue has led to allegations that McTaggart’s discretion was becoming the principal determinant of what agendas Greenpeace could work on. Second, the centralized systems of control were a contradiction of its own anti-authoritarian beliefs. Greenpeace was adopting the same methods as the multinational corporations it was opposing. Nevertheless, this change led to an increase in Greenpeace’s success rate. Greenpeace has many branches in Europe, North America, and Asia.
Greenpeace and its common resort to radical tactics to gain media attention are one of the main movers of its success. Although these radical activities are not always met with success directly they are met with another kind of success: Awareness. According to Lipschutz in Global Civil Society and Global Governmentality, ‘one of the consequences of neoliberal global governmentality is that much civic action and social activism comes to be focused on politics via markets’ (Lipschutz, 2004: 203). Greenpeace is no different. The individual acts of supposed eco-terrorism are met with only limited success. Greater success is achieved because these radical actions lead to more media attention which in turn results in more people learning about the Greenpeace agenda. While not all audiences are supportive of their goals learning about them can still stir those who have no strong opinion to support Greenpeace. More importantly, the awareness of such anti-environment activities that Greenpeace exposes is a form of negative press that most multinational corporations and even national governments do not want to be exposed to the people. Thus even the mere threat of action by Greenpeace can prove to be a deterrent to anti-environmental activity. When radical action does not prove a deterrent, the corporations or governments still suffer negative feedback from their own people because of these activities.
In summary, Greenpeace is a radical worldwide civil society organization that resorts to some unconventional methods to get its message across. Still, its methods have had some success.
References
Bandy, Joe & Jackie Smith, 2005 (eds). Coalitions Across Boarders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Foster, John W., 2005. ‘The Trinational Alliance Against NAFTA: Sinews of Solidarity’, in, Coalitions Across Boarders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order, Joe Bandy and Jackie Smith (eds). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Kaldor, Mary, 2003. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sakamoto, Yoshikazu, 1997. ‘Civil Society and Democratic World Order’ in Stephen Gill and James H. Mittlemann (ed.’s) Innovation and Transformation in International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp: 207-219.
Teivainen, Teivo, 2002. ‘The World Social Forum And Global Democratisation: Learning From Porto Alegre’ in Third World Quarterly, Vol. 23, No 4, Pp 621–632.
Weyler, Rex, 2008. Greenpeace, an insiders account.
Greenpeace Just Kidding About Armageddon. 2006. Web.