Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T16:44:33.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Convergence: Finding Collective Voice in Global Civil Society©

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Kristen Magis
Kristen Magis*
Affiliation:
Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
*
e-mail: KMagis@aol.com
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the question of how civil society groups cross political, cultural, social, economic, and language boundaries to find common ground and to act collectively in coalitions to effect international change. A set of constituents emerged in answer to the research question; Complementarity, Speed and Democracy, Rules of Engagement, Contingent Alliance, and Convergence. Convergence emerged as a central and unifying construct. Convergence is the uniting of people who are different, or even opposed, around a common cause. It is based on the presumption that diversity is critical to coalition success and that it needs be employed to leverage its many potential benefits. The analyses led to the conceptualization of the Convergence System, a model that employs global civil society (GCS) diversity to discern complementarity within GCS coalitions, to discover Points of Convergence, and to facilitate collective action toward shared objectives, thus enabling efficacious action by GCS within the international polity.

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude examine comment les groupes de la société civile traversent les frontières politiques, culturelles, sociales et économiques pour trouver un terrain d’entente et agir collectivement en coalitions afin d’apporter des changements au niveau international. Un groupe constitué des parties prenantes a vu le jour pour répondre à la question objet de la recherche, à savoir : complémentarité, vitesse et démocratie, règles d’engagement, alliance des délégations et convergence/points communs. La convergence s’est révélée être une notion centrale et fédératrice. Elle est la réunion de personnes différentes, voire adverses, autour d’une cause commune. Elle est basée sur la supposition que la diversité est indispensable pour le succès de la coalition et qu’elle doit être utilisée pour tirer parti de ses nombreux avantages potentiels. Les analyses ont ouvert la voie à la modélisation d’un « système de convergence » , modèle qui utilise la diversité culturelle de la société civile internationale (SCI) pour discerner la complémentarité au sein des coalitions de la SCI, découvrir des points de convergence, et faciliter l’action collective en direction d’objectifs partagés, permettant ainsi une action efficace par la SCI dans le cadre de la politie internationale.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersuchte die Frage, wie zivilgesellschaftliche Gruppen politische, kulturelle, soziale, ökonomische und sprachliche Grenzen überwinden, um Gemeinsamkeiten zu finden und gemeinsam in Koalitionen agieren, um Änderungen auf internationaler Ebene zu bewirken. In Beantwortung der Forschungsfrage sind eine Reihe Komponenten zu Tage getreten: Complementarity (Komplementation), Speed and Democracy (Geschwindigkeit und Demokratie), Rules of Engagement (Einsatzregeln), Contingent Alliance (Eventualbündnis) und Convergence (Konvergenz). Konvergenz stellte sich als zentrales und vereinigendes Konstrukt heraus. Konvergenz ist die Vereinigung von unterschiedlichen oder auch gegensätzlichen Leuten um eine gemeinsame Sache herum. Sie basiert auf der Annahme, dass Vielfältigkeit kritisch für den Erfolg einer Koalition ist und dass sie genutzt werden muss, um viele ihrer möglichen Vorteile wirksam einzusetzen. Die Analysen führten zur Konzeptualisierung des Konvergenzsystems, ein Modell, dass die Vielfältigkeit der globalen Zivilgesellschaft (GCS) nutzt, um Komplementation innerhalb von GCS-Koalitionen zu erkennen, Konvergenzspunkte zu entdecken und gemeinsame Aktion in Richtung gemeinsame Ziele zu vereinfachen und dadurch wirksame Aktionen der GCS in der internationalen Gemeinschaft möglich macht.

Resumen

Resumen

Este estudio investiga cómo los grupos de la sociedad civil atraviesan barreras políticas, culturales, sociales, económicas y lingüísticas para encontrar un terreno común y actuar juntos en coaliciones que propicien cambios internacionales. Como respuesta a la cuestión del estudio surgieron un conjunto de elementos constitutivos: la complementariedad, la velocidad y la democracia, las reglas de compromiso, la alianza de contingentes y la convergencia. La convergencia surgió como un elemento central y unificador. La convergencia es la unión de personas distintas o incluso opuestas en torno a una causa común. Se basa en la idea de que la diversidad es vital para el éxito de una coalición y que es necesaria para aprovechar numerosas ventajas potenciales. Este análisis nos ha conducido a la conceptualización del Sistema de Convergencia, un modelo que emplea la diversidad de GCS para discernir la complementariedad dentro de las coaliciones de GCS, para descubrir puntos de convergencia y para facilitar las acciones colectivas hacia unos objetivos compartidos, permitiendo así una acción eficaz por parte de GCS dentro de la política internacional.

摘要

摘要

本论文对如何使各个公民社会团体跨越政治、文化、社会、经济和语言界限发现彼此的共同点并共同联合实现国际变革的问题进行了研究,在回答这一研究问题时出现了一系列要素:互补、速度与民主、相处法则、暂时联盟和凝聚。凝聚是以集中和统一的概念出现的,凝聚是指围绕一项共同的事业将不同、甚至互相对立的民众团结在一起,它基于以下条件,即:差异性对于联合的成功是至关重要的,需要用于平衡很多潜在利益。这一分析导致了凝聚体系的概念化,即:一种使用GCS差异性来了解GCS联合中的互补性、发现凝聚点、推动朝着共同的目标采取一致行动,从而使GCS能够在国际政体内采取有效行动的模式。

要約

要約

本研究は、市民社会グループが政治的、文化的、社会的、経済的かつ言語的境界を越えて、どのように共通基盤を見つけて、国際的な変化に対応する協力体制を形成するかという問題を調査する。相補性、速度、民主主義、行動条件、条件付きの連携、集合についての研究質問への回答を明らかにする。その中でも、集合は中央の統一的な構成概念の問題を備えている。集合とは、共通の利害の中で異なるもしくは反対している人々の結合である。そして、連携の成功に対して批判的であり、多くの潜在的利益の影響力によって用いられるという仮定に基づいている。GCSの多様性を使うモデルの集合組織の概念化の分析を行い、GCSの連携の中で相補性について識別し、集合のポイントを発見して、共有の目的に向かって集合行動を容易にすることで、その結果、国際的な政治の中でGCSによる効果的な活動が可能になる。

ملخص

ملخص

هذه الدراسة حققت في كيفية أن مجموعة المجتمع المدني عبرت الحدود السياسية، الثقافية، الإجتماعية، واللغة لإيجاد أرضية مشتركة والعمل الجماعي في تحالف للتأثيرعلى التغيير الدولي. هناك مجموعة من المقومات ظهرت في الإجابة على سؤال البحث ؛ التكامل والسرعة والديمقراطية ، وقواعد الاشتباك ، وحدات التحالف والتقارب. التقارب برز بوصفه بناء مركزي و موحد. التقارب هو توحيد الناس المختلفون ، أو حتى الذين يعارضون ، حول قضية مشتركة. أنه يقوم على افتراض أن التنوع أمر حاسم لنجاح قوات التحالف ، وأنه يحتاج أن يعمل على الإستفادة من العديد من الفوائد المحتملة. التحليلات أدت إلى وضع تصور لنظام التقارب ، نموذج يستخدم نظام التقارب العالمي(GCS) المتنوع لفهم التكامل داخل إئتلافات نظام التقارب العالمي(GCS)، لإكتشاف نقاط التقارب، وتيسير العمل الجماعي نحو أهداف مشتركة، مما يتيح اتخاذ إجراءات فعالة من نظام التقارب العالمي(GCS) داخل النظام السياسي الدولي.

Keywords

Global civil society coalitionsConvergenceDiversityGlobal civil societyCoalitions

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2010, pp. 317 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anheier, H., & Glasius, M., et al. (Eds.). (2005). Global civil society 2004/5. London, UK: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Bandy, J., & Smith, J. (2005). Factors affecting conflict and cooperation in transnational movement networks. In Bandy, J. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Coalitions across borders: Transnational protest and the neoliberal agenda. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Brassard, M., & Ritter, D. (1994). The memory jogger II: A pocket guide of tools for continuous improvement & effective planning. Salem, NH: GOAL/QPC.Google Scholar
Brown, L., Khagram, S., Moore, M., & Frumkin, P. (2000). Globalization, NGOs, and multisectoral relations. In Nye, J. & Donahue, J. (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (2001). Mechanistic and organic systems. In Shafritz, J. M. & Belmont, J. S. O. (Eds.), Classics of organization theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Burstein, P., Einwohner, R., & Hollander, H. (1995). The success of political movements: A bargaining perspective. In Jenkins, J. C. & Klandermans, B. (Eds.), The politics of social protest: Comparative perspectives on states and social movements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bystydzienski, J., & Schacht, S. (Eds.). (2001). Forging radical alliances across difference: Coalition politics for the new millennium. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Cartwright, T. (1991). Planning and chaos theory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(1), 44–56. doi: 10.1080/01944369108975471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Global Studies. (2006). Voice of civil society. In Voice of global civil society conference (pp. 86). Waterloo, ON: Centre for Global Studies, Centre for International Governance Innovation.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In Emerson, R. M. (Ed.), Contemporary field research. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1995). Non-governmental organizations and their influence on international society. Journal of International Affairs, 48(2), 507–525.Google Scholar
Coleman, W., & Wayland, S. (2005). The origins of global civil society and non-territorial governance: Some empirical reflections. Working Paper Series, GHC 05/1. Toronto, Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition, Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement.Google Scholar
Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G., McAdam, D., Scott, R., & Zald, M. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (Eds.) (2005). Transnational protest and global activism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (1999). Transnational democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(1), 30–51. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1998). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(1), 6–28.Google Scholar
Edwards, M., & Zadek, S. (2003). Governing the provision of global public goods: The role and legitimacy of nonstate actors. In Kaul, I., Conceição, P., Goulven, K., & Mendoza, R. (Eds.), Providing global public goods: Managing globalization. New York: United Nations Development Program.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, J. (1999). Civil society: The critical history of an idea. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Fayol, H. (2001). General principles of management. In Shafritz, J. & Ott, S. (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (pp. 48–60). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2002). Assessing binational civil society coalitions: Lessons from the Mexico-U.S. experience. In Brooks, D. & Fox, J. (Eds.), Cross-border dialogues: U.S. Mexico social movement networking. La Jolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California-San Diego.Google Scholar
Friedman, E. J., Hochstetler, K., & Clark, A. M. (2005). Sovereignty, democracy and global civil society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (2000). Alternative models for global democracy. In Holden, B. (Ed.), Global democracy: Key debates. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gamson, W. (1990). The strategy of social protest (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. (1959). Organizational analysis. In Merton, R. K., Broom, L., & Cottrel, L. S. (Eds.), Sociology today. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Hall, B. (2000). Global civil society: Theorizing a changing world. Convergence, 33(1–2), 22–32.Google Scholar
Hudock, A. (1999). NGOs and civil society: Democracy by proxy?. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kaldor, M. (2003). Global civil society: An answer to war. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Keane, J. (1998). Civil society: Old images, new visions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Keane, J. (2003). Global civil society?. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Khagram, S., Riker, J., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (2002). Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (Vol. 14). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Krut, R., Howard, K., Howard, E., Gleckman, H., & Dannielle, P. (1997). Globalization and civil society: NGO influence in international decision-making. Discussion paper no. 83. Retrieved July, 2005, from http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/toc83.htm.Google Scholar
Levi, M., & Murphy, G. (2004). Coalitions of contention: The case of the WTO protests in Seattle. Department of Political Science, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Magis, K. (2006). The voices of global civil society: Final report. Paper presented at The Voices of Global Civil Society, Victoria, BC.Google Scholar
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: Confronting global collapse, envisioning a sustainable future. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Mertes, T. (2004). A movement of movements: Is another world really possible?. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Meyer, D., & Corrigall-Brown, C. (2004). Coalitions and the political context: The movements against wars in Iraq. Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
O’Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance: Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511491603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piven, F., & Cloward, R. (1979). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511598760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, C. (1996). Coordinate? Cooperate? Harmonise? NGO policy and operational coalitions. In Weiss, T. & Gordenker, L. (Eds.), NGOs, the UN, & global governance. London: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. (1992). NGOs and rural poverty alleviation: Implications for scaling-jp. In Edwards, M. & Hulme, D. (Eds.), Making a difference: NGOs and development in a changing world. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Rooy, A. (2004). The global legitimacy game: Civil society, globalization, and protest. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan doi: 10.1057/9780230000957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, J. (1990). Turbulence in world politics: A theory of change and continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholte, J. A. (1999). Global civil society: Changing the world? Working Paper. University of Warwick, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation.Google Scholar
Scholte, J. A. (2001). The IMF and civil society: An interim progress report. In Edwards, M. & Gaventa, J. (Eds.), Global citizen action. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (1997). Characteristics of the modern transnational social movement sector. In Smith, J., Chatfield, C., & Pagnucco, R. (Eds.), Transnational social movements and global politics. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J., Pagnucco, R., & Chatfield, C. (1997). Social movements and world politics: A theoretical framework. In Smith, J., Chatfield, C., & Pagnucco, R. (Eds.), Transnational social movements and world politics: Solidarity Beyond the state. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464. doi: 10.2307/2095581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1992). Ideology, frame reference and participant mobilization. In Snow, D. & Benford, R. (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (1992). Mentalities, political cultures and collective action frames: Constructing meanings through action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. (2001). The principles of scientific management. In Shafritz, J. M. & Ott, J. S. (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (5th ed., pp. 61–72). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
Wapner, P., & Ruiz, L. (2000). Principled world politics: The challenge of normative international relations. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1924). The theory of social and economic organization (A. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, T., & Gordenker, L. (Eds.). (1996). NGOs, the UN, and global governance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.10.1515/9781685855987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Willetts, P. (2000). From ‘consultative arrangements’ to ‘partnerships’: The changing status of NGOs in diplomacy at the UN. Global Governance, 6(2), 191–213.10.1163/19426720-00602003CrossRefGoogle Scholar