Locke, Hegel, Tocqueville a občanská společnost
Locke, Hegel, Tocqueville and Civil Society

Summary/Abstract: This article discusses and compares three different variants of the definition of civil society. The basis of their comparison is the role of Everyman – the possibility for his/her independent action and the defense against state despotism. The first variant, represented by John Locke, defines civil society as a legitimate political order – the State. However, Locke makes it possible to separate State and civil society and thus sketches their independent functions. Everyman opposes the State in extraordinary situations such as an unlawful restraint of his/her freedom. The second variant, represented by Georg Hegel, defines civil society as an independent sphere, i.e. outside of the State. However, Hegel puts the State over civil society. Everyman is only a submissive person, who obeys the governmental bureaucracy. The last variant, represented by Alexis de Tocqueville, defines civil society as an independent sphere, too. Nevertheless, Tocqueville expects a well-balanced position of civil society and the State. Everyman is an active person, who obeys the bureaucracy only if s/he agrees. All in all, Hegel´s and Tocqueville´s conceptions see civil society as a permanently existing and independent sphere. Their definitions are significantly different from Locke´s definition of the term. Therefore, just Hegel´s and Tocqueville´s approaches are compared at the end of the article.

• Details
• Contents