Riley Dylan, Fernández Juan J
AJS. 2014 Sep;120(2):432-503. doi: 10.1086/678272.
What is the impact of dictatorships on postdictatorial civil societies? Bottom-up theories suggest that totalitarian dictatorships destroy civil society while authoritarian ones allow for its development. Top-down theories of civil society suggest that totalitarianism can create civil societies while authoritarianism is unlikely to. This article argues that both these perspectives suffer from a one-dimensional understanding of civil society that conflates strength and autonomy. Accordingly we distinguish these two dimensions and argue that totalitarian dictatorships tend to create organizationally strong but heteronomous civil societies, while authoritarian ones tend to create relatively autonomous but organizationally weak civil societies. We then test this conceptualization by closely examining the historical connection between dictatorship and civil society development in Italy (a posttotalitarian case) and Spain (a postauthoritarian one). Our article concludes by reflecting on the implications of our argument for democratic theory, civil society theory, and theories of regime variation.
独裁政权对后独裁时期的公民社会有何影响？自下而上的理论认为，极权主义独裁政权会摧毁公民社会，而威权主义独裁政权则允许其发展。自上而下的公民社会理论认为，极权主义能够创造公民社会，而威权主义则不太可能。本文认为，这两种观点都存在对公民社会的一维理解，将力量和自主性混为一谈。因此，我们区分了这两个维度，并认为极权主义独裁政权倾向于创造组织上强大但缺乏自主性的公民社会，而威权主义独裁政权则倾向于创造相对自主但组织上薄弱的公民社会。然后，我们通过仔细研究意大利（一个后极权主义案例）和西班牙（一个后威权主义案例）独裁政权与公民社会发展之间的历史联系来检验这一概念化。我们的文章最后反思了我们的论点对民主理论、公民社会理论和政权变迁理论的影响。
