Contestation over war memorialization can help democratic theory respond to the current attenuation of citizenship in war in liberal democratic states, especially the United States. As war involves more advanced technologies and fewer soldiers, the relation of citizenship to war changes. In this context war memorialization plays a particular role in refiguring the relation. Current practices of remembering and memorializing war in contemporary neoliberal states respond to a dilemma: the state needs to justify and garner support for continual wars while distancing citizenship from participation. The result is a consumer culture of memorialization that seeks to effect a unity of the political community while it fights wars with few citizens and devalues the public. Neoliberal wars fought with few soldiers and an economic logic reveals the vulnerability to otherness that leads to more active and critical democratic citizenship.

In the 1970s, the voluntary sector acted as a key space for advocacy and support for communities that were marginalised from statutory provision. This paper explores how East London voluntary sector organisations addressed the needs of new migrant communities in this period. Drawing on data from six case study organisations, this historical study explores the dual role these organisations played in advocating for these communities and providing needed services. The findings show that in the 1970s through the 1990s advocacy and service delivery functions were closely linked rather than service delivery crowding out advocacy as has been the trend in recent decades. The findings also emphasise the importance of the creation of trusted relationships between the organisations and the communities they served.

The aim of this introduction to the special issue is to call into question the presumed conceptual divide between volunteering and civic action and suggest an analytical tool and four perspectives that bring to light the varying meanings of popular engagement. Volunteering and civic action are laden with different moral meanings, are associated with different theoretical approaches and, just as important, have been assigned different roles in society. This conceptual divide is reflected in the academic debate. Only rarely, however, has the academic debate explored and discussed how the meaning of volunteering and civic action has changed historically. Therefore, we argue for a contextual and relational interpretation of the different forms of popular engagement instead of the application of essentialist definitions of volunteering and civic action. In order to examine the variety of popular engagement without being caught up in pre-made or taken-for-granted conceptualisations of volunteering and civic action as two separate forms of popular engagement, we propose approaching variations of popular engagement with respect to two criteria: first, to what degree popular engagement is enacted in institutionalised spheres of politics or in social public spheres and, second, to what degree actions of popular engagement are controversial or operating in line with what is widely agreed upon and dominant in public opinion. Moreover, we argue that history, discourses, politics and a relational approach are four crucial perspectives in order to reveal the varying meanings of popular engagement.

In Germany, like in other countries, the notions of volunteering and civic action altogether describe a wide diversity of activities. Often, this wide spectre is put together under ‘civic engagement’, reaching from civic action that is sometimes overtly ‘political’ over to engagement as volunteering in areas like sports or culture. Yet in academic contributions that use such a wide concept, nothing much can be found about a convincing differentiation of the diverse forms of engagement that figure under such a wide cover. Is there a clear line separating voluntary and civic action? In line with the introduction to this special issue, the paper takes up these questions by proposing that a proper understanding of differentiations in the wide field of civic engagement calls for a historical approach that gives a key role to discourses and politics. Looking from such a perspective at historical constellations in German history, four decisive historical concepts get sketched. It shows that kinds of differentiation between voluntary and civic action are very much dependent on discourses and politics and not only the repercussions of socio-economic and cultural changes and megatrends. The kind of approach chosen shows as well that older concepts, notions and attitudes do not simply melt away in the light of new ones. The label ‘civic engagement’ appears as an umbrella notion in front of a diversity of forms and understandings of engagement. Understanding this diversity calls for tracing the historical roots, notably the ordering imaginaries and strategies wherein these forms and understandings took shape and function today.

Following the suggestion of Ragin (1998, Voluntas, 9(3), 261-270), this article uses social origins theory (Salamon and Anheier, 1998, Voluntas, 9(3), 213248) as an heuristic device to explore change in a specific field of nonprofit activity; the English housing association sector. Conventional histories of the sector in the twentieth century suggest a succession of eras with different policy drivers. These eras can be seen as consistent with shifts in welfare regime from liberal to social democratic (after 1919) and to neo-liberal/neo-corporatist (after 1980). Examples drawn from a panel study support the analysis of Esping- Anderson (1990, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton) that underlying the apparent stability of welfare regimes there are constant processes of negotiation and conflict which may lead to transformations at organization, sector, or regime level. Rather than simply responding to policy drivers, some housing associations have been able to influence the environment in which policy is made and thereby to shape their own and the sector’s transformations.

The aim of this article is to contribute to the Swedish debate on popular engagement by studying changes in popular engagement in Swedish society, and particularly look for processes of depoliticisation and politicisation since the beginning of the 1990s, by asking, has popular engagement been depoliticised since the beginning of the 1990s? Popular engagement has historically had different roles and fulfilled different functions; consequently, it is a societal phenomenon with several and competing significances due to varying dominant discourses framing the understanding of popular engagement and structuring the actions of engaged citizens. Obviously, the present composite of popular engagement in Swedish society reflects Swedish history and the various present forms of engagement can be conceived as historical layers. How popular engagement has been framed, valued and understood through history is an indication of what is supposed to be needed and feasible in a particular society at a certain time. This gives popular engagement symbolic meaning that renders it political significance and power that can be studied in cultural history. The article offers a brief historical review of the symbolic meanings of popular engagement in Swedish society from the breakthrough of modernity until the present times, and it demonstrates that it has not had a fixed significance over the years. Particular attention is given to an on-going subtle change of meaning of popular engagement occurring in contemporary Swedish society. This process implies a break with the popular mass movement tradition.

Populism has become a resilient political phenomenon. Much of the normative political science on this topic is concerned with the relationship between democracy and populism. At the same time, the characterisation of post-war democracy has emerged as a key focal point in recent contributions to political history. This research note explores how both these developments and their disciplines might benefit from closer collaboration. It highlights, therefore, some of the distinctive features of populism’s relationship with democracy and shows how these might be accounted for by incorporating insights from history. At the same time, it argues that historiography has largely ignored the populist question in the history of post-war democracy and makes some suggestions as to how the history of populism might be included in this research.

In this critical commentary, John Keane defends, extends, and reasserts the role of history in democratic theory through an articulation of seven methodological rules: (1) treat the remembrance of things past as vital for democracy's present and future; (2) regard the languages, characters, events, institutions, and effects of democracy as a thoroughly historical way of life and handling of power; (3) pay close attention to the ways in which the narration of the past by historians, leaders, and others is unavoidably a time-bound, historical act; (4) see that the methods that are most suited to writing about the past, present, and future of democracy draw attention to the peculiarity of their own rules of interpretation; (5) acknowledge that, until quite recently, most details of the history of democracy have been recorded by its critics; (6) note that the negative tone of most previous histories of democracy confirms the rule that tales of its past told by historians often harbor the prejudices of the powerful; and (7) admit that the task of thinking about the past, present, and future of democracy is by definition an unending journey. There can be no Grand Theory of Democracy.

Civil society organizations in Lebanon have a long history, pre-dating even the existence of the Lebanese state itself, which has directly shaped their major phases of development since its creation. Based on the social origins theory and using the framework developed by Marchetti and Tocci (Peace Secur Former Pac Rev Peace Secur Glob Chang 21:201–217, 2009), this paper analyses the relationships that have developed between the state and civil society organizations in Lebanon. The main argument presented in this paper is that the scope of work of civil society organizations, in addition to their freedom of action, is directly linked to the social, political and economic development of the state. The main conclusion of this paper is that a new social contract should be forged between associations and the state in Lebanon, one that would allow them to carry out their functions properly.

The Republic of Kazakhstan is developing a nonprofit sector, albeit slowly. It still suffers from the experience of 70 years of Communism but is now moving forward with development. This survey reviews the history, evolution, scope, and currency with a focus on the legal underpinnings of the nonprofit sector in Kazakhstan. In addition to discussing the traditions and cultures affecting development, the survey mainly concentrates on the legal and legislative obstacles that discourage rather than encourage more rapid development of the third sector in this Central Asian state.

Historical analysis of philanthropy and civil society is a valuable research method that provides useful assessments of the sector’s development and its evolving strengths and challenges. However, the historical philanthropic experiences and contributions of underrepresented populations are oftentimes neglected due to their marginalized status in historical archives and records. To correct this, we propose philanthropic archival layering as a historical methodology for recovering and investigating diverse forms of voluntary action in marginalized communities. In this paper, we focus on the philanthropic experiences of Afro-Caribbean civil society in the early twentieth century and African American women during Jim Crow. We review scholarship on the African Diaspora and historical research methodologies for analyzing the archives of marginalized peoples. We demonstrate this methodology through two case applications before outlining steps for conducting philanthropic archival layering as an innovative methodological framework that broadens the field’s knowledge about what constitutes philanthropy and who contributes to it.

Societal “crises” are periods of turmoil and destabilization in sociocultural, political, economic, and other systems, often accompanied by violent power struggles, and sometimes significant changes in social structure. The extensive literature analyzing societal crises has concentrated on a relatively small sample of well-known cases (such as the fall of the Roman Empire), emphasizing separate aspects of these events as potential causes or consistent effects. To investigate crises in an even-handed fashion, and to avoid the potential small-sample-size bias present in several previous studies, we have created the Crisis Database (CrisisDB). CrisisDB uniformly characterizes a sample of 168 historical cases spanning millennia — from the prehistoric to the post-industrial — and varying polity complexities in diverse global regions. It features data on factors that are identified as relevant to explaining societal crises and significant “consequences” (such as warfare or epidemics), including institutional and cultural reforms (such as constitutional changes) that might occur during and immediately following the crisis period. Here, we study some examples from the CrisisDB and demonstrate our analyses, which show that the consequences of crisis experienced in each society are highly variable. The outcomes are uncorrelated with one another and, overall, the set of consequences is largely unpredictable, leading us to conclude that there is no “typical” societal crisis of the past. We offer some alternative suggestions about the forces that might propel, or mitigate, these varying consequences, highlighting areas that would benefit from future exploration, and the need for collaborative and interdisciplinary work on the study of crises.