Conclusions

One important insight of our study is that the myth of CSP works not only through global governance structures established by states but also through the participation of civil society actors themselves.

CSOs reproduce the myth that, at the same time, produces them in the first place as protagonists on the world scene. This challenges how we think about the so-called ‘CSO community’ as such, not only about what they are able to achieve.

We find that the establishment of ever more inclusively designed global governance forums and institutions has reinforced exclusionary tendencies of CSP. Participation in global governance has unleashed conflicts and reproduced power hierarchies within civil society itself. This explains why the representation of marginalized actors through CSOs is often biased and why CSOs have been found to reproduce the North-South divide in international politics. We also find that CSOs do not routinely serve as oppositional or corrective forces to official politics. States and CSOs often pursue similar political projects, and CSOs are most willing to compromise for the sake of being able to participate in governance processes at all. Thus, while observers emphasise the potential of CSOs to politicise policymaking processes by bringing new issues onto the political agenda and facilitating public debate (Zürn et al. 2012, 79), their participation in high-level governance processes is, to the contrary, also assessed to decrease political struggles over fundamental political issues (Jaeger 2007, 258). Possibly, CSO participation may simply have become normalised to an extent that one of its main functions is upholding the myth rather than any form of opposition or antagonism to states’ politics.

It is remarkable that despite these ambivalent and often critical findings on the actual achievements of CSOs, the mythical narrative remains unchallenged.

The main idea of their participation and function is not questioned; states and CSOs merely discuss how this participation is best realized. Even though most participants and observers of global governance processes may have acknowledged the flawed or perhaps even impossible nature of their endeavours, they still adhere to retelling and re-enacting the myth. For the myth to work it is not necessary that the hopes equated with CSP are actually realised. As Weber (2001, 2) argues, all IR theories are based on myths, a kind of slogan, which makes them appear to be true. What matters is only the belief that the hopes will be fulfilled. The myth thus helps keeping the idea of global governance alive and justifies it, whatever critical empirical assessments there may be on the assumed influence and representativeness or the legitimising and politicising potential of CSOs.

Finally, the myth induces the acceptance of its main tenets through all segments of world society, ranging from policymakers to academics and CSOs themselves. That does not imply an acceptance in the sense that everyone agrees with the contents or political implications. It does mean, however, that people refer to generally the same mythical elements when they respond to the narrative, both in retelling it and in positioning themselves to and in fact also against it. What we observe and how, what categories we use etc. are all political decisions, and they are part of global governance’s nature as a political myth. Ultimately, the perspective presented here reveals that global governance is an inherently political project, rendered acceptable and desirable through its constant retelling as myth.

Note

1. Interview with YJ Park, former co-coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus in the WSIS process 2003 (15 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro).

Bibliography

Backstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness.

Environmental Policy and Governance, 16, 290-306.

Barthes, R. (2009). Mythologies. London: Vintage Books.

Bexell, M., Tallberg, J., & Uhlin, A. (2010). Democracy in global governance: The promises and pitfalls of transnational actors. Global Governance, 16, 81-101.

Bissio, R. (2014). ‘We the peoples’ in the UN development system. In S. Browne & T. G. Weiss (Eds.), Post-2015 UN development. Making change happen? (pp. 195-210). London: Routledge.

Bob, C. (2001). Marketing rebellion: Insurgent groups, international media, and NGO support. International Politics, 38, 311-334.

Bottici, C. (2007). A philosophy ofpolitical myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bottici, C., & Challand, B. (2006). Rethinking political myth: The clash of civilizations as a self-fulfilling prophecy. European Journal of Social Theory, 9, 315-336.

Brand, U. (2000). Nichtregierungsorganisationen, Staat und okologische Krise: Konturen kritischer NRO-Forschung: Das Beispiel der biologischen Vielfalt. Münster: Westfalisches Dampfboot.

Brühl, T., & Rittberger, V. (2001). From international to global governance: Actors, collective decision-making, and the United Nations in the world of the twenty-first century. In V. Rittberger (Ed.), Global governance and the United Nations system (pp. 1-47). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Cardoso Report. (2004). We the peoples: Civil society, The United Nations, and Global Governance. Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on the United Nations-Civil Society Relations, UN A/58/817.

Carpenter, R. C. (2007). Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 99-102.

Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 616, 78-93.

CGG (Commission on Global Governance). (1995).

Our global neighborhood. Accessed July 7, 2015, from http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/global-

neighbourhood/index.htm

Culler, J. (1984). Problems in the theory of fiction. Diacritics, 14, 2-11.

Dahl, A.-S. (1998). The myth of Swedish neutrality. In C. Buffet & B. Heuser (Eds.), Haunted by history: Myths in international relations (pp. 28-40). Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.

Dany, C. (2013). Global governance and NGO participation: Shaping the information society in the United Nations. London: Routledge.

Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘natural' narratology. London: Routledge.

Frankenberg, G. (2008). National, supranational, global: Ambivalenzen zivilgesellschaftlicher Praxis. European Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 1-32.

Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.

Gurstein, M. (2005). Networking the networked/closing the loop: Some notes on WSIS II. World Summit 2003, December 22. Accessed July 7 2015, from http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/847.htm

Heins, V. (2002). Der Mythos der globalen Zivilgesellschaft. In C. Frantz & A. Zimmer (Eds.), Zivilgesellschaft international: Alte und neue Global Players (pp. 83-103). Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Hertel, S. (2006). Unexpected power: Conflict and change among transnational activists. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jaeger, H.-M. (2007). 'Global civil society' and the political depoliticization of global governance. International Political Sociology, 1, 257-277.

Joachim, J. (2011). Taming of the Shrew? International women's NGOs, institutional power and the United Nations. In T. Olesen (Ed.), Power and transnational activism (pp. 214-231). London: Routledge.

Karns, M. P., & Mingst, K. A. (2009). International organizations: The politics and processes of global governance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2000). Introduction. In J. S. Nye & J. D. Donahue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world (pp.

1-41). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kleinwächter, W (2004). Macht und Geld im Cyberspace: Wie der Weltgipfel zur Informationsgesellschaft (WSIS) die Weichen für die Zukunft stellt. Hannover: Heise.

Kreiswirth, M. (2000). Merely telling stories? Narrative and knowledge in the human sciences. Poetics Today, 21, 293-318.

Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.

Little, R. (2007). The balance of power in international relations: Metaphors, myths and models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKeon, N. (2009). The United Nations and civil society: Legitimating global governance—Whose voice? New York: Zed Books.

Mueller, M. L., Kuerbis, B. N., & Page, C. (2007). Democratizing global communication? Global civil society and the campaign for communication rights in the information society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 267-296.

Munck, R. (2002). Global civil society: Myths and prospects. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13, 349-361.

Nanz, P., & Steffek, J. (2004). Global governance, participation and the public sphere. Government and Opposition, 39, 314-335.

Nonhoff, M. (2006). Politischer Diskurs und Hegemonie Das Projekt “Soziale Marktwirtschaft". Bielefeld: Transcript.

Ottaway, M. (2001). Corporatism goes global: International organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and transnational business. Global Governance, 7, 265-292.

Patterson, M., & Monroe, K. R. (1998). Narrative in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 315-331.

PCT Working Group. (2005). Tunis phase: Group of Friends of the Chair (GFC) fifth meeting contribution. Document from May 31. Accessed July 7 2015, from https://www.itu.int/wsis/gfc/docs/5/contributions/pct.pdf

Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 719-740.

Risse, T. (2004). Global governance and communicative action. Government and Opposition, 39, 288-313.

Rosenau, J. N. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1, 13-43.

Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E.-O. (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roth, R. (2005). Transnationale Demokratie: Beiträge, Moglichkeiten und Grenzen von NGOs. In A. Brunnengräber, A. Klein, & H. Walk (Eds.), NGOs im Prozess der Globalisierung: Mächtige Zwerge—Umstrittene Riesen (pp. 80-128). Bonn: BPB.

Somers, M., & Gibson, G. (1994). Reclaiming the epistemological ‘other’: Narrative and the social constitution of identity. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Social theory and the politics of identity (pp. 35-99). Oxford: Blackwell.

Steffek, J., & Nanz, P. (2008). Emergent patterns of civil society participation in global and European governance. In J. Steffek, C. Kissling, & P. Nanz (Eds.), Civil society participation in european and global governance: A cure for the democratic deficit? (pp. 1-29). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Stiglitz, J. E., & Kaldor, M. (Eds.). (2013). The quest for security: Protection without protectionism and the challenge of global governance. New York: Columbia University Press.

Teschke, B. (2003). The myth of 1648. Class,geopolitics and the making of modern international relations. London: Verso.

Thomas, G. (1989). Revivalism and cultural change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tudor, H. (1972). Political myth: Key concepts in political science. London: Macmillan.

UNCED. (1992). UN conference on environment and development. Agenda 21. Accessed July 7, 2015, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/con- tent/documents/Agenda21.pdf

Weber, C. (2001). International relations theory: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.

WEF. (2009). The world economic forum. A partner in shaping history. The first 40 years: 1971-2010. Accessed July 7, 2015, from http://www3.weforum.org/ docs/WEF_First40Years_Book_2010.pdf

WSF. (2001). World social forum: Original world social forum charter of principles April2001 version. Accessed July 7, 2015, from http://www.choike.org/doc- umentos/wsf_s111_wsfcharter.pdf

WSIS Civil Society. (2003). Civil society statement at the end of the preparatory process for the world summit on the information society. Document from November 14. Accessed July 7, 2015, from, http://www.worldsummit2003. de/download_en/CS-press-statement-14-11-03-final.rtf

WSIS Civil Society Plenary. (2003). Shaping information societies for human needs, civil society declaration of the world summit on the information society. Document from December 8. Accessed July 7, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/ docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf

Zürn, M., Binder, B., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International authority and its politicization. International Theory, 4, 69-106.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Bliesemann de Guevara Berit. Myth and Narrative in International Politics. Palgrave Macmillan,2016. — 329 p.. 2016

Conclusions

More on the topic Conclusions: