The dialectical development of the civil society-state dichotomy in Hegel, Marx and Gramsci

Although the meanings attributed to the concepts of civil society and the state have constantly changed in the ancient, pre-modern and modern periods, when these changes are considered in a dialectical framework, there is a relationship of continuity and rupture between them. While the dichotomy between civil society and the state was handled in a holistic manner with the concept of koinonia politike in the ancient period, it is possible to observe the cores of the distinction between these two areas in natural law theorists. As the capitalist social formation began to take shape, the classical political economy approach began to formulate the distinction more explicitly and conceptualised civil society as an area outside the state with its own dynamics. However, it was Hegel's theory of sittlichkeit that first critically analysed the dichotomy as a dichotomous relationship. Hegel, who placed civil society, which was placed in a primary position by classical political economy, in a secondary position in the face of the state, which is the universalist goal, made an epistemological break with this tradition. Marx, who took over the dualism and dialectical methodology from Hegel, first put forward an ontological and methodological critique of Hegel in the context of the civil society-state dualism, and then turned to the analysis of the material conditions of the field of civil society. Although the concept of civil society disappeared from the centre of discussions for a while after Marx, it was Gramsci who took it over from Hegel and Marx and made it a contemporary problematic again. This study, which analyses the civil society-state dichotomy within the framework of the theories of Hegel, Marx, and Gramsci, aims to reveal the continuity and rupture between these three thinkers in the philosophical and political development of the dichotomy.