Abstract
There is a growing interest in the enhancement and expansion of civil society worldwide. This interest is partly spurred by a recent and growing line of research on nonprofit and voluntary activities. A second wave of inspiration for the debate is found in the the work of researchers dealing more directly with the idea of a civil society. A strong interest in the somewhat amorphous concept of 'social capital' can also be noted. Almost without exception, empirical studies carried out and more theoretical work conducted along these paths deal with their object of study from a normatively positive angle: civil society activities and engagement seem to, almost per definition, be understood to be not only good but also necessary for a well-functioning (i.e., democratic) larger society. If this attitude of general neglectance is abandoned for a short while, the rather short notes or comments found in the literature seem to be based on almost no empirical evidence and the theoretical argumentation is surprisingly weak. This paper instead takes its departure in the fact that some organizations - examplified here by outlaw motorcycle gangs and white hate groups are considered worse than others. In the paper, it is firstly tested and shown that such organizations really do belong conceptually to a civil society. However, the ability of earlier research to include material on these organizations in their empirical data is questioned. It is argued that this - empirically as well as theoretically - important subpopulation is often left out of the analysis due to the intrinsic 'positive' understanding we seem to have of civil society organizations. In the conclusions, a number of definitional issues are addressed.