Öz Civil society is a social space in which people convey their political demands to one another and to the state. It is, besides, a political theory with too much confusion and complexity concerning the power various actors have and the rules they have to obey. This article primarily focuses on this theoretical confusion. It begins with the definitional difficulty of civil society and continues with the major theoretical approaches. The first statement is on what might be called organisational principle, which indicates that power of civil society depends on how and what degree it is organised in relation with the state. However, an objection rises against this argument on the basis of no matter what degree it is organised civil society shares the same social space with and thus is hardly separable from the state. Second argument is concerned about the power of civil society in degree of its influence on the state and even its participation in shaping its form. The article, then, continues with the ways of influencing state, namely, the social movements and resistance, both of which are the common ways of people to convey the needs and desires they have. Social movements and resistance are of, as Scott (1985) argues, different forms and aims. While the former is based on collective attempt and organisation of people the latter can be very individualistic in its form. This means that effectiveness lies in covert expressions in resistance and overt organisations in social movements. The article, finally, focuses on the fact that not only somehow dominated groups of people need political arrangements but also the advantaged people’s will of political demands takes part in civil society. Politically dominant groups in civil society, however, are subject to very different dynamics from those of disadvantaged groups. They dominate not only the physical but also the symbolic means of production and lay down the rules to which dominated groups have to obey. This is a fact that establishes variance in motivations, actions, feelings, etc. between dominating and dominated groups. At simplest, while the latter is interested in better life conditions than they already have the former claims innocence of the conditions but the fallacy of the people. Even if they set down the very rules dominated groups have to play with, dominant groups still need consent to legitimize their advantaged existence. That means no matter what degree they are dominated people have their own free will to evaluate the very existence of domination. They might be considered as agents voluntarily accepting the dynamics of domination for the sake of reaching better life conditions. In summary, the article studies civil society as a social space of different people’s politics.