 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| HOME
|
Is communitarianism compatible with liberal political principles?
For the past two centuries, there has been a sort of consensus throughout a large area of political thought, centred around the 'primacy of the individual' over the state. This can be seen especially in the philosophy permeating both the French and American Revolutions. There have been a few exceptions to this, but these tend to either be marginalised or viewed with scorn. In the later half of this century, with the Cold War between the liberal democracies of the West, and the Communist Soviet Bloc, the rhetoric of the West centred around the essence of liberal democracy - freedoms and rights of the individual. In the last ten years, however, with the end of the Cold War, it is easier for political philosophers to question these so-called 'foundations' of liberalism, and in doing so, putting forward a doctrine which suggests that 'community' is far more important than is considered under traditional liberalism. This is communitarianism.
In answering this question, the first task to be undertaken is to investigate what are 'liberal political principles'. As communitarianism is essentially just a challenge to liberalism, then it is far clearer to examine the objection after seeing to what exactly it is objecting. Next, a full examination of how communitarianism deals with these objections to liberalism, and finally it shall be seen if it is possible for the two doctrines to somehow be reconciled, and some compromise reached, in order to allow for communitarian theories and practices to be allowed to exist in a liberal society, or vice versa.
John Rawls' Theory of Justice is the most recent comprehensive attempt to justify modern liberalist society, by defining justice in terms of individual liberty, and ensuring complete impartiality across all people and societies. His theory is based on what he class 'the unencumbered self' and the 'Difference Principle'. This is based upon the concept of equal liberties for all, and a social distribution based on the 'veil of ignorance', which ensures that any inequality in society is to the benefit of the person lowest in the social distribution. Rawls defines these as his two basic principles of justice. Although also based on degrees of liberty and equality, Rawls hits out at utilitarianism and free-market libertarianism.
His criticism of utilitarianism takes place on several fronts. Firstly, that it fails to take seriously the difference between two people, in other words, places little value on individual worth, but places equally little worth on all individuals. Related to this, utilitarianism treats society as it would treat one person - it is the total utility that is of value to a utilitarian. This also means that the actual distribution in society means little to a utilitarian; they would be indifferent between a vastly unequal distribution, and one of complete equality, so long as the total utility was the same. Finally, though, and possibly most significantly, the issue of rights is contingent and uncertain under a utilitarian. This is unacceptable to Rawls, who values rights highly in his political philosophy.
Against free-market liberalism, Rawls finds that justice is not served, due to the arbitrary nature of the distribution. It is not simply the arbitrary nature of the initial endowments people receive in a libertarian economy, but the lack of any resolve to redistribute that arbitrary wealth. Rawls sees it as unjust that it is impossible for the results of everyone's talents to be shared, so that those with less natural assets can advantage from their lucky neighbour.
As can be seen liberalism is firmly based in individualism. The doctrine is design to ensure a large degree of individual freedom, rights, and autonomy. In the end, however, the difference principle is one of sharing, in that it must be possible for complete redistribution in society. This already begins to indicate how this theory may begin to break down, because this concept of sharing conflicts already with the ideas of plurality and distinctness of persons. An individualist society is somewhat a contradiction in terms. Or rather, it implies that both concepts, that of the individual and the society must be compromised in order to coexist. In order to redistribute in a society of this kind, Sandel states that, 'any claim on me is not of a constitutive community whose attachments I acknowledge, but of a collectivity whose entanglements I confront.' Essentially, Sandal is claiming that it is not just for redistribution to occur in a society which demands of its members actions which are not in their individual interests.
The solution to this problem put forward by Sandel and others is to place value on the community. Although this has been put forward by a number of political theorists, there can be found a common ground to help find a workable definition of communitarianism. The most important feature is that they place a positive value on community. This has a number of implications. Firstly, a clear advocacy among all communitarians for involvement in public life, in the form of increased participation in small associations. This is one way in which communitarians avoid the accusation that their theory in practice could be an excuse for oppression and totalitarianism. In participating in small groups, each individual can have their case heard, and be taken into account. Also, the existence of many small groups would help prevent one particular group building up a great deal of power.
Before examining other criticisms of communitarianism, it is more useful to see how the criticisms of liberalism are dealt with under communitarianism. The main and most basic objection of liberalism is to due with its inherent conception of the person. It has been criticised of liberalism that it is too shallow conception, and ignores fundamental aspects of human nature. In terms of the liberalism/communitarianism debate, liberalism has often been condemned for ignoring the possibility that external attachments which an individual develops over time can play a part in determining the identity of the person. Many scholars would argue that the community of which one is a member plays a very significant role in defining the person, and so to deliberately ignore this is a serious flaw of liberalism. Essentially the criticism is that individualistic liberalism fails to recognise the significance of community. It is possible that there are goods which are inherently communal, and these have no place in an individualistic regime.
Other criticisms of liberalism include the fact that as well as degrading the importance of community, it disregards the significance of culture. Also, the point that the social outcome may be arbitrary; due to chance of initial endowments and difficulties in or a reluctance to pursue redistribution. Another contentious point with liberalism is the fact that it would be intolerant to views of society which did not value the autonomy of all citizens.
It can be seen that communitarianism is the solution proposed to these problems, and it solves them in very fundamental way. By shifting the focus of society from the individual to community, it broadens the scope of the conception of the person to include many of the missing points in liberalism. In questions of justice, such as the latter examples, it again avoid the pitfalls of liberalism by leaving it to small communities, and communal wants to best determine that particular groups wants, and the means by which to pursue them.
It would seem, then, that communitarianism is designed to find and solve the faults in liberalism, especially in the assumption of individual rights. The argument stems from the fact that it is very difficult to prove the primacy of the individual, and morally justify the use of rights. It is consequently very difficult to argue against communitarianism without resorting to the argument for rights of the individual against oppression. The liberalism/communitarianism argument is based in the fact that they use fundamentally different moral assumptions. One bases morality on the individual, the other on the community. It would seem that the communitarians have use empirical observations to back up the idea that community helps to form the person and also helps develop morality. This does raise more difficult theoretical questions such as, in the case of communities with differing value systems, how can they interact, and should, therefore, members of the two different communities be treated differently or equally.
Although the two doctrines of liberalism and communitarianism seem to be inherently opposed, there may be chance for reconciliation. In order to satisfy both doctrines, restrictions could be placed on what could constitute a just community. These restrictions could be in the form of guarantees of certain rights, as well as the obligations which come hand in hand with being members of a community. The main objection to this framework would be that this would arbitrarily declare some communities and cultures unjust, this argument stemming from the communitarian side, and that the obligations enforced by being an active member of a community may not be in the direct interests of the individual. Finally, then, it would seem that the overall debate over communitarianism has forced liberal philosophers to question the soundness of the foundations upon which their political theories rest. The overall question which has to be answered in this debate is to what extent the individual should be prime, and how much the community of which the individual is a member constitutes. Both doctrines have flaws, in that liberalism totally disregards community, communitarianism could encourage division and intolerance in modern societies, with a disregard for communities other than ones own. It would seem, then, as with many solutions in the study of politics, that to apply these theories in practice, in order to create the most just society, would be to find an appropriate compromise between the two - a society in which community is valued highly, and citizens actively participate in public life, but also that the community guarantees a degree of individual liberty, equality, and is tolerant and impartial towards other communities.