Communitarianism
Justice, the Self and the Community
The origins of communitarianism: Hegel vs. Kant
Liberals like Kant have a universal conception of human needs or
human rationality. They invoke an ahistorical conception of the
human being to evaluate existing social and political arrangements
(Moralität).
Hegel argues that that humans are inevitably embedded in
particular historical practices and relationships. The good of
individuals - indeed, their very identity and capacity for moral
agency - is bound up with the communities they belong to, and the
particular social and political roles they occupy (Sittlichkeit).
Community and the limits of justice
Some communitarians argue that principles of justice are not needed in a
true community.
If people responded spontaneously to the needs of others out of love or
shared goals, then there would be no need to claim one’s rights. Hence
an increased concern with justice can, in some circumstances, reflect a
worsening of the moral situation, rather than a moral improvement.
Michael Sandel suggests that the family is a social institution where
justice is not needed, and where a preoccupation with justice may
diminish the sense of love, and thereby lead to more conflict.
Justice and shared meanings
Michael Walzer argues that justice is relative to cultures and communities.
A society is just if it acts in accordance with the shared understandings of
its members, as embodied in its characteristic practices and institutions.
Hence identifying principles of justice is more a matter of cultural
interpretation than of philosophical argument.
Objections against cultural relativism:
1. Justice precedes culture (e.g. slavery).
2. It is difficult to individuate shared understandings about justice.
Disagreement is not only between cultures, but also within cultures.
Self-determination
Communitarians claim that the liberal ‘politics of rights’ should be abandoned for a ‘politics of the common good’. Why do liberals defend individual rights? For liberals the value of self-determination is obvious, however people make mistakes choosing their good. How can we still defend personal autonomy?
1. Expressivism claims that people cannot be mistaken in their judgements of what is valuable in life. Yet, scepticism leads to outright relativism and doesn’t support self-determination.
2. We can revise our conceptions of the good and what we value is our freedom and moral power to have a good, not the good in itself.
State paternalism
For liberals a ‘politics of the common good’ collapses into state paternalism. How do liberals oppose state paternalism?
1. No one may be in a better position than I am to know my own good.
John Stuart Mill: Each person contains a unique personality whose good is different from that of anyone else.
Objection: Our good is tied in important ways to the cultural practices we share with others in our community.
2. No life goes better by being led from the outside according to values the person does not endorse.
Conclusion: We have individual rights because (1) we have to identify with the
The neutral state
The liberal account of self-determination leads to the neutral state. A state is neutral with regard to the various conceptions of the good and does not
deliberately attempt to influence people’s judgements of the value of these different conceptions.
However, this is not a relativistic position. The state protects the capacity of
individuals to judge for themselves the worth of different conceptions of the good life, and to provide a fair distribution of the rights and resources to enable people to pursue their conception of the good.
Moreover, neutrality does not mean that the state has to protect and ensure a pluralism of values and lifestyles, if this de-responsibilizes people.
The common good
In a communitarian society the common good is conceived of as a substantive conception of the good life which defines the community’s ‘way of life.’ This common good provides a standard by which those preferences are evaluated. A communitarian state can and should encourage people to adopt
conceptions of the good that conform to the community’s way of life, while discouraging conceptions of the good that conflict with it.
Communitarians prefer the ‘politics of the common good’, since they object both to the liberal idea of self-determination, and to the supposed connection between self-determination and neutrality.
The unencumbered self
For liberals, “the self is prior to the ends which are affirmed by it”
(Rawls). This is often called the ’Kantian’ view of the self, for Kant was
one of the strongest defenders of the view that the self is prior to its
socially given roles and relationships.
For communitarians, the self is ‘embedded’ or ‘situated’ in existing
social practices. Our social roles and relationships must be taken as
givens for the purposes of personal deliberation. Self-determination is
exercised within these social roles, rather than by standing outside
them.
The emptiness of the liberal self
Charles Taylor: Freedom or self-determination “cannot specify any content to our action outside of a situation which sets goals for us.” The quest for
self-determination leads to Nietzschean nihilism and arbitrariness.
If freedom of choice is intrinsically valuable, then the more we exercise our
capacity for choice, the more free we are, and hence the more valuable our lives are. This leads eventually to an existentialist despair.
If freedom of choice is intrinsically valuable, then the value we seek in our actions is freedom, not the value internal to the activity itself. But people clearly are
The absence of an independent self
Michael Sandel notes that we do not perceive ourselves as being
unencumbered, endowed with a self that is “given prior to its ends.”
We see ourselves as beings “thick with particular traits.” There is
no independent ‘me’ standing behind my desires and aims. There
is no ‘substrate’ lying ‘behind’ my ends.
Objection:The idea that the self is prior to its ends does not refer to
a metaphysical entity, but to the fact that examine and revise our
goals. I can always envisage my self without its present ends.
Practical reason as self-discovery
For communitarians, the question about the good life requires us to discover who we already are. The relevant question is not “What should I be, what sort of life should I lead?” but “Who am I?” The self ‘comes by’ its ends not ‘by choice’ but ‘by discovery.’ Communal values define our identity. We discover our attachments and commitments.
We can interpret our social roles, but we cannot reject them entirely.
Objection: Sandel admits that “the subject is empowered to participate in the constitution of its identity” and that “the bounds of the self [are] open and the identity of the subject [is] the product rather than the premise of its agency.”
