sign in sign up
<<
Home , Amitai Etzioni, Communitarianism, Michael Sandel

normativity, without either one a priori privileged. Academic Communitarianism Communitarianism is a social that, in contrast to theories that emphasize the The communitarian theory of the self emerged centrality of the , emphasizes the largely as a critical reaction to – importance of in articulating the good. especially ’s seminal liberal text, Communitarianism is often contrasted with A Theory of (Rawls 1971 ). In that liberalism, a theory which holds that each work, Rawls formulated a concept of justice individual should formulate the good on his or based upon the inviolable of , her own. Communitarians examine the ways declaring that “each person possesses an invio- shared conceptions of the good are formed, lability founded on justice that even the wel- transmitted, justified, and enforced. Hence, fare of society as a whole cannot override” their interest in (and moral dia- (Rawls 1971 : 3). logues within them), the historical transmis- According to Rawls’s communitarian critics, sion of values and mores, and the societal units the liberal portrayal of the self depicts an that transmit and enforce values – such as the autonomous creature who – outside of a , schools, and voluntary associations formative social context – weighs various (including places of worship), which are all values and goods and exercises her by parts of communities. freely choosing among them. Communitarians Although the term “communitarian” was argue that this liberal conception, with its coined only in the mid-nineteenth century, heavy emphasis on choice and autonomy, ideas that are communitarian in nature can be ignores the crucial fact that individuals are found in the Old and New Testaments, Catholic “embedded” in , finding themselves theology (e.g., emphasis on the church as affected by external forces that influence their , and more recently on ), ultimate decision. has thus Fabian and socialist doctrine (e.g., writings observed that about the early commune and about workers’ ), and the writings of . the weakness of the liberal conception of free- dom is bound up with its appeal. If we under- In recent decades, there have been two stand ourselves as free and independent selves, major waves of communitarianism: the unbound by moral ties we haven’t chosen, we academic communitarianism of the 1980s, can’t make sense of a range of moral and and the responsive communitarianism of the political obligations that we commonly recog- 1990s. The academic communitarians of the nize, even prize. (Sandel 2009 : 220) 1980s were a small group of political theorists Among these, Sandel argues, are solidarity, concerned with outlining the “social loyalty, historic memory, and religious faith. dimension” of the person. Responsive com- People feel the force of these moral ties without munitarians, also called political or neocom- choosing to be pressured and shaped by them. munitarians, were a group of scholars and Charles Taylor expounded on that view in an policy-makers who, in the 1990s, stressed that essay called “Atomism,” in which he wrote that societies cannot be based on one normative principle, and that both individual rights and the free individual of the West is only what he is the common good are major sources of by of the whole society and civilization

The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, First Edition. Edited by Michael T. Gibbons. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0184 2

which brought him to be and which nourishes rights all individuals command, the focus of him … all this creates a significant obligation to liberalism. Responsive communitarians offered belong for whoever would affirm the value of a “new golden rule”: “Respect and uphold soci- this freedom; this includes all those who want to ety’s moral order as you would have society assert rights either to this freedom or for its respect and uphold your autonomy to live a full sake. (Taylor 1985 : 206, emphasis added) life” (Etzioni 1996 : xviii). Some scholars argue that the liberal vision is Responsive communitarians argue that the not atomized, and the initial conflict between preservation of the social bonds is essential for liberals and communitarians has been over- the flourishing of individuals and of societies. stated or misconceived (Bell 2010 ). Simon This led to their view that states should “sus- Caney, for instance, notes Rawls’s contention tain and promote the social attachments cru- that “the theory of a well-ordered society cial to our sense of well-being and respect, stresses that the interests and ends of individ- many of which have been involuntarily picked uals depend upon existing institutions” (Rawls up during the course of our upbringing” (Bell 1975: 547, quoted in Caney 1992 : 279). Caney 2010 ). For liberals, this idea is treated as if it also points out that Rawls, despite his emphasis requires the state to determine the good and on autonomy, is not hostile to the notion of an then direct its laws toward promoting that embedded self, citing Rawls’s insight that “Only good, which is considered a grievous error. in the social union is the individual complete” Liberals argue that citizens may fundamentally (Rawls 1971 : 525, quoted in Caney 1992 : 279). disagree about what the good is, and so Indeed, as Caney concludes, “many liberals attempts by the state to pursue a specific good explicitly endorse the embeddedness thesis” limit the freedom of those citizens who (1992: 277). has similarly disagree. Better, liberals argue, to have the state affirmed this “liberal communitarianism” (or remain neutral among various competing “communitarian liberalism”) (Selznick 1994 : teleologies. 16). While there may have been disputes at the Communitarians counter that such a posi- margins between strong communitarians and tion conflates the concepts of state and society strong liberals (or libertarians), most liberals (or community). The underlying reason is that, did not deny the formative role of commu- from a strict liberal viewpoint, social pressures nities, even if they continued to prize choice as (which can lead people who violate the norms – a normative good and tended to value freedom “deviants” – to be ostracized), as well as state over community (Bell 2010 ). coercions, both violate individual freedoms. Communities, critics write, use their moral voice to oppress people, are authoritarian by Responsive Communitarians nature, and pressure people to conform. A second wave of communitarianism was However, from a communitarian viewpoint, launched in 1990 in response to the increased informal social controls are vastly superior to atomization of western societies, especially the state coercion, because they ultimately leave USA and Britain in the Reagan and Thatcher the choice of violating social norms up to the years (documented by scholars such as Robert individual, letting her determine whether or Bellah). not she is willing to pay the social costs – as all Attempting to counter this trend, a group innovators and social change leaders have – or calling itself “responsive communitarians,” conform. In contrast, state coercion pre-empts founded by Amitai Etzioni with William A. such a choice, as one sees in all oppressive Galston, called for a balance between liberty regimes. and social order, arguing that individuals faced A comparison of the great success of public responsibilities for their , communities, smoking bans to the grand failure of Prohibition and societies – above and beyond the universal in the USA is revealing. The former relied 3 heavily on new shared norms and on informal Old communities (e.g., traditional villages, communal controls, while the latter relied on tribes, and clans) were geographically bounded the state to enforce a law not based on widely and the only communities of which people shared values. Given that some behaviors must were members. In contrast, new communities be ordered in all societies, the best one can are often limited in scope and reach. Members hope for is a world in which these behaviors are of one residential community are often also largely promoted and enforced by informal members of other communities – for example social processes, with the state acting only to work, ethnic, or religious ones. As a result, enforce these norms at the margins, in order to community members have multiple sources of keep the communal consensus from fraying. attachments and, if one threatens to become (At the same time, the norms themselves are overwhelming, individuals will tend to pull constantly recast by various changes in the back and turn to another community for their communal composition.) attachments. This multicommunity member- Hence, responsive communitarians pay ship protects the individuals from both moral special attention to social institutions, which oppression and ostracism. However, incon- form the moral infrastructure of society: gruity between the values of a person’s multiple families, schools, communities, and the communities may substantially weaken the community of communities. Through families moral voice; thus the importance of the next and schools, societies impart the community’s level moral community. shared norms and values onto its new mem- In short, the moral voice is most power- bers. Those members are free to accept or ful when people are members of only one reject those norms and either embrace or leave community, and it can be overwhelming in the community, but the community has a role such cases. It is more moderated when individ- in inculcating them. uals are members of several communities, but Critics of communitarianism charged that it still suffices to undergird the needed social this approach is hostile toward individual rights order, as long as the various members share at and autonomy – even that it is authoritarian. least some core values. Derek Phillips, for instance, remarks, commu- For the same basic reason it is a valid criti- nitarian thinking … obliterates individual cism to argue that a total and monolithic autonomy entirely and dissolves the self into community can drive people to conformism, if whatever roles are imposed by one’s position in this means that such a community will push society” (1993: 183). Other critics argue that people to sacrifice large parts of their individual communities are dominated by power elites or differences in order to follow shared values. that one group within a community will force But total communities are rare in modern soci- others to abide by its values. eties, while multicommunity attachments are It is true that communitarians, in casting much more common. In other words, it is doubt on the desirability of a polity composed likely misguided to worry about of atomized choosers, harbor an impulse in the modern context. toward shared values and consensus building. Furthermore, dominance by power elites Yet responsive communitarians do not favor and other forms of are not rolling back individual rights, but rather, paral- basic or inherent features of community, but leling them with concerns for the common reflections of the way it has been distorted. To good and the discharge of social responsibil- be fully or even highly communitarian, com- ities. They further counter that behind many of munities require authentic commitment of these criticisms lies an image of old, or total, most – if not all – of their members to a of communities, which are neither typical of core values. To attain such a commitment, the modern society nor necessary for, nor compat- values that are being fostered need to be truly ible with, a communitarian society. accepted by the members and responsive to 4 their underlying needs. If some members of the community, nor even a satisfactory definition society are excluded from the moral dialogue, of what community is” (in Bell & Newby 1974 : or are manipulated into abiding by the moral xliii) and suggests that the term be completely voice, or if their true needs are ignored, they avoided. will eventually react to the community’s lack of In response, Amitai Etzioni has argued that responsiveness in an antisocial manner. In community can be defined with reasonable short, communities can be distorted by those precision. Community has two characteristics: in power, but then their moral order will be first, a web of affect-laden relationships among diminished, and they will either have to a group of individuals, relationships that often become more responsive to their members’ crisscross and reinforce one another (as true needs or transform into some other non- opposed to one-on-one or chain-like individual communitarian social pattern. relationships); and second, a measure of com- Still other critics have accused communitar- mitment to a set of shared values, norms, and ians not merely of overlooking the less attrac- meanings, and a shared history and identity – tive features of traditional communities, but of in short, a particular culture. longing to revive these features. According to These cultures change over time through a Michael Taves, the communitarian vision con- process of moral dialogue, which occurs when a cerns itself mostly with “reclaiming a reliance group of people engage in a process of sorting on traditional values and all that entails with the values that will guide their lives. Such dia- regard to the family, sexual relations, , logues are distinct from the deliberative ideal and the rejection of secularism” (Taves 1988 : that is found in many discussions of . 7–8). Amy Gutmann pointedly remarks that That model assumes that citizens can debate communitarians “want us to live in Salem” controversial matters in a logical and rational (Gutmann 1985 : 319), a community of strong way, without letting their emotions dominate. shared values that went so far as to accuse non- This precept tends to downplay nonrational but conformist members of witchcraft during the still valid considerations, such as ethical or reli- seventeenth century. Early communitarians gious deliberations. (It may also overstate citi- might be charged with being, in effect, social zens’ ability to analyze complex public matters.) conservatives, if not authoritarians; however, Communitarians recognize that although there is no necessary link here. In fact, respon- moral dialogues take place constantly in well- sive communitarians do not seek to return to formed societies – which most are – traditional communities, with their authori- and frequently result in the affirmation of a new tarian power structure, rigid stratification, and direction, this generally occurs only after discriminatory practices against minorities prolonged and often difficult discourse. and women. Responsive communitarians seek Finally, communitarians have noted that to build communities based on open participa- communities need to be embedded socially tion, dialogue, and truly shared values. Linda and morally in more encompassing entities if McClain, although a critic, nonetheless recog- violent conflict among them is to be avoided. nizes this feature of the responsive communi- Society should not be viewed as composed of tarians, writing that some communitarians do millions of individuals, but as pluralism (of “recognize the need for careful evaluation of communities) within unity (the society). The what is good and bad about [any specific] tra- of subcultures and dissent does not dition and the possibility of severing certain undermine societal unity as long as there is a features … from others” (McClain 1994 : 1030). core of shared values and institutions. Several critics argue that the concept of community is of questionable value because it SEE ALSO: Burke, Edmund (1729–97) ; is so ill defined. Thus, Margaret Stacey argues Community ; Fabianism ; Liberalism ; Rawls, John that, “There has never been a theory of (1921–2002) ; Taylor, Charles (1931–) 5

References Taylor , C. ( 1985 ) “ Atomism .” In C. Taylor , Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Bell , C. and Newby , H. (1974 ) The of Papers 2. Cambridge : Cambridge University Community: A Selection of Readings. London : Press . Frank Cass . Bell , D. A. (2010 ) “Communitarianism .” In Edward Further Reading N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ Bell , D. A. ( 1993 ) Communitarianism and Its fall2010/entries/communitarianism (accessed Critics . Oxford : . December 4, 2013). Bellah , R. , Madsen , R. , Sullivan , W. , et al. ( 1985 ) Caney , S. ( 1992 ) “ Liberalism and Habits of the Heart: and Communitarianism: A Misconceived Debate ,” Commitment in American Life. Berkeley : Political Studies 40 ( 2 ), 273 – 89 . University of California Press . Etzioni , A. ( 1996 ) The New Golden Rule: Etzioni , A. ( 1994 ) The Spirit of Community: The Community and in a Democratic Society . Reinvention of American Society. New York: New York : Basic Books . Touchstone . Gutmann , A. ( 1985 ) “ Communitarian Critics of Etzioni , A. ( 1999 ) The Limits of . New York: Liberalism,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 ( 3 ), Basic Books . 308 – 22 . Galston , W. ( 1991 ) Liberal Purposes: Goods, , McClain , L. C. ( 1994 ) “ Rights and Irresponsibility ,” and Diversity in the Liberal State . Cambridge : Duke Law Journal , 43 ( 5 ), 989 – 1088 . Cambridge University Press . Phillips , D. L. (1993 ) Looking Backward: A Critical MacIntyre , A. (1981 ) : A Study in Moral Appraisal of Communitarian Thought. Princeton, Theory . Notre Dame, IN : University of Notre NJ: Princeton University Press. Dame Press . Rawls , J. ( 1971 ) . Cambridge, Putnam , R. ( 2000 ) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and MA : Belknap Press of Press . Revival of Community in America. New York: Sandel , M. (2009 ) Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Simon & Schuster. Do? New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux . Sandel , M. (1998 ) Liberalism and the Limits of Selznick , P. (1994 ) “Foundations of Communitarian Justice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Liberalism,” The Responsive Community 4 ( 4 ), Press . 16 – 28 . Selznick , P. ( 2002 ) The Communitarian . Taves , M. ( 1988 ) “ Roundtable on Washington, DC : Woodrow Wilson Center Communitarianism ,” Telos , 76 , 2 – 32 . Press .