Sandel's Formative Repulicanism - Its meaning and possible problems - Hun, Chung (Department ofPhilosophy, Seoul National University) 0. Introduction The purpose of this essay is to explain the meanings of Sandel's recent political theory, (which Sandel himself names as "formative republicanism"), and to address to the possible problems that this political theory might imply. In order to identify the correct location of Sandel's political theory within the range of contemporary political debate, I have attempted a comparative analysis and compared Sandel's political theory with some of the other theories of contemporary political philosophers in order to find possible similarities as well as dissimilarities. I think that this kind of comparative approach is conducive to understanding political theories, not only in the sense that it gives us a more clearer picture, by way of comparison, of the explicit contents of the political theory in question, but also in the sense that it provides us with possible means to interpret its implicit meanings as well. I hope that the approach I have adopted in this essay is helpful to the reader's understanding of Sandel's political theory . I must confess that I had no intentions to present my original thoughts when I was preparing this essay. Therefore, the vast majority of the essay is expository in nature. The main purpose of this essay is to describe and explain the meanings of Sandel's recent political theory, (which Sandel himself names as "formative republicanism"), by showing how it is similar 200 as well as dissimilar to other contemporary political theories by way of comparison and contrast. In this sense, I believe that this essay can works as a fairly good general survey of this particular area of study. Of course, the essay basically shows my Interpretation of Sandel's political theory, but only in the last part do I profess my own opinions in an attempt to criticize some aspects of Sandel's political theory. The first part of the essay titled "The Liberal-Communitarian Debate" is intended to provide the reader with a fair background from which Sandel's political theory has initially come about. It explains, in general, how the liberal theorists and the communitarian theorists differ in the interpretations of the main principles of society. The second part of the essay titled "Sandel's formative republicanism" explains the main points of Sandel's recent theoretical development contained in his most recent book: Democracy's Discontent-America in search of a public philosophy (1996, Harverd university press). It explains how Sandel's republican political theory differs from procedural liberalism, and how the element of political deliberation becomes a core element of republican political theory. The third part of the essay titled "Modern forms of deliberative democracy" looks into the theoretical models of modern deliberative theories of Harbermas, and Cohen, and explains how the democratic models that are defended by these theorists differ from Sandel's formative republicanism. The fourth part of the essay titled "Benjamin Barber's "Strong Democracy"" explains the main elements of Barber's republican political theory, and tries to show how it is similar to Sandel's formative republicanism. It also tries to show how Barber's discussions on political talk can be instructive in understanding Sandel's conception of political deliberation, which is composed of both arguments and narratives. The fifth part of the essay titled "Procedural Liberalism and Civic Republicanism: Friends, or Enemies?" introduces Kymlicka's insightful approach that aims to reconcile the tensions between procedural liberalism and civic republicanism, and to show how republican values can also be Sandel's Formative Repulicanism 201 accommodated on liberal grounds. The sixth part of the essay titled "Is Sandel's formative republicanism really non-exclusive and non-coercive?" discusses about some possible worries of exclusiveness and coerciveness within republican politic, and shows how Sandel tries to defend formative republicanism from such accusations, and why I personally think that Sandel's defense is inadequate. 1. The Liberai-Communitarian Debate In the last twenty years, there has been a revival of what is now commonly labeled as "communitarianism". The four distinguished proponents of this stance are Alasdair Macintyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Michael Sandel. These four people are the main characters who started an intensive discussion of what is now know as "the libera-communitarian debate". "The liberal- communitarian d~:;bate" has raged among contemporary political philosophers for several years and even made philosophers,of other field participate. In this essay, my primary interest is on Michael Sandel. But, before examining Sandel's political theory in detail, I think that it will be quite helpful to briefly summarize the main points of this "liberal-communitarian debate" first. Communitarianism is a label that has been given to a group of critics who expressed their dissatisfaction with contemporary liberalism. According to these critics, the individualistic approach of liberalism understates the values of community and the common good. Political philosophy should pay more attention to the shared practices and understanding within each society, and this in turn requires a modification of the principles of liberal political theory. The main focus of criticisms were on the foundational tenets of liberalism: such as the notion of state neutrality, the priority of justice among all existing values, the priority of 202 the right over the good, and the priority of the self to its ends. To this, communitarians contend that politics should not, in the name of neutrality and toleration, bracket out the moral and religious views of its citizens, but embrace those particular beliefs within political discourse, that justice is not. a primary value in all circumstances, that the question of right cannot be independently answered without answering the question of the good in advance, and that we are encumbered selves that are situated in antecedent moral ties which we could not have chosen antecedently. 1-1. Debates on "state neutrality" Liberalism basically holds that the state should be neutral towards the particular conception of good life. By imposing a particular conception of good life on its citizens, the state violates the individual autonomy of its citizens to choose the life goals they personally favor and fails to treat them as free and equal beings. In a pluralistic society, it is very likely that different people endorse different conceptions of the good due to their different historical and cultural backgrounds. Thus, enforcing one particular conception of the good to people who endorse a different conception of the good is manifestly state coercion and a violation of the individual's autonomy. According to Rawls, the principles of justice apply solely to the political domain, the domain which Rawls refers to as the basic structure of society, and given that citizens endorse the principles of justice, they are allowed to live by whatever comprehensive doctrines they favor.!) By contrast, communitarians object to the liberal notion of state neutrality. To them, people should be encouraged to live good and valuable lives, and the state or the local community should assume the role to guide its citizens. One typical example of this rather 'paternalistic' approach to I) Rawls, J., 'The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus', from Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy-an anthology (edited by Matravers and Pike), Routledge, 2003, pp.l?l-172. Sandel's Formative Repulicanism 203 politics is the regulation of pornography. Sandel implies that a local community can implement restrictions on pornography 'on the grounds that pornography offends its good way of life and the values that sustain it' .2l In short, to communitarians, 'the politics of neutrality' should give its way to 'the politics ofthe common good'. State neutrality is also deeply connected to the strict division between the public and the private. According to liberal theorists, the public sphere and the private sphere should be distinctly separated, and people should not· bring their particular views, whether it is religious or moral, within the public domain. By contrast, the communitarians try to dissolve the strict boundaries between the public and the private, and contend that not only bringing private moral views into the public arena enriches political discourse, but certain political issues, (such as the case of abortion3l), cannot be separated from one's particular moral view in the first place. 1-2. Debates on "the primacy of Justice" Another opposition to liberal politics that is closely related to the opposition to state neutrality is the communitarian objections to 'the primacy of justice'. To liberals, justice is not merely one important value among others. It is the standard, the yardstick, (in Rawls's term the 'Archimedean point'4l) by which all relevant values are to be assessed and evaluated. Justice sets limitary boundaries, which should be conformed and abided by all other values in question. To this, Sandel contends that the primacy of justice does not apply universally in all possible circumstances. Justice is a primary value only when certain circumstances of justice obtain; namely where there are scarcity of resources and conflicting claims about the division of social advantages emerge. 51 In these circumstances, it 21 Sandel, M. (ed.), Liberalism and its Crites, New York Univ. Press, 1984, p.6. 3) Sandel, M., Democracy's Discontent, Harvard, 1996, pp.20-21. 4) Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Harvard, 1971, p.260. 204 is necessary and important to secure one's fair share and guarantee the fair procedure of social distribution. However, according to Sandel, 'we can readily imagine a range of more intimate or solidaristic associations in which the values and aims of the participants coincide closely enough that the circumstances of justice prevail to a relatively small degree.