Communitarianism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the importance of community in the functioning of political life, in the analysis and evaluation of political institutions, and in understanding human identity and well-being. It was developed in the 1980s and '90s in explicit opposition to the theoretical liberalism of thinkers such as John Rawls. According to communitarians, liberalism relies on a conception of the individual that is unrealistically atomistic and abstract; it also places too much importance on individual values such as freedom and autonomy. Indeed, liberalism is a philosophy or movement which aims at developing individual freedom. Today, liberalism has changed. Is this change a consequence of the communitarian critique? If so, what is the degree of efficiency? To my mind, effectiveness involves both the question of the theoretical coherence of the communitarian critique (I), and its concrete effects, if it is taken into account by the liberals to reformulate their arguments. (II)
I. The theoretical coherence of the communitarian critique of liberalism
A. Liberal principles are not sufficient to guarantee social justice
Liberal principles are too abstract and do not reflect the social justice. One of the precursors of the critique of liberalism was Burke, who explained: “I have never met a man but French, a German, Spanish…” Two main criticisms of this universalism are developed by communitarians: first of all, liberalism does not recognize differences; individuals are universal. On the contrary, for the Communitarians, there exists a right to have rights. Some rights should exist for some groups, as this is the only way to reduce inequalities. The Communitarians aim at real equality contrary to liberalism which aims at equality in the eyes of the law. Secondly, for communitarianism, organizing an effective redistribution is impossible if we do not share some common values, such as language. For instance, in Belgium, Flanders was fed up with paying for Wallonia.
[...] This utilitarianism reconsiders two justifications of penalty. The first is the justification of general rules: the legislator looks at the effects of action. It is utilitarian because he anticipates the future. The law is the same for all. Secondly, we have the justification of particular penalty. Judges uses the past to punish in a singular way. In a certain sense, this utilitarianism comes from communitarism and liberalism. Indeed, the general rules are linked to the liberal idea of equality in front of law. [...]
[...] The best solution seems to be to go beyond this mere dichotomy to find a compromise between both approaches: in that sense, the communitarian critique of liberalism is effective because it obliges the liberal one to integrate some of these principles A. The Communitarians are more effective in the sense they take reality more into consideration, BUT that does not mean that liberal principles have to be abandoned. Multiculturalism as a social fact leads to a reformulation of liberalism following some communitarian features. [...]
[...] As we have seen, the aim of the liberal culturalist conception is to conciliate communitarianism with liberalism. Rawls changed his liberalism too by integrating some communitarian features. C. Reformulation of Rawls' theory, taking into account the communitarian critique Fifteen years after his book “Theory of Justice” published in 1971, John Rawls wrote “Political liberalism”. In this book, Rawls also evokes principles of Justice but by dealing with different applications, considering the individual backgrounds. For him, justice does not exclude communities and associations. They are considered fundamental structures in order to ensure social justice. [...]
[...] The fact is that there exists a tendency to separate each culture. Some social norms are pre-eminent, and there is a dominant culture: “there is a dominant culture that incorporates most Americans”[5]. In order to further this theory, and to combat the problems quoted above, Kymlicka also developed the idea of a liberal culturalist conception, which takes care of individuals more than communitarianism, taking into consideration both dimensions more effectively. B. The “liberal culturalist” conception In the continuum of Kymlicka, according to the liberal culturalist conception, special rights need to be achieved without restricting individual freedom. [...]
[...] Bibliography John RAWLS, A theory of justice Alasdair MACINTYRE, After virtue Michael J. SANDEL, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice Will KYMLICKA, Multicultural citizenship, a liberal theory of minority rights John RAWLS, A theory of justice p Alasdair MACINTYRE, After virtue p Michael J. SANDEL, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice p Will KYMLICKA, Multicultural citizenship, a liberal theory of minority rights, chapter p Ibid, p John RAWLS, Political liberalism p. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
