How effective is the communitarian critique of liberalism? Use Rawls, Sendel and McIntyre to organise your arguments

Résumé du document

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.

Extraits

[...] The Communitarians aim at real equality contrary to liberalism which aims at equality towards law. Secondly, for communitarianism, there is an impossibility to organize an effective redistribution if we do not share some common values, such as language. For instance, in Belgium, Flanders is fed up with paying for Wallonia. We saw that liberalism makes no differences between individuals. Furthermore, liberalism makes no complete citizens according to communautarism which defines citizenship as an active one. B. Liberal principles are not able to fulfil criteria of a full citizenship To have an effective citizenship, two dimensions are necessary: to begin with, citizenship as legal status, carrying a set of rights and duties. [...]

[...] In fact, there is no perfect model of social justice. Even mixing both is not a perfect solution as limits of Multiculturalism proves it (imposition of some social norms in practice.) Each country has to find its own model, like the Canada with its Constitution of 1982. 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. [...]

[...] To have an effective participation of citizens, we need to feel that we belong to a community, because communities make great links between citizens. The liberal conception of citizenship would be too abstract to link people; the solution is sharing a common interest, a common identity, culture, history and language. For communitarianism, the participation of a public sphere is very tremendous. Beyond the theoretical criticisms from communitarians to libertarians, we see that a deep separation exists between the conception of justice, and that gap is inefficient to resolve some legal issues. C. [...]

[...] However, we have to restrict the gap between the liberal and communitarian vision of justice, in order to face moral issues. In fact, according to Sandel, a doctrine moral is needed to take a good decision of justice. For instance, in terms of abortion, States can not stay neutral to take a decision; it has to take into account a moral dimension. For slavery, in order to forbid it, States have to debate about morality. The Communitarian approach consists in linking people, and so it should be a primary and necessary unit to participate to the public sphere contrary to the abstract links between citizens and States. [...]

[...] On the contrary, for communitarianism, we should consider Good, even Moral, Religion when we take a decision of justice. For him, moral priority consists in the fact that the principles of justice limit the conceptions of the good individuals may choose to pursue”[3]. It cannot be reduced to a process of deliberation under the veil of ignorance, as if nothing were given previously. For communitarianism, the veil of ignorance which characterises the liberal justice of Rawls does not lead to a real debate, because a debate is founded on differences of points of view. [...]