Communitarianism

Communitarianism represents a philosophical perspective that highlights the intrinsic link between individuals and their communities. This overarching philosophy posits that an individual's social identity and personality are primarily shaped by communal relationships, with individualistic development playing a lesser role.

While a community can refer to a family unit, communitarianism, in its broader philosophical interpretation, typically denotes a network of interactions among individuals residing in a specific geographical area or among those who share common interests or a collective history.

Within political philosophy, communitarians underscore the significance of the family and various intermediary civil society institutions, including religious organizations, charitable groups, and other voluntary associations. These are conceptualized as non-coercive social frameworks distinct from both state-imposed collectivism and radical individualism. In the European context, communitarian principles frequently align with Christian democratic movements, exemplified by prominent parties such as the German CDU, the Dutch CDA, and the Austrian ÖVP.

Terminology

Although the philosophical underpinnings of communitarianism emerged in the 20th century, the specific term "communitarian" was first introduced in 1841 by John Goodwyn Barmby, a prominent figure in the British Chartist movement. Barmby employed the term to describe utopian socialists and other idealists engaged in communal living experiments. Nevertheless, the broader term "communitarianism" did not achieve widespread recognition until the 1980s, largely due to its association with the writings of a select group of political philosophers. The designation "communitarian" proved contentious, even within the movement itself, primarily because, in Western societies, it often carries connotations of socialist and collectivist ideologies. Consequently, many public figures and academics who support this intellectual tradition tend to eschew the term "communitarian" while actively promoting its core tenets.

The term is predominantly employed in two distinct interpretations:

• Philosophical communitarianism critiques classical liberalism, asserting its ontological and epistemological incoherence. In contrast to classical liberalism, which posits communities as emerging from the voluntary actions of pre-social individuals, this perspective highlights the community's fundamental role in defining and molding individuals. Communitarians contend that liberal theories of justice inadequately acknowledge the intrinsic value of community.
• Ideological communitarianism is defined as a radical centrist ideology, occasionally featuring socially conservative and economically interventionist policies. This particular application of the term is of recent origin. When capitalized (Communitarianism), it typically denotes responsive communitarianism, a movement spearheaded by Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers.

Czech and Slovak philosophers, including Marek Hrubec, Lukáš Perný, and Luboš Blaha, broaden the scope of communitarianism to encompass social initiatives linked to the values and importance of community or collectivism, as well as diverse forms of communism and socialism (e.g., Christian, scientific, or utopian). These include:

• The historical foundations of collectivist endeavors, spanning from Plato to Karl Marx, encompassing figures such as François-Noël Babeuf, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen.
• Contemporary theoretical communitarianism, which emerged in the 1980s, as articulated by thinkers like Michael J. Sandel, Michael Walzer, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor.
  • Pro-liberal and pro-multicultural perspectives (e.g., Walzer, Taylor).
  • Anti-liberal and pro-national viewpoints (e.g., Sandel, MacIntyre).
• The conceptualization of practical, self-sustaining communities, as envisioned by Thomas More in Utopia and Tommaso Campanella in Civitas solis. This also encompasses their practical implementation by Christian Utopians (e.g., Jesuit Reductions) and utopian socialists such as Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. This category further includes diverse forms of cooperatives, self-help organizations, and communal living arrangements, exemplified by Hussite communities, The Diggers, Habans, Hutterites, Amish, Israeli kibbutzim, and Slavic communities. Specific contemporary examples include the Twelve Tribes communities, Tamera (Portugal), Marinaleda (Spain), the monastic state of Mount Athos, and the Catholic Worker Movement.

Origins

Despite the term "communitarian" emerging in the mid-nineteenth century, its underlying principles manifested considerably earlier. These concepts are evident in classical socialist doctrines, such as early commune writings and discussions of worker solidarity, and even earlier in the New Testament. Historically, communitarianism's origins can be traced to early monastic practices.

Several foundational sociologists incorporated significant communitarian perspectives into their scholarship. Ferdinand Tönnies, for instance, contrasted Gemeinschaft (characterized by oppressive yet nurturing communities) with Gesellschaft (representing liberating but impersonal societies). Similarly, Émile Durkheim investigated the integrative function of social values and the intricate relationship between individuals and society. Both scholars cautioned against the perils of anomie (a state of normlessness) and alienation prevalent in modern societies, which they perceived as comprising atomized individuals who, despite achieving liberty, had forfeited their social connections. From the 1960s onward, contemporary sociologists observed the emergence of mass society and a corresponding erosion of communal ties and reverence for traditional values and authority within the United States. Prominent figures addressing these concerns included Robert Nisbet in *Twilight of Authority*, Robert N. Bellah in Habits of the Heart, and Alan Ehrenhalt in *The Lost City: The Forgotten Virtues Of Community In America*. Robert Putnam's 2000 publication, *Bowling Alone*, meticulously documented the diminishing "social capital" and underscored the critical role of "bridging social capital," which fosters connections across disparate social demographics.

During the twentieth century, communitarianism also evolved into a distinct philosophical framework, notably through the efforts of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. An early publication in the Catholic Worker elucidated the dogma of the Mystical Body of Christ as the foundational principle for the movement's communitarian ideology. Furthermore, communitarianism exhibits conceptual parallels with Emmanuel Mounier's personalist philosophy.

In response to critiques regarding the perceived ambiguity or indefinability of the term "community," Amitai Etzioni, a prominent figure in the American communitarian movement, proposed a definition based on two distinct characteristics. First, he identified a network of emotionally charged relationships among individuals, which frequently intersect and mutually reinforce each other, contrasting with isolated or linear individual interactions. Second, he highlighted a collective commitment to shared values, norms, meanings, a common history, and a collective identity—essentially, a distinct culture. Additionally, author David E. Pearson contended that for a group to merit the designation "community," it must possess the capacity to exert moral influence and elicit a degree of conformity from its constituents. He asserted that communities are inherently coercive as well as moral, employing sanctions for non-compliance while offering stability and certainty to those who adhere to their principles.

The precise interpretation of "community" within the framework of communitarianism demonstrates considerable variability across different authors and historical epochs. Historically, communities were typically characterized by their small scale and localized nature. Nevertheless, with the expansion of economic and technological influences, larger communities became imperative for providing effective normative and political direction to these forces, leading to the emergence of national communities in 17th-century Europe. Since the late twentieth century, there has been increasing acknowledgment that even the scope of these national communities is insufficient, given that numerous contemporary global challenges—such as nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, and economic instability—transcend national boundaries. This realization has spurred the pursuit of more comprehensive community structures, exemplified by entities like the European Union. The ultimate viability of developing genuinely supra-national communities, however, remains an open question.

Contemporary communities can manifest in diverse forms, yet they often possess circumscribed scopes and influences. For instance, individuals frequently belong to multiple communities—e.g., residential, professional, ethnic, or religious groups. Consequently, modern community members derive affiliations from diverse sources, and should one affiliation become overly demanding, individuals may disengage and seek connection within another community. Therefore, communitarianism emerged as an intellectual response to challenges within Western societies, striving to establish adaptable equilibria between the individual and society, individual autonomy and communal interests, and the common good versus individual freedoms, rights, and duties.

Academic Communitarianism

While classical Enlightenment liberalism developed as a counter-response to centuries of authoritarianism, governmental oppression, intrusive communities, and inflexible dogma, contemporary communitarianism is often perceived as a reaction against excessive individualism, characterized by an overemphasis on individual rights that can foster self-centeredness or egocentrism.

Academic communitarians, including Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor, theoretically explored the intricate relationship between the individual and the community. Their critiques targeted philosophical liberalism, particularly the works of American liberal theorist John Rawls and German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. These scholars contended that modern liberalism inadequately addresses the intricate social interconnections inherent to all individuals in contemporary society. They asserted that liberalism's foundation rests upon an unsustainable ontology, which presupposes generic individuals and neglects the fundamental concept of social embeddedness. Instead, they posited that generic individuals do not exist; rather, identities are formed within specific, particularistic communities, such as Germans or Russians, Berliners or Muscovites. Given that individual identity is partially shaped by cultural and social relations, articulating individual rights or interests in isolation from social contexts becomes conceptually incoherent. Consequently, these communitarians argued against establishing a theory of justice based on principles derived from Rawls's veil of ignorance, asserting that individuals cannot exist in such an abstract state, even hypothetically.

Furthermore, academic communitarians assert that liberalism misinterprets the fundamental nature of political community. While liberal philosophers characterize the polity as a neutral regulatory framework accommodating diverse moral commitments, academic communitarians contend that this minimalist conception of political community is both empirically inaccurate and normatively hazardous. These scholars maintain that flourishing societies transcend mere neutral rules and procedures, instead relying on a robust, shared moral culture. Certain academic communitarians further emphasized the significance of particularistic values, proposing that these are the sole relevant values and that postulating truly universal moral values constitutes a philosophical fallacy.

Beyond Charles Taylor and Michael Sandel, other prominent thinkers frequently linked with academic communitarianism encompass Michael Walzer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Seyla Benhabib, Shlomo Avineri, and Patrick J. Deneen.

Social Capital

From the late 20th century onward, numerous scholars identified a decline in the social networks within the United States. In his seminal work, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam documented a widespread decrease in membership across nearly all forms of civic organizations. He illustrated this trend by noting that despite an increase in individual bowling participation since the 1950s, the number of bowling leagues had diminished.

This phenomenon leads to a reduction in "social capital," which Putnam defines as "the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other." Putnam and his adherents assert that social capital constitutes a crucial element for the establishment and preservation of democratic governance.

Communitarians endeavor to reinforce social capital and strengthen the institutions of civil society. The Responsive Communitarian Platform articulated this objective as follows:

Many societal objectives necessitate collaborative efforts between public and private entities. While governmental bodies should refrain from supplanting local communities, they may be required to bolster these communities through supportive strategies, such as revenue-sharing and technical aid. Significant research and experimental initiatives are crucial for innovatively leveraging civil society structures and fostering public-private cooperation, particularly in the provision of health, educational, and social services.

Positive Rights

A fundamental concept for certain proponents of communitarian philosophy is that of positive rights, which encompass entitlements or assurances to specific provisions. Such provisions can include state-funded education, subsidized housing, a secure and unpolluted environment, comprehensive healthcare, and even the right to employment, implying a corresponding duty for the government or individuals to facilitate it. Consequently, communitarians typically advocate for social security initiatives, public infrastructure projects, and legislation designed to mitigate issues like environmental pollution.

A frequent critique posits that the provision of positive rights by communitarians infringes upon citizens' negative rights—specifically, the right to not have actions imposed upon them. For instance, taxation levied to finance the aforementioned programs can be seen as divesting individuals of their property. Advocates of positive rights counter this by asserting that individuals possess no rights outside the context of society—a core principle of communitarianism—and therefore bear an obligation to contribute to it, attributing the safeguarding of negative rights to society rather than solely to the government. This perspective has been interpreted by some as a repudiation of natural rights. Nevertheless, the definition of what constitutes a "natural right" remains a subject of ongoing debate in contemporary politics, as it has been historically; for example, whether universal healthcare, private property, or protection from environmental polluters should be considered inherent entitlements.

Alternatively, some scholars acknowledge that governmental actions might infringe upon negative rights but contend that such infringements are justifiable if the positive rights secured demonstrably surpass the negative rights forfeited.

Furthermore, other communitarian thinkers challenge the fundamental concept of natural rights and their relevance within an optimally functioning community. They assert that, conversely, the proliferation of rights claims and entitlements fosters a society incapable of establishing robust cultural institutions and foundational social norms derived from collective values. Instead, the liberal emphasis on individual rights purportedly cultivates a morality rooted in individual emotivism, thereby precluding the resolution of ethical dilemmas through shared conceptions of the good. The concern articulated is that this process not only individualizes society but also fragments moral discourse itself.

The Responsive Communitarianism Movement

During the early 1990s, prompted by a perceived erosion of societal moral coherence attributed to rampant individualism, Amitai Etzioni and William A. Galston initiated a series of collaborative meetings. These gatherings aimed to develop communitarian frameworks for addressing critical societal challenges. This endeavor effectively transitioned communitarian philosophy from a niche academic discipline into the public sphere, simultaneously reconfiguring its core philosophical tenets.

To differentiate their movement from authoritarian communitarians, Etzioni and Galston adopted the designation "responsive communitarians." Alongside a diverse assembly of scholars, including Mary Ann Glendon, Thomas A. Spragens, James Fishkin, Benjamin Barber, Hans Joas, Philip Selznick, and Robert N. Bellah, they co-authored and disseminated The Responsive Communitarian Platform. This document articulated their collective political principles, and its concepts subsequently received extensive development in both scholarly and popular publications, thereby acquiring considerable political influence across Western nations. Etzioni subsequently established the Communitarian Network, dedicated to researching and advancing communitarian solutions to social problems, and commenced publication of a quarterly journal titled The Responsive Community.

The core tenet of responsive communitarianism asserts that individuals are subject to two primary normative influences: the common good, and autonomy and rights, with neither inherently superior to the other. This perspective diverges from other political and social philosophies that often derive their foundational assumptions from a single dominant principle, such as liberty or autonomy in libertarianism. Furthermore, it proposes that an optimal society is predicated on a meticulously constructed equilibrium among liberty and social order, individual rights and personal responsibility, and pluralistic and communally established values.

Responsive communitarianism prioritizes the significance of society and its institutions over the state and the market, which frequently constitute the central focus of alternative political philosophies. It additionally highlights the crucial function of socialization, moral culture, and informal social controls, contrasting these with state coercion or market-driven pressures. This framework offers an alternative to liberal individualism and serves as a significant counterpoint to authoritarian communitarianism, underscoring that robust rights necessitate commensurate responsibilities, and neither should be disregarded at the expense of the other.

Consistent with established sociological perspectives, communitarians posit that individual moral character is prone to deterioration over time unless consistently and communally reinforced. They argue that a primary role of the community, functioning as a foundational element of moral infrastructure, involves strengthening its members' character via the community's "moral voice." This "moral voice" is conceptualized as the informal social sanction exerted by others, embedded within a network of informal, emotionally resonant relationships fostered by communities.

Influence

Responsive communitarians have assumed a notable public profile, positioning themselves as originators of a distinct environmental movement focused on strengthening societal structures rather than solely preserving nature. Similar to environmentalism, communitarianism resonates with diverse political audiences, though its reception varies among different groups.

Despite being a relatively minor philosophical school, communitarianism has significantly impacted public discourse and political strategies. Notable parallels exist between communitarian thought and the Third Way, the political ideology of centrist Democrats in the United States, and the Neue Mitte in Germany. Communitarian principles were instrumental in Tony Blair's transformation of the British socialist Labour Party into "New Labour" and played a lesser, yet discernible, role in President Bill Clinton's electoral campaigns. Other political figures have articulated core communitarian themes, exemplified by Hillary Clinton's long-standing assertion that child-rearing requires not only parents, family, friends, and neighbors, but an entire "village."

Furthermore, it has been proposed that the compassionate conservatism advocated by President Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign represented a manifestation of conservative communitarian thought, despite its limited integration into his subsequent policy agenda. Associated policies encompassed financial and rhetorical backing for education, volunteer initiatives, and community programs, alongside a societal focus on fostering families, character education, traditional values, and faith-based endeavors.

President Barack Obama articulated communitarian concepts and aspirations in his publication The Audacity of Hope. During his 2008 presidential election campaign, he consistently urged Americans to "ground our politics in the notion of a common good," to embrace an "age of responsibility," and to transcend identity politics in favor of fostering community-wide unity. Nevertheless, for a considerable segment of the Western populace, the term "communitarian" evokes authoritarian and collectivist connotations. Consequently, numerous public figures—and even several academics recognized as proponents of this school of thought—opt to avoid the specific terminology while actively endorsing and promoting its underlying principles.

Given the prevailing liberal and conservative political landscape in the United States, overt advocacy for communitarianism is absent among major parties and most elected officials. Consequently, a consensus on specific policies remains elusive, although certain measures widely supported by communitarians have been implemented. Nevertheless, a minor communitarian faction exists within the Democratic Party, notably including figures such as Bob Casey Jr., Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill. A significant number of these communitarian Democrats are affiliated with the Blue Dog Coalition. The robust right-libertarian ideological foundations of the United States may have potentially inhibited the emergence of substantial communitarian factions.

Dana Milbank, in an article for The Washington Post, observed that contemporary communitarians lack a unified identity, stating, "There is still no such thing as a card-carrying communitarian, and therefore no consensus on policies." He further noted a divergence in approaches, with some, like John DiIulio and former Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, advocating for religious solutions, while others, such as Etzioni and Galston, favor secular methodologies.

In August 2011, Reason Magazine, a right-libertarian publication, collaborated with the Rupe organization to conduct a telephone survey of 1,200 Americans. The Reason-Rupe poll revealed that "Americans cannot easily be bundled into either the 'liberal' or 'conservative' groups." The survey indicated that 28% of respondents held conservative views, 24% expressed libertarian views, 20% identified with communitarian perspectives, and 28% articulated liberal viewpoints. The margin of error for this poll was ±3 percentage points.

A comparable Gallup survey conducted in 2011 incorporated options for centrist or moderate responses. This poll reported that 17% of participants expressed conservative views, 22% held libertarian views, 20% identified as communitarian, 17% adopted centrist positions, and 24% articulated liberal perspectives. Gallup characterized communitarianism using the phrase "the bigger the better."

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, established and led by Imran Khan, is recognized as the first political party globally to officially adopt communitarianism as one of its core ideologies.

Comparison with Other Political Philosophies

Initial critiques often equated early communitarians with social conservatives. Nevertheless, numerous contemporary communitarians, particularly those identifying as responsive communitarians, explicitly acknowledge and emphasize that their objective is not a reversion to traditional communities, which were characterized by authoritarian power structures, rigid social stratification, and discriminatory practices targeting minorities and women. Responsive communitarians endeavor to construct communities founded on principles of open participation, dialogue, and genuinely shared values. Linda McClain, a critic of communitarian thought, acknowledges this characteristic of responsive communitarians, noting that some communitarians "recognize the need for careful evaluation of what is good and bad about [any specific] tradition and the possibility of severing certain features . . . from others." Furthermore, R. Bruce Douglass states, "Unlike conservatives, communitarians are aware that the days when the issues we face as a society could be settled on the basis of the beliefs of a privileged segment of the population have long since passed."

A primary distinction between the communitarian and social conservative stances lies in the scope of their ideal "good society": while communitarianism extends into the private sphere, it aims to foster only a circumscribed set of core virtues through organically evolving values, rather than imposing an expansive or holistically normative agenda dictated by the state. For instance, American society generally favors religiosity over atheism, yet maintains a relative neutrality concerning an individual's specific religious affiliation. The state does not mandate dress codes, prescribe a "correct" number of children, or dictate residential locations. In essence, a fundamental characteristic of the ideal communitarian society is its capacity to forge shared conceptions of the good, in contrast to a liberal state, but the purview of this good is considerably more limited than that promoted by authoritarian regimes.

Criticism

Liberal theorists, including Simon Caney, contend that philosophical communitarianism offers no substantive critiques of liberalism. These theorists refute communitarian accusations that liberalism disregards the importance of community and espouses an "atomized" or asocial conception of the self.

Peter Sutch identifies the primary criticisms of communitarianism as follows:

1. Argues that communitarianism inherently results in moral relativism.
2. Posits that this relativism inevitably reinforces the existing international political order.
3. Contends that this stance is predicated on a discredited ontological argument asserting the fundamental primacy of the community or state.

Additional critics highlight the strong connection between communitarianism and neoliberalism, particularly regarding new policies that dismantle welfare state institutions through the expansion of the third sector.

Opponents

• Bruce Frohnen, author of The New Communitarians and the Crisis of Modern Liberalism (1996).
• Charles Arthur Willard, author of Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, published by University of Chicago Press in 1996.

Communitarian Political Parties

• American Solidarity Party (United States)
• Australian Progressives (Australia)
• Centre Party (Germany)
• Christian Democratic Party (Norway)
• Christian Democratic Union of Germany (Germany)
• Christian Union (Netherlands)
• Democratic Unionist Party (United Kingdom)
• European Social Democratic Party (Moldova)
• Fidesz (Hungary)
• Finns Party (Finland)
• Islamic Society Party (Afghanistan)
• Law and Justice (Poland)
• Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (Russia)
• Poland 2050 (Poland)
• Prohibition Party (United States)
• Social Democratic Party (Romania)
• Social Democratic Party (United Kingdom)
• Sovereign Poland (Poland)
• United Russia (Russia)
• Xiluva (South Africa)

Communitarian Philosophers

Early Theorists and Writers

Contemporary Theorists

Notes

Notes

Etzioni, Amitai. 1996. The New Golden Rule. Basic Books. ISBN 0465049990.

• Amitai Etzioni, 1996, The New Golden Rule, Basic Books ISBN 0465049990.
• Taylor, Charles. 1992. Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674824261.
• Bell, Daniel. 2000. East Meets West. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691005087.
• Kirp, David L. 2001. Almost Home: America's Love-Hate Relationship with Community. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691095175.
• Barzilai, Gad. 2003. Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-03079-8.
• Harris, Judith, and Donald Alexander. 1991. "Beyond Capitalism and Socialism: The Communitarian Alternative." Environments 21(2): 29–37.
• Sandel, Michael J. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521567416.
• Harwood, Sterling. 1996. Against MacIntyre's Relativistic Communitarianism. In Sterling Harwood, ed., *Business as Ethical and Business as Usual*. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Chapter 3. ISBN 0-534-54251-4 and ISBN 978-0-534-54251-1.

Bell, Daniel. "Communitarianism." In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054. OCLC 429049174.

• Bell, Daniel. "Communitarianism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054. OCLC 429049174.Slate, July 26, 1996.
• Civil Practices Network