From I to We: Rethinking Liberalism Through a Communitarian Point

I. Introduction:

The social doctrine that advocates for individual freedom is liberalism [1]. According to Maurice Cranston, “a liberal is a man who believes in liberty” [2]. This idea shows the significance of liberty for the advocates of liberalism. On the one hand, liberalism aims at protection of basic rights, on the other hand, being one of the main political ideologies of our period, liberalism requires justifications of the constraints on liberty [2]. For instance, “there must be justification in cases where citizens are required to practice self-restraints and, especially when they are required to submit to someone else’s authority” [2]. Historically, liberalism emerged in 17^th and 18^th centuries  together with democracy [1]. Despite the fact that both liberalism and democracy share the aim of limiting absolutist power, they represent distinct concepts and should not be perceived in the same way within the framework of political philosophy [3, p. 77]. To build liberalism democracy is a necessary condition. Liberalism, which centers on the emancipation of the individual from all forms of collective pressure, stands as an ideology opposed to collective consciousness.

Despite its strong emphasis on individual freedom and significant influence on modern socio-political thought, liberalism has also been the subject of considerable critique. One of the critiques is the communitarian critique. Briefly, the central idea of communitarianism is “community” [4]. According to communitarianism, “constitutive communities (or social relations) have an undoubtful role shaping human identities”. Although Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and Michael Walzer are considered key thinkers of this ideology, they never identified themselves as part of the communitarian movement; rather, the label “communitarians” was applied to them by others. Communitarian critique of liberalism mainly argues for the universalism, liberal description of self [5], the liberal conception of the community.

II. Claims on Universalism

Communitarians argue that universal claim of liberalism, particularly Rawl’s description of “original position” is abstract to evaluate justice [4]. Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor emphasized how moral and political judgments are dependent on the interpretive framework of communities, hence detachment from these contexts is nonsensical. Briefly, defining justice in abstract, universal terms disconnected from social context makes liberal theories politically irrelevant and philosophically incoherent. Brian Barry, as a liberal theorist, rejects communitarian critique. He argues that the principles of liberalism are universally valid ideals. In Justice as Impartiality (1995), while defending his ideas, his reasoning remains rooted in Western societies. This focus raises important questions about its universality.

In contrast to earlier communitarian thinkers, contemporary communitarians called “cosmopolitan critics” do not argue the complete replacement of universal human rights with particular, “tradition-sensitive” political language. Instead, they argued that liberals failed to make them truly universal.  A core set of human rights such as prohibitions against slavery, genocide, murder, torture became a part of customary international law. However, the debate is about how to address the gray area which includes “criminal law, family law, women’s rights and  rights of indigenous peoples and the attempt to universalize Western-style democratic practices” that the “minimal and universal moral code” [4] does not cover. To solve this problem, Charles Taylor proposed intercultural dialogue—an exchange where people from different traditions seek to understand each other’s “moral universe” [4]. However, a key challenge is that participants may struggle to set aside their own cultural values.

III. The Debate Over the Self

Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argue that liberalism is predicated on an excessively individualistic view of the self [5]. They particularly criticize Rawlsian liberalism for ignoring the importance of deep communal ties such as family connections and religious traditions, which are not easily put aside. The individual that by his will emancipated from all ties, customs, traditions is an absence of value in moral philosophy [6, p. 3]. It remains a mythical concept that does not reflect how people actually live and relate to one another [6, p. 3]. C. Taylor points out that “the agent that is free from all frameworks would be unable to have orientation in fundamentally important issues” [7, p. 49]. In his essay called Atomism, he also expressed a view against the liberal idea that “men are self-sufficient outside of society” [4]. He argues that men are not self-sufficient, “man is a social and even political animal’’.

While some liberal thinkers accept that most of human behaviors are governed by unchosen routines and habits, they maintain that liberal politics rightly emphasizes conditions for autonomy [4]. This notion emphasizes the importance of self-determination, allowing individuals to choose what they value. Communitarians argue that this version of liberal self is also morally wrong, since it implies moral outlook as a result of individual choice. Charles Taylor argues that our moral obligations are not self-invented, they emerge from  certain goods that are “higher, strongly evaluated”. The self that cannot do justice in regard to the moral outlook is an individual who independently creates his own moral outlook. MacIntyre claims that “we cannot define intentions without considering the settings that make those intentions understandable to both agents and others” [8, p. 36]. The term “settings” here refers to the practices, social relations and culture. From the liberal point of  view, the moral notion of best life is one where individuals freely choose. Communitarians are skeptical of the idea that choice alone gives value to our commitments.  If we choose the highest principle, then it would mean that unchosen attachments are inherently defective. Nonetheless, this idea is against our self-understanding. Michael Sandel maintains that attachments such as love for one’s parent or motherland are valuable, despite not being chosen. Questioning these attachments can even undermine them [9].

Liberals might say that the real issue is not desire for choice, but the possibility of it. Liberalism insists that individuals must be free to re-evaluate their values and goals, though this view faces challenges. Some values are central to one’s identity, and trying to put them aside can cause psychological damage. For example, psychoanalyst might argue that abandoning attachment to one’s mother can cause severe emotional harm. As a result, these challenges raise an important question: should all attachments be open to revision, as liberal thinkers claim?

Moreover, unlike the liberal idea of self, communitarian idea of self is that individuals have a significant interest in engaging in meaningful communal lives [4]. This view encourages maintaining communal ties that play a significant role in our sense of well-being. While communitarians do not necessarily reject the liberal notion that some communal attachments may need reform, they recognize that conflicts can arise between our commitments to community and our desire to live lives of our own choosing. In such cases, communitarians generally prioritize the former one. 

IV. Liberal Conception of Community

Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre argue that most modern liberal interpretations of community fail to acknowledge the central role it plays in shaping the moral lives of individuals. Liberal authors are also criticized by communitarians for not taking community as a necessary condition for human life. The authors of Habits of the Heart advocate that liberalism constrains our understanding of community that holds people together [6, p. 5]. The value of community and diverse forms of communes play a vital role for individuals to prosper and define their identities effectively. The diminishing sense of community is attributed to the rising prioritization by the liberals of individual autonomy and diverse lifestyles. Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre also criticize  Amy Gutmann’s view of “empty society of self-fulfillers” [5]. They say that such society is either impossible or, at the very least, overlooks the essential roles of community ties, and if one lived in accordance with Gutmann’s view, they would lose a sense of genuine humanity..  According to their view, Gutmann’s idea misrepresents the nature of community. Communitarians hold that diverse forms of constitutive communities play significant role shaping human identities. 

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over universalism versus particularism reveals the complex relationship between individual rights and communal values. The debate over self shows the liberals’ view of the self and communitarians’ contra-argument on this point that moral obligations, outlook are not self-invented. They claim that the self that can not do justice in regard to the moral outlook is an individual who independently creates his own moral outlook. Lastly, liberal conception of community is criticized by communitarians for ignoring, or even misrepresenting the main role of the community in the lives of individuals, identification of human’s identity.