Bell (2014) asserted that liberalism is a political philosophy that mainly asserts the need to protect the freedom of an individual. Liberals primary hold that the role of the government is to protect people from being harmed by others. It also remains cognizant of the fact that the government remains a viable threat to human liberty as put forth by an American pamphleteer known as Thomas Paine, who noted that at best, the government can be a "necessary evil." The police, laws, and judges, in essence, are supposed to ensure that an individual's liberty included that of life are preserved. Communitarianism, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of community in the political life. It further asserts the value of community in various tenets such as political institutions, human dignity, and their well-being. Communitarianism began majorly in the 1980s as a critique of liberalism which protects individual autonomy and personal liberty. Historically, proponents of communitarianism and liberalism have usually criticized each other leading to polarizing views on the essence of politics and governance ( Sage, 2012). Communitarians have remained critical about the excessive atomism and individualism proposed by the liberalists. They have accused them of ignoring the importance of communities, thereby making the conflict difficult to resolve in the near future.
Communitarians have always received backing from other social groups such as feminists and socialists for their emphasis on communities as the basis of political action. Communitarianism focuses on how people are arranged, situated, or embedded within the social roles and community relationships. They heavily criticize liberalism and term it as a misguided approach that aims at promoting autonomy and self-dignity which therefore undermine the communities and associations that nurture human flourishing. As a result, communitarians and liberalists primarily differ on the principle of governance and how the government should view the society. However, it is also helpful to determine the premise of liberalism to understand why they sharply differed with the philosophy of the communitarianism. The ideas and assertions were a reaction to oppressive governance, authoritarianism, rigid dogma, and overbearing communities. Although these are essential tenets that every good politics should seek to address, communitarians sharply differ. They, in turn, view it as excessive individualism and an unnecessary emphasis on individual rights that has a potential of causing people to behave in a selfish and egocentric way. Resolving these two philosophies would require a profound paradigm shift that seeks to enhance coexistence between the thoughts of individualism and communism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Philosophically, communitarianism sees liberalism as epistemologically and ontologically incoherent. Liberalists and communitarianism have differing perceptions on the essence of the community that seems challenging to harmonize ( Sage, 2012). Liberalists hold that communities should originate only as a result of the voluntary decisions of individuals willing to form them. However, communitarians assert the essence of communities in shaping societies and individuals. They further note that the value of the community is not adequately appreciated by the liberalists. Therefore, for the conflict to be resolved, the liberalists will have to recognize the position of communities in essential tenets of the society such as politics and governance, something which would be difficult to achieve. America is an example of a society that firmly believes in liberalism. Bell (2014) emphasized that Americans use this political philosophy to advocate for individual rights such as freedom of the press, press, and religion among other unalienable rights. Modern liberalists in the nation have gone to an extent in advocating for additional personal rights that include women rights, same-sex marriages, and other civil rights. Advocates of communitarianism in America, on the other hand, feel that it continues to create an unequal society that promotes individualism and capitalism. They also intimate that it can threaten democracy once resources are only left for a few individuals with the means.
An example of a politician who has in his career attempted to resolve the differences between liberalism and communitarianism with minimal success was former President Barack Obama. Many described him as "liberal-leaning, moderate, and pragmatic communitarian." Although he has always believed in a hands-free government that allows its citizens to enjoy all their constitutional rights, he also appeared to lean on the side of communitarianism especially in 2011 after the skyrocketing of the national debt ( De Jasay, 2014). He realized that it was always going to be difficult to succeed as a president if he did not emphasize equality and common good for all. Obama signified a leader who struggled to assert himself as either a liberalist or a communitarian and this only overemphasizes the difficulty in resolving the two political philosophies. In the end, he was primarily seen as a communitarian who assumed deliberative politics that stress on common good that seeks to build communities and good societies. As a community organizer, he focused on pragmatic engagement, identity, and civil society. The difficulty seen in former US president Obama signifies that a deep conflict continues to exist between these two ideologies, something that will take many more years to achieve a full resolution.
Assessing the difficulties in merging these two political ideologies call for the analysis of what the famous philosophers hold. Nozick, for instance, a Right liberalist argued that the government should limit its power to ensuring that people maintained their ownership of property and should further oversee the maintenance of an individual property. He further criticizes Rawl's discussion on redistribution of justice and wealth by noting that any person who owns something should not be regarded responsible for the welfare of other people ( Eriksen, Stjernfelt, & Stjernfelt, 2012). As such, if property ends up in the hands of an individual, they should not be overtaxed for that. He further asserts that compelling people to redistribute their wealth is equal to a violation of their rights. Philosophers such as Charles Taylor, Alasdair Macintyre, and Michael Sandel criticize this position by stressing on social institutions as the precursor for the development of individuals and societies. They also believe in the redistribution of wealth as a measure of enhancing equality in the society. The discussion of redistributive justice and wealth makes even the debate sharper, especially given the fact that many people adopt a capitalist approach as the means of production.
The German Constitution primarily draws from the communitarianism political ideology. It calls for community action in solving some of the most significant social problems affecting the society including hatred and racism. It further advocates for a community life that immensely focuses on recognition, integration, and emotional support. Philosophers such as Charles Taylor have attempted to introduce the way of thinking into the United States with minimal success. Furthermore, Germany has also failed to impart its communitarian systems into the public as seen by the widespread racism and other social injustices that continue to happen in the society ( Etzioni, 2014). As capitalist nations, citizens are only concerned with a personal satisfaction which translates into the enrichment of a particular group of people and poverty to a larger group. Such a depiction only means that it is extensively difficult to reconcile these two ideologies and only one can exist at a time. America at the moment is in attempting to integrate both these two ideologies. In fulfilling communitarianism, it seeks to assert equality through equal education opportunities, infrastructure, transportation, and even health. However, equality in these sectors continues to remain a distant reality. Powerful modern liberalists continue to intimate that economic freedom should precede equality. They further note that provision of general welfare should not be regarded as a legitimate function of the government.
The war between liberalists and communitarians is between the individual and the community. Solving the conflict will require a redefinition of these two essential terms which practically seem impossible. Taylor and Sandel amongst other communitarianism criticize liberalism as an ideology that attempts to put human beings outside the community or social institutions that exist. They further claim that people should not be regarded as entities but rather as groups such as Germans, Christians, and Russians etc. Communitarians such as Taylor emphasize that individual identity is not fully constituted and therefore, it would be foolhardy to create individual freedoms and ignoring the value of people within their social domains ( Etzioni, 2014). Liberalists represent the modern world where people value their privacy and freedom to do what they deem fit within their individual context. They note that building communities only limits rights because people would be required to act in a certain general way. Liberalists call for limiting in the authority of the government and the creation of an atmosphere where people will exercise their rights and responsibilities with minimal interference. Therefore, this makes the two ideologies difficult to reconcile due to the emphasis on individuals and communities respectively.
In conclusion, when discussing politics and governance, people can almost sharply be divided into liberalists or communitarians. Liberalists focus on individual rights and limiting government authority on people. Communitarianism deals with the organization of people in the community setting for a common good. The two ideologies have critiqued each other for many years, and the conflict seems endless especially with modern liberalists calling for more personal rights and privacy. In an ideal situation, however, blending the two would result in a perfect society that respects the position of a person and the society.
References
Bell, D. (2014). What is liberalism? Political Theory , 42 (6), 682-715.
De Jasay, A. (2014). Against Politics: On government, anarchy and order . Routledge.
Eriksen, J. M., Stjernfelt, F., & Stjernfelt, F. (2012). The democratic contradictions of multiculturalism . Telos Press Pub.
Etzioni, A. (2014). Communitarianism. The Encyclopedia of Political Thought , 620-625.
Sage, D. (2012). A challenge to liberalism? The communitarianism of the Big Society and Blue Labor. Critical social policy , 32 (3), 365-382.
