A Communitarian Critique
Liberals tend to view humans as free and equal and generally rational thus governments for the most part should respect this autonomy and not infringe upon people’s liberty. However, communitarians argue that humans are not isolated beings instead we are embedded in a society which shapes our own morals and identities. Our communities shape ourselves. This fundamental difference in belief opens the stage to a variety of criticisms that the communitarians may use against liberals
A critique developed by Michael Sandel towards Rawls’ original position is often viewed as a major weakness of Rawls’ contract. Rawls places people behind a thick veil of ignorance where people only have a thin theory of good and no idea about their future position in society. Sandel says that this presents an unencumbered self which is an individual who can step away from their duties and attachments. This is not accurate as real people’s beliefs and sense of good are altered by their family and connections. When you remove people’s connections and ties you fundamentally remove part of their identity which is important for making decisions.
However, Rawls can respond to this critique by emphasising the fact that the original position is a device of representation. Instead of truly forgetting your ties it is meant to remove any biases or pre-conceived notions that may impact decision making.
Get Prejeev Suhitharan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Liberal thinkers also tend to develop universal policies and beliefs. However, communitarians may argue that policies and rules should be context dependent as different societies have different history, institutions and traditions therefore it is near impossible to create rules that will apply to all these different communities that will also be fair and just. Walzer argued that different social goods should have different principles of distribution. For example, one may argue that money should be earned through economic transactions whereas jobs should be earned through talent and merit alone.
Liberals may attack this idea of different societies as they question how societies with unjust rules and traditions can be allowed to run. Since morality stems from community how can anyone from within the community then criticise the community if that is where their morality originates from.
Liberals also prioritise the right over the good as basic principles of justice cannot be sacrificed for greater happiness or economic gain, this is a neutral view as it ensures that one way of life doesn’t influence or sway rights or rules. Sandel criticises this view for being too neutral and argues it is not possible to govern without endorsing a way of life even by promoting rights and defending them the government secretly endorses the individual over the community as a way of life. Liberals argue that once the government prioritises the good it may lead to the coercion of people who hold differing views.
Overall, communitarians attack liberals through a number of perspectives mainly arguing that the community does indeed shape the individual so atomism cannot be justified. However, liberals argue that whilst this may be the case some communities can be terrible for example patriarchal societies and caste base societies. In these communities since the society is held above the individual people cannot speak up and defend themselves this leads to cycles of unending torment for the minority who are affected by this.
