Communitarianism Liberal Society Seeks Not

Communitarianism liberal society seeks not to impose a single way of life, but to leave its citizens as free as possible to choose their own values and ends, and it therefore must govern by principles of justice that do not presuppose any particular vision of the good life. The communitarian vision, on the other hand, is based on the philosophy that individual liberties depend upon the bolstering of the foundations of civil society: namely, our families, schools, and neighborhoods. It is only through these institutions that we acquire a sense of personal and civic responsibility, an appreciation of our rights and the rights of others, and a commitment to the welfare of the community and its members.

Central to the communitarian perspective is the belief that public policies should seek a balance between individual rights and the responsibilities of individuals to the society at large. This counters the liberal perspective which extols individual rights, while the communitarian sees individual rights as presuming personal and social responsibilities. Many Americans demand numerous rights while neglecting their responsibilities. Communitarian ideas have been offered by many theorists far from the American system, like Lenin in Russia, and by many Americans in a way that challenges accepted American principles, as does Robert Bork.

Bork, Lenin, and Anthony Giddens have at least one thing in common in that they all stress the value of what can be called a communitarian approach to politics. In addition, all three stress the importance of values, of shared ideas and principles, as social glue. At the same time, what seems to separate Giddens from the others is the fact that he allows for an open and pluralistic set of values that are not imposed on the culture. Communitarianism as a philosophy, or actually a group of related philosophies, dates from later in the twentieth century, though the contrast between the individual and society is much older than that, and the idea that social norms and r4ights should be emphasized over individual rights was certainly battled early in the twentieth century and is key to the clash between communism and capitalism throughout that century. Clearly, the Bolshevik ideas of Lenin and the rightist ideas of Robert Bork are very different in most details, but both men see a need to give more emphasis to society over the individual, though for different reasons and to different ends.

Anthony Giddens considers such issues at a time of change, noting the dimensions of modernity as we enter the period of post-modernity, and he finds that sociology will more and more shed the residue of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century thought as we move into this post-modern phase. He points out that Marxism essentially equates modernity with capitalism:

Capitalist institutions are believed to provide the dynamic of modern history, based upon the tendency of capitalist enterprise to be constantly in restless expansion worldwide. (Giddens 26-27)

Another set of theorists have reversed the Marxian position and find that rather than capitalism preceding industrialism, industrialism is the leading force molding modern institutions:

For them we live in industrial... societies; capitalism is merely a particular way of organizing industrialism, and one that was only of relatively short duration. (Giddens 27)

Giddens finds that modernity has been more complex than either position, for each has been marked by economic reductionism. He believes that the future of sociology will recognize the greater complexity involved than either position indicates, and he notes at least three other major parameters of modernity -- the development of administrative power, issues of military power and war, and the cultural dimension of modernity. Post-modernity as well will recognize this complexity and reject the economic reductionism of the past, which is what Giddens indicated above when referring specifically to the global dimension of thought that has come to be so prominent in the world capitalist system today:

Wrestling free from the frameworks of nineteenth-century social thought means abandoning the idea that a continuing critical encounter with Marxist thought somehow supplies the central focus of sociological concerns... The future of sociology will not be bound up with a preponderant concern with the organizing concepts of Marxist thought. (Giddens 29)

Symbolic interactionism is a theory of the individual while functionalism is a theory of structure. Efforts have been made to create some middle theory that brings the two together. Giddens is one who has proposed such a theory, one he calls Duality of Structure and which involves both structure and individual agency. When we ask about the structure of social practices, we are seeking to explain how structures are constituted through actions and how actions are constituted structurally at the same time. Giddens suggests that the global dimension of thought and action so prominent in the modern world capitalist system ought to shape theoretical discourse in profound ways.

He notes the dimensions of modernity as we enter the period of post-modernity, and he finds that sociology will more and more shed the residue of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century thought as we move into this post-modern phase.

Lenin represented a particular approach to change and modernity, notably in the political realm. The state is an example of rational closure. Various conditions of participation may be imparted. Closure and appropriated rights are the norm in a state situation, and participation may be dependent on the acquisition of an appropriated right. There are different levels of closure. Several reasons for closure are set forth on the basis of what closure provides: 1) the maintenance of quality, often combined with the interest in prestige and opportunities to enjoy honor and profit; 2) the contraction of advantages in relation to the consumption of needs; and 3) the growing scarcity of opportunities for acquisition. Lenin started with the Marxian perspective and then suggested a somewhat different view of the state as he offered his own Marxian perspective. Lenin saw a strict relationship between the stages of economic development and the types of state. He also saw the state as a product of class antagonisms, as a development when these class antagonisms are irreconcilable. The very existence of the state proves that class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled. The state is intended to assure order, but order has different meanings to different people. Marx saw the state as an organ of class domination. Petty-bourgeois politicians see order to mean the reconciliation of the classes and not the oppression of one class by another, proving that the petty-bourgeoisie does not understand the nature of the state or of class antagonisms.

Lenin's communitarianism was not strictly a function of his Marxist beliefs and derived from the nature of Muscovite Russia before that. The society inherited both aristocratic and democratic elements in which it was necessary that "the group took priority over the individual and the culture was marked by extreme conservatism, risk avoidance and a strong tendency to maintain stability. On the other hand, each individual was necessary for the survival of the group. Therefore the community had to strive to balance the interests of all its members" (Vlachoutsicos para. 1).

The spread of education and social mobility conflicted with the conservatism of the ruling classes, and this interaction produced a well-prepared and alienated revolutionary elite ready to lead the discontented peasantry and workers against the old order:

The flux and frustrations of Russian society in the half-century before the revolution made it a natural breeding ground for revolutionaries. A volatile combination soon existed: exploited workers, desperate peasants, and angry intellectuals. Only an ideology and an unbending government were needed to set off the explosion. The tsarist system supplied the latter and Karl Marx the former. (Thompson 4-5)

The modifications Lenin made to Marxism only increased the sense of the community as an entity with particular rights, while the individual was seen as having more responsibilities to the community.

Robert Bork is seen as a conservative judicial figure in America and so as quite far from Lenin in his thinking. Still, he has been identified as having a strong communitarian element in his writings, an element that comes out in his writings on the doctrine of original intent. Bork supports this doctrine as infusing proper judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bork not only explains original intent but insists that it is the only legitimate basis for making decisions based on the Constitution, and he further explains what intentionalism means: