What On Earth Is Communitarianism?

Communitarianism is creeping on to the political agenda. Many people have commented on the ‘communitarian’ tone of Tony Blair’s language, and of much of the content of the last Labour manifesto. David Willets, the Conservative MP for Havant, has made something of a stir by advancing the idea of ‘civic conservatism’, which has many ‘communitarian’ overtones. The problem in most peoples’ minds is - what on earth is it? The problem is that ‘communitarianism’ is in danger of becoming all things to all people: a general warm feeling that communities are a good thing, and that somehow they provide an antidote to the excessive individualism of the 1980s. In reality the argument is much more sophisticated than that, and needs to be addressed on a detailed level.

Let’s sketch in some principles behind the communitarian movement, which has indeed arisen, largely in America, as a reaction against the ‘libertarian’ and individualistic philosophies of those such as Ronald Reagan. Many British communitarians would aver that it is old wine in new bottles - that there is a fine tradition of communitarian thinking and action ranging from Robert Owens "ideal communities" in the early 19^th century, to the more recent writings of GDH Cole and Titmuss on the communitarianism of giving blood. But that is to bring a note of nationalism into the proceedings! Communitarians would stress the idea that people are not ‘citizens of nowhere’, that they are not, in the myriad of organisations, social groups, villages and towns simply individuals banding together, but are instead, fundamentally only able to develop their defining human characteristics in society. Society in a sense, creates humans: the idea of anyone being able to do or say anything outside its embrace is, literally, nonsense.

This view has far more profound consequences than simply to counter Mrs. Thatcher’s dictum that ‘there is no such thing as society’. If we believe this, then people are shaped by their associations, their communities and their cultures in an irrevocable way. People are, as it were, ‘embedded’ into their communities, and we bring our habits and our heritage to everything we as individuals do in society. Everyone is someone’s son or daughter, someone’s cousin, a resident of this or that town, a member of a club or a union, this clan, that tribe or this nation. We cannot avoid it

If this is so, then our political view of the world has to address it. What should the politics of the good life be about? Should we simply try and give opportunities to individuals to express themselves, or should we start from the fundamental political proposition that individuals cannot flourish unless communities are able to? If an individual is a member of a failing community, or is born into a community that is not working, or is isolated by work or social circumstances from his or her ‘embedded’ community, then, try as we might, we are likely to fail in our efforts to give that person the opportunity to flourish.

This view should guide our approach to the government of towns and villages, since a logical consequence of the argument is that identity arises by dialogue. We gain our identity and its development by a constant dialogue with others in our ‘embedded’ groups. How I behave to others, how I make allowances for the rights and privileges of my fellows, how I contribute towards maintaining my associational groups so that others may benefit are all products of this dialogue. Therefore, if our communities fail, we are in a downward political spiral. Individuals are divorced from giving back what has formed them: and if we look at the life of any of our big cities, there is much in the argument that we seem to be developing the kind of ‘no place’ society which results in isolated individuals with no sense of communal identity and responsibility.

The political imperative of all this is that we should as a first step of our approach nurture ‘place’ and association, since they are the stuff of the good life for individuals. Without them we all fail. This sets much of the libertarian argument into context: of course we should all have carefully protected civil liberties; but if they are not buttressed by strong community values and responsibilities they are meaningless.

There is, of course, a downside to the argument. There is a real debate going on within the communitarian movement on two counts. Firstly, are we introducing a new authoritarianism in the name of community? Are we ushering in a world of curtain-twitchers? To some extent, this is not a key issue. Undoubtedly, we do need more people to apply the kind of peer pressure that makes communities tolerable. There are things it is never reasonable to grant people as ‘rights’ if they are to enjoy the luxury of being supported in countless invisible ways by a strong community. But equally, a healthy community will only work if it is tolerant. Communitarians talk of ‘inclusive’ communities. The idea that a community built on intolerance of race or personal difference, for example will not succeed because it will be at odds with the hierarchy of community that gives it life. It will set communities against each other rather than include them in the wider society that they need to work.

Secondly, some communitarians claim that the philosophy is neither left nor right: conservatives and socialists alike can support (or oppose) communitarian values. MY view is that the economic agenda is important. Agency to participate in community life is vital. If you have no home, no food and no work, you are denied the agency of participation, and such communal ‘bads’ are just as destructive of the health of the community as the other ills already mentioned. Similarly, the idea that communities can survive the unlimited accumulation of a few people is suspect: the ability of a few to purchase the labour, property and lives of the many and thereby impose patterns of life on a community seems to run counter to the whole notion of reciprocity inherent in communitarianism. One has to be reasonably redistributionist to be a communitarian.

So…its more complex than it looks, But in my view, communitarian values should lie at the heart of any project to revive our society. We have an immense job to repair the damage done by the ‘no place’ society and by the excessive libertarianism of the 1980s. The principles set out here , however distilled will be of value in that task.

 ends