The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism Author(s): Michael Walzer Reviewed work(s): Source: Political Theory, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 6-23 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191477 . Accessed: 24/08/2012 12:14 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
THE COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM MICHAEL WALZER Institute forAdvancedStudy
1.
Intellectual fashions arenotoriously short-lived, verymuchlikefashions in popularmusic,art,or dress.But thereare certainfashionsthatseem Likepleatedtrousers regularly toreappear. orshortskirts, theyareinconstant - inthiscase, ofa largerandmoresteadilyprevailing features phenomenon a certain wayofdressing. Theyhavebriefbutrecurrent lives;we knowtheir in and excepttheirreturn. transience Needlessto say,thereis no afterlife whichtrousers will be permanently pleatedor skirtsforever short.Recurrenceis all. itoperatesat a muchhigherlevel(an infinitely Although higherlevel?) ofcultural is likethe significance, thecommunitarian critiqueofliberalism pleatingof trousers:transient but certainto return.It is a consistently intermittent featureof liberalpoliticsand social organization. No liberal successwillmakeitpermanently Atthesametime,nocommuunattractive. nitarian will everbe anything critique, howeverpenetrating, morethanan inconstant featureof liberalism. Someday,perhaps,therewill be a larger like the shiftfromaristocratic transformation, knee-breeches to plebian pants,rendering liberalism anditscriticsalikeirrelevant. ButI see nopresent likethat,noram I surethatwe shouldlookforward signsof anything to it. Fornow,thereis muchtobe saidfora recurrent critique, whoseprotagonists hope onlyforsmallvictories, partialincorporations, and whentheyare rebuffed ordismissedorcoopted,fadeawayfora timeonlyto return. Communitarianism is usefully withsocial democracy, contrasted which hassucceededinestablishing a permanent presencealongsideofandsomeA UTHOR'SNOTE: Thisessaywasfirstgiven as theJohn Deweylecture atHarvardLawSchool int September 1989. POLITICAL THEORY,Vol. 18 No. 1, February 19906-23 ?c 1990Sage Publications, Inc. 6
Walzer/COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE
7
timesconjoinedwithliberalpolitics.Socialdemocracy hasitsownintermittently fashionable andlibertarian incharacter. critics, largelyanarchist Since it sponsorscertainsortsof communalidentification, it is less subjectto communitarian criticism thanliberalismis. But it can neverescape such criticism forliberalsandsocialdemocrats entirely, alikesharea commitment to economicgrowthandcope (althoughin different ways)withthederacinatedsocial formsthatgrowthproduces.Community itselfis largelyan ideologicalpresenceinmodern society;ithasno recurrent criticsofitsown. It is intermittently fashionable onlybecauseitno longerexistsin anything likefullstrength, anditis criticized onlywhenitis fashionable. The communitarian critiqueis nonetheless a powerful one; itwouldnot recurifitwerenotcapableofengaging ourmindsandfeelings. In thisessay, I wanttoinvestigate thepowerofitscurrent American versions andthenoffer a versionof myown-less powerful, perhaps,thantheones withwhichI shallbegin,butmoreavailableforincorporation withinliberal(or social democratic)politics.I do not mean (I hardlyhave the capacity)to lay communitarianism to rest,although I wouldwillingly waitforitsreappearin ance a formmorecoherent and incisivethanthatin whichit currently appears.Theproblem withcommunitarian criticism today- I amnotthefirst to noticethis is thatit suggeststwodifferent, and deeplycontradictory, arguments againstliberalism. One ofthesearguments is aimedprimarily at liberalpractice, theotherprimarily atliberaltheory, buttheycannotbothbe right. It is possiblethateachone is partly right -indeed, I shallinsistonjust thispartialvalidity -but each of the arguments is rightin a way that undercuts thevalueoftheother.
[I. Thefirst argument holdsthatliberalpoliticaltheory accurately represents liberalsocialpractice. As iftheMarxist accountofideologicalreflection were literally true,andexemplified Western societies(Amerhere,contemporary ican societyespecially)are takento be the home of radicallyisolated individuals, rationalegotists, and existential agents,menand womenprotectedanddividedbytheirinalienable rights. Liberalism tellsthetruth about theasocialsocietythatliberalscreate-not, infact,exnihiloas theirtheory butina struggle suggests, againsttraditions andcommunities andauthorities thatareforgotten as soonas theyareescaped,so thatliberalpracticesseem tohavenohistory. Thestruggle itselfis ritually celebrated butrarely reflected on.The members ofliberalsocietysharenopoliticalorreligioustraditions;
8
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990
ofexnihilo andthatis thestory theycantellonlyonestoryaboutthemselves whichbeginsin thestateof natureor theoriginalposition.Each creation, and on his individualimagineshimselfabsolutelyfree,unencumbered, onlyinordertominimize accepting itsobligations, society, own- andenters is,as Marxwrote,"theassurance andsecurity hisrisks.His goal is security, so he reallyis, ofhisegoism."Andas he imagineshimself, withdrawn intohimself, wholly thatis, an individualseparatedfromthecommunity, and actingin accordancewithhis privatecapreoccupiedwithhis privateinterest need,andprivateinterest.1 necessity, price.... Theonlybondbetweenmenis natural
toMarx's.But inordertofitmysentences (I haveusedmasculinepronouns whether this first communihere, not addressed question, itis an interesting and Are women: of necessity private tariancritique speakstotheexperience interest theironlybondswithone another?) oneoftheearlyappearances of oftheyoungMarxrepresent Thewritings firstmade in the 1840s, is and his argument, communitarian criticism, of theincoherdescription presenttoday.AlastairMaclntyre's powerfully capacity andcultural lifeandthelossofnarrative enceofmodemintellectual But theoretical language.2 state-of-the-art, makesa similarpointinupdated, ofliberalism critique thatis necessary tothecommunitarian theonlytheory All thatthecriticshavetodo,so theysay,is totakeliberal itself. is liberalism constituted onlyby his The self-portrait of theindividual theory seriously. without commonvalues,binding liberated fromall connection, willfulness, - sans eyes,sans teeth, sans taste,sans everyties,customs,or traditions - needonlybe evokedinorder tobe devalued:Itisalreadytheconcrete thing absenceofvalue.Whatcan thereallifeof sucha personbe like?Imagine intoa warofall against andsocietyis turned himmaximizing hisutilities, ratrace,inwhich,as Hobbeswrote,thereis "no othergoal, all,thefamiliar and hisrights, Imaginehimenjoying norothergarland, butbeingforemost."3 societyis reducedto thecoexistenceof isolatedselves,forliberalrights, havemoretodowith"exit"thanwith"voice."4 critique, tothisfirst according solitude, divorce,withdrawal, expressedin separation, Theyareconcretely life theveryfactthatindividual privacy, andpoliticalapathy.And finally, can be describedin thesetwo philosophical languages,the languageof ofits utilities andthelanguageofrights, mark,saysMaclntyre, is a further incoherence: Men andwomenin liberalsocietyno longerhaveaccess to a singlemoralculturewithinwhichtheycan learnhow theyoughtto live.' ofthegood onthenature Thereis noconsensus, nopublicmeeting-of-minds, ofprivatecaprice,revealed,forexample,inSartrean life,hencethetriumph ofeveryday capriciousness. theideologicalreflection existentialism,
Walzer/COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE
9
We liberalsarefreetochoose,andwe havea right tochose,butwe have no criteria togovernourchoicesexceptourownwaywardunderstanding of ourwaywardinterests anddesires.Andso ourchoiceslackthequalitiesof cohesionandconsecutiveness. We canhardly remember whatwe didyesterday;we cannotwithanyassurancepredictwhatwe willdo tomorrow. We cannotgive a properaccountof ourselves.We cannotsittogether and tell comprehensible stories,andwe recognizeourselvesin thestorieswe read onlywhenthesearefragmented narratives, without plots,theliterary equivalentofatonalmusicandnonrepresentational art. Liberalsociety,seen in thelightof thisfirstcommunitarian is critique, inpractice;andcommunity fragmentation is theexactopposite,thehomeof coherence, connection, andnarrative capacity.ButI am lessconcerned here withthedifferent accountsthatmight be provided ofthislostEdenthanI am withtherepeated insistence onthereality offragmentation after theloss.This is thecommonthemeofall contemporary communitarianisms: neoconservative lamentation, neo-Marxist indictment, and neoclassicalor republican hand-wringing. (Theneedfortheprefix "neo"suggests againtheintermittent or recurrent character of communitarian I shouldthinkitwould criticism.) be an awkwardtheme,forifthesociologicalargument of liberaltheory is right, ifsocietyis actuallydecomposed, without residue, intotheproblematic coexistence ofindividuals, thenwe might wellassumethatliberalpoliticsis thebestwaytodealwiththeproblems ofdecomposition. Ifwe havetocreate an artificial andahistorical unionoutofa multitude ofisolatedselves,why nottakethestateofnatureortheoriginalpositionas ourconceptual starting point?Whynotaccept,instandard liberalfashion, thepriority ofprocedural justiceoversubstantive conceptions ofthegood,sincewe canhardly expect, givenour fragmentation, to agreeaboutthegood? MichaelSandel asks whether a community ofthosewhoputjusticefirst caneverbe morethana ofstrangers.6 community The questionis a goodone,butitsreverseformis moreimmediately Ifwe reallyarea community relevant: ofstrangers, how can we do anything else butputjusticefirst?
Ill. We aresavedfromthisentirely plausiblelineofargument bythesecond communitarian critiqueof liberalism. The secondcritiqueholdsthatliberal theory radicallymisrepresents reallife.The worldis notlikethatnorcould itbe. Menandwomencutloosefromall socialties,literally unencumbered, eachonetheoneandonlyinventor ofhisorherownlife,withnocriteria, no
10
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990
commonstandards, toguidetheinvention -these aremythical figures. How can anygroupofpeoplebe strangers to one another wheneachmember of thegroupis bornwithparents, and whentheseparentshave friends, relatives,neighbors, comradesat work,coreligionists, and fellowcitizensin fact,whichare not so muchchosenas passed on and connections, inherited? Liberalismmaywellenhancethesignificance ofpurelycontractualties,butitis obviouslyfalsetosuggest, as Hobbessometimes seemedto do, thatall ourconnections aremere"market voluntarist and friendships," incharacter, self-interested whichcannotoutlasttheadvantages theybring.7 Itis intheverynatureofa humansocietythatindividuals bredwithinitwill findthemselves caughtupinpatterns ofrelationship, networks ofpower,and communities ofmeaning. Thatqualityofbeingcaughtupiswhatmakesthem personsof a certainsort.Andonlythencan theymakethemselves persons ofa (marginally) different sortbyreflecting on whattheyareandbyacting in moreorless distinctive wayswithinthepatterns, andcommunetworks, nitiesthatarewilly-nilly theirs. Theburdenofthesecondcritique is thatthedeepstructure evenofliberal societyis in factcommunitarian. Liberaltheorydistorts thisrealityand, insofaras we adoptthetheory, deprivesus ofanyreadyaccessto ourown experience ofcommunal embeddedness. Therhetoric ofliberalism -this is theargument oftheauthors ofHabitsoftheHeart- limitsourunderstanding ofourownheart'shabits,andgivesus no waytoformulate theconvictions thathold us togetheras personsand thatbind personstogether intoa community. The assumption hereis thatwe arein factpersonsandthatwe are in factboundtogether. The liberalideologyof separatism cannottake personhood and bondednessawayfromus. Whatit does takeawayis the sense of our personhoodand bondedness,and thisdeprivation is then inliberalpolitics.Itexplainsourinability reflected toformcohesivesolidarities,stablemovements andparties, thatmightmakeourdeepconvictions visibleand effective in theworld.It also explainsourradicaldependence (brilliantly foreshadowed inHobbes'sLeviathan)onthecentralstate. But how are we to understand thisextraordinary disjunction between communal experience andliberalideology, betweenpersonalconviction and publicrhetoric, andbetweensocialbondedness andpoliticalisolation? That questionis notaddressed bycommunitarian criticsofthesecondsort.Ifthe firstcritiquedependson a vulgarMarxisttheoryof reflection, thesecond critiquerequiresan equallyvulgaridealism.Liberaltheorynow seemsto havea poweroverandagainstreallifethathasbeengranted tofewtheories in humanhistory. Plainly,ithas notbeengranted to communitarian theory, whichcannot,on thefirst argument, overcomethereality ofliberalseparat-
Walzer/COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE
11
ismandcannot, onthesecondargument, evokethealreadyexisting structures of social connection. In anycase, thetwocriticalarguments are mutually inconsistent; theycannotbothbe true.Liberalseparatism eitherrepresents ormisrepresents ofcourse,do a little theconditions ofeveryday life.Itmight, ofeach- theusualmuddle- butthatis nota satisfactory conclusionfroma communitarian Foriftheaccountofdissociation andseparatism standpoint. is evenpartlyright, thenwe haveto raisequestionsaboutthedepth,so to speak,ofthedeepstructure. Andifwe arealltosomedegreecommunitarians undertheskin,thentheportrait ofsocialincoherence losesitscriticalforce.
IV Buteachofthetwocriticalarguments I willtrytosaywhat is partly right. is rightabouteach,andthenask ifsomething plausiblecan be madeofthe parts.First,then,therecannotbe muchdoubtthatwe (intheUnitedStates) live in a societywhereindividuals arerelatively dissociatedandseparated fromone another, orbetter, wheretheyarecontinually separating fromone in motion,oftenin solitaryand apparently another-continually random as ifinimitation ofwhatphysicists motion, callBrownian movement. Hence we live in a profoundly unsettled society.We can bestsee theformsof unsettlement ifwe trackthemostimportant moves.So, consider(imitating theChinesestyle)theFourMobilities: 1. Geographic mobility. Americans apparently changetheir residence moreoftenthanany atleastsincethebarbarian peopleinhistory, migrations, excluding onlynomadictribes andfamiliescaughtup in civilor foreign wars.Movingpeopleand theirpossessions fromone cityor towntoanother is a majorindustry in theUnitedStates,eventhough manypeople manageto movethemselves. In anothersense,of course,we are all notrefugees self-moved, butvoluntary migrants. The senseof place mustbe greatly weakenedbythisextensive geographic mobility, although I findithardtosaywhether it is superseded by mereinsensitivity or by a newsenseof manyplaces.Eitherway, communitarian feelingseemslikelyto declinein importance. Communities are more thanjust locations,buttheyare mostoftensuccessfulwhentheyare permanently located. 2. Social mobility. Thisarticlewillnotaddressthearguments abouthowbesttodescribe social standingor how to measurechanges,whetherby income,education,class orrankin thestatushierarchy. membership, It is enoughto saythatfewerAmericans standexactlywheretheir parents stoodordo whattheydidthaninanysocietyforwhich wehavecomparable knowledge. Americans mayinherit manythings fromtheir parents, buttheextenttowhichtheymakea different life,ifonlybymakinga different living, meansthattheinheritance ofcommunity, thatis,thepassingonofbeliefsandcustomary
12
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990 ways,is uncertain robbedof narrative at best.Whether or notchildrenare thereby storiesthantheirparents capacity,theyseemlikelytotelldifferent told. arehigher andremarriage 3. Maritalmobility. Ratesofseparation, divorce, todaythanthey thantheyhaveeverbeeninany haveeverbeeninourownsocietyandprobably higher I knowofno statistics other(exceptperhapsamongRomanaristocrats, although from andsocial,also disrupt thattime,onlyanecdotes).Thefirst twomobilities, geographic forexample,oftenliveatgreatdistancesfromoneanother, familylife,so thatsiblings, andlateras unclesandaunts,theyarefarremovedfromnephewsandnieces.Butwhat orwivesmoving we call"brokenhomes"aretheproduct ofhusbands ofmarital breaks, Insofaras homeis thefirst out- and then,commonly, movingon to new partners. andthefirst andreligiousconviction, thiskindof community schoolofethnicidentity It meansthatchildren often breakagemusthavecountercommunitarian consequences. do nothearcontinuous or identicalstoriesfromtheadultswithwhomtheylive.(Did thegreater number ofchildren everhearsuchstories?Thedeathofonespouseandthe remarriage oftheothermayoncehavebeenas commonas divorceandremarriage are today.But,then,othersortsofmobility Bothmenandwomen havetobe considered: will aremorelikelytodaytomarry acrossclass,ethnic, andreligiouslines;remarriage therefore oftenproduceextraordinarily complexandsociallydiversefamilies -which probably arewithout historical precedent.) 4. Politicalmobility. Loyaltyto leaders,movements, parties, clubs,andurbanmachines seemsto declinerapidlyas placeandsocialstanding andfamilymembership become lesscentral intheshapingofpersonalidentity. Liberalcitizensstandoutsideallpolitical organizations andthenchoosetheonethatbestservestheiridealsorinterests. Theyare, ideally, independent voters, thatis,peoplewhomovearound;theychooseforthemselves rather thanvotingas theirparentsdid,andtheychoosefreshly each timerather than repeating themselves. As their numbers increase, theymakefora volatileelectorate and henceforinstitutional instability, particularly at thelocal levelwherepoliticalorganizationonceservedtoreinforce communal ties.
The effects oftheFourMobilitiesareintensified in a variety ofwaysby othersocialdevelopments whichwe arelikelytotalkaboutinthecommon metaphor ofmovement: theadvanceofknowledge, technological progress, and so on. But I am concernedhereonlywiththeactualmovement of individuals.Liberalismis, mostsimply,thetheoretical endorsement and ofthismovement.9 justification In theliberalview,then,theFourMobilities represent theenactment of liberty, and thepursuitof (privateor personal) happiness.Andithas tobe said that,conceivedin thisway,liberalism is a genuinelypopularcreed.Anyeffort to curtailmobilityin thefourareas described herewouldrequirea massiveandharshapplication ofstatepower. Nevertheless, thispopularity hasanunderside ofsadnessanddiscontent that are intermittently articulated, and communitarianism is, mostsimply,the intermittent articulation ofthesefeelings. It reflects a senseofloss,andthe loss is real.Peopledo notalwaysleave theirold neighborhoods or hometownswillinglyor happily.Movingmaybe a personaladventure in our standard cultural mythologies, butitis as oftena familytraumain reallife.
WalzerI COMMUNITARIANCRITIQUE
13
The samethingis trueofsocialmobility, whichcarriespeopledownas well thatarenevereasytomanage.Maritalbreaks as up andrequires adjustments maysometimes giveriseto newand stronger unions,buttheyalso pile up whatwe mightthinkof as familyfragments: single-parent households, separatedandlonelymenandwomen,andabandonedchildren. Andindependencein politicsis oftena not-so-splendid isolation:Individualswith The resultis a declinein opinionsarecutloose fromgroupswithprograms. "the sense of efficacy," withaccompanying effectson commitment and morale. All inall,we liberalsprobably knowone another lesswell,andwithless we maysee moreaspectsofthe assurance,thanpeopleoncedid,although otherthantheysaw,andrecognizeinhimorhera widerrangeofpossibilities thepossibility ofmovingon).Wearemoreoftenalonethanpeople (including once were,beingwithoutneighbors we can counton, relativeswho live nearbyorwithwhomwe areclose,orcomradesatworkorinthemovement. Thisis thetruth ofthefirstcommunitarian We mustnowfixthe argument. limitsofthistruth byseekingwhatis truein thesecondargument. - that In itseasiestversion, thesecondargument we arereally, atbottom, - is certainly creatures ofcommunity truebutofuncertain The significance. ties of place, class or status,family,and even politicssurvivetheFour Mobilitiestoa remarkable extent. To takejustoneexample,fromthelastof theFour: It remainstrue,even todayin thismostliberaland mobileof societies,thatthebestpredictor ofhowpeoplewillvoteis ourknowledge of how theirparentsvoted."0 All thosedutifully imitative youngRepublicans and Democratstestify to thefailureof liberalism to makeindependence or waywardness of mindthedistinctive markof itsadherents. The predictive value of parentalbehaviorholdseven forindependent voters:They are the heirs of simply But we do not knowto whatextent independence. inheritances ofthissortarea dwindling communal resource;itmaybe that eachgeneration passeson lessthanitreceived.Thefullliberalization ofthe social order,theproduction andreproduction ofself-inventing individuals, maytakea longtime,muchlonger, indeed,thanliberalsthemselves expected. Thereis notmuchcomfort hereforcommunitarian critics, however;while theycan recognizeandvaluethesurvivalofolderwaysoflife,theycannot counton,andtheymusthaveanxietiesabout,thevitality ofthoseways. Butthereis another approachtothetruth ofthesecondcriticalargument. Whatever theextentoftheFourMobilities, theydo notseemtomoveus so farapartthatwe can no longertalkwithone another. We oftendisagree,of course,butwe disagreein mutually comprehensible ways.I shouldthinkit fairlyobviousthatthephilosophical controversies thatMaclntyre laments
14
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990
are notin facta markofsocial incoherence. Wheretherearephilosophers, therewill be controversies, therewill be just as wherethereare knights, tournaments. whichbearwitnessto Butthesearehighly ritualized activities, theconnection, notthedisconnection, Evenpolitical of theirprotagonists. conflictin liberalsocietiesrarelytakesformsso extremeas to set its protagonists beyondnegotiation andcompromise, procedural justice,andthe verypossibility of speech.The Americancivil rightsstruggleis a nice exampleof a conflictforwhichour moral/political languagewas and is hashadonlypartialsuccessdoes entirely adequate.Thefactthatthestruggle notreflect linguistic anddefeats. inadequacybutrather politicalfailures MartinLutherKing's speechesevokeda palpabletradition, a set of commonvaluessuchthatpublicdisagreement couldfocusonlyon how(or how quickly)theymightbestbe realized.1But thisis not,so to speak,a traditionalist a Gemeinschaft tradition, a survivalofthepreliberal tradition, past.Itis a liberaltradition modified, nodoubt,bysurvivals ofdifferent sorts. Themodifications aremostobviously Protestant andrepublican incharacter, thoughby no meansexclusivelyso: The yearsof massimmigration have a greatvariety ofethnicandreligious brought memories tobearonAmerican politics.Whatall of thembearon,however, is liberalism. The languageof individualrights-voluntary association, pluralism, toleration, separation, privacy,freespeech,the careeropen to talents,and so on-is simply inescapable.Who amongus seriouslyattempts to escape?If we reallyare situatedselves,as thesecondcommunitarian critiqueholds,thenoursituationis largelycapturedby thatvocabulary. This is thetruth of thesecond critique.Does it makeanysensethento arguethatliberalism us prevents fromunderstanding ormaintaining thetiesthatbindus together? Itmakessomesense,becauseliberalism isa strange doctrine, whichseems toundercut continually itself, todisdainitsowntraditions, andtoproducein each generation renewedhopesfora moreabsolutefreedom fromhistory andsocietyalike.Muchof liberalpoliticaltheory, fromLocketo Rawls,is an effort to fixand stabilizethedoctrine in ordertoendtheendlessness of liberalliberation. Butbeyondeverycurrent versionof liberalism, thereis alwaysa superliberalism, which,as RobertoUngersaysofhisowndoctrine, "pushestheliberalpremisesaboutstateand society,aboutfreedomfrom dependenceand govemanceof social relations by thewill,to thepointat whichtheymergeintoa largeambition: thebuildingof a socialworldless aliento a selfthatcan alwaysviolatethegenerative rulesofitsownmental or socialconstructs."'2 Although Ungerwas once identified as a communi- largeindeed!- seemsdesignedto prevent tarian,thisambition notonly of liberaldoctrinebut also any recovery any stabilization or creationof
Walzer/COMMUNITARIANCRITIQUE
15
community. Forthereis no imaginable thatwouldnotbe alien community totheetemally transgressive self.Ifthetiesthatbindus together do notbind us, therecan be no such thingas a community. If it is anything at all, communitarianism is antithetical And totransgression. thetransgressive self is antithetical eventotheliberalcommunity whichisitscreator andsponsor.'3 Liberalismis a self-subverting doctrine;forthatreason,it reallydoes require periodiccommunitarian correction. Butitis nota particularly helpful formofcorrection to suggestthatliberalism is literally incoherent orthatit can be replacedbysomepreliberal or antiliberal community waitingsomehowjustbeneaththesurfaceorjustbeyondthehorizon.Nothing is waiting; Americancommunitarians haveto recognizethatthereis no one outthere butseparated, rights-bearing, voluntarily associating, freely liberal speaking, selves.It wouldbe a good thing, though, ifwe couldteachthoseselvesto knowthemselves as socialbeings,thehistorical products of,andinpartthe embodiments of,liberalvalues.Forthecommunitarian correction ofliberalismcannotbe anything otherthana selectivereinforcement of thosesame values or,to appropriate thewell-known phraseof MichaelOakeshott, a pursuit oftheintimations ofcommunity withinthem.
V The place to begin the pursuitis withthe liberalidea of voluntary association,whichis notwell-understood, it seemsto me, eitheramong liberalsor amongtheircommunitarian critics.In bothits theoryand its practice,liberalismexpressesstrongassociativetendenciesalongsideits dissociative tendencies: Itsprotagonists formgroupsas wellas splitofffrom thegroupstheyform;theyjoinup andresign, marry anddivorce.Nevertheless,it is a mistake, and a characterically liberalmistake, to thinkthatthe existingpatterns of associationare entirely or evenlargelyvoluntary and thatis,theproduct contractual, ofwillalone.In a liberalsociety, as inevery othersociety, peoplearebomintoveryimportant sortsofgroups,bornwith identities, maleor female,forexample,working class,Catholicor Jewish, black,democrat, andso on.Manyoftheirsubsequent associations (liketheir subsequent careers)merely expresstheseunderlying identities, which,again, arenotso muchchosenas enacted."4 Liberalism is distinguished less bythe freedom to formgroupson thebasisoftheseidentities thanthefreedom to leave thegroupsandsometimes eventheidentities behind.Associationis alwaysatriskina liberalsociety. Theboundaries ofthegrouparenotpoliced; peoplecomeand go, or theyjustfadeintothedistancewithout everquite
16
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990
thattheyhave left.That is whyliberalismis plaguedby acknowledging - bypeoplewhocontinue toenjoythebenefits ofmemfree-rider problems in the activitiesthat while no longerparticipating bershipand identity is thedreamofa producethosebenefits."Communitarianism, bycontrast, perfect free-riderlessness. Atitsbest,theliberalsocietyis thesocialunionofsocialunionsthatJohn Rawlsdescribed: a pluralism ofgroupsbondedbysharedideasoftoleration onthebrink Butifallthegroupsareprecarious, anddemocracy.'6 continually ofdissolution or abandonment, thenthelargerunionmustalso be weakand its leadersand officialswill be drivento vulnerable.Or, alternatively, their compensate forthefailuresofassociationelsewherebystrengthening own union,thatis, thecentralstate,beyondthelimitsthatliberalism has and established. Theselimitsarebestexpressedintermsofindividual rights forstateneutrality. civilliberties, buttheyalso includea prescription The goodlifeis pursuedbyindividuals, sponsored bygroups;thestatepresides over the pursuitand the sponsorship in either. but does notparticipate is singular incharacter; andsponsoring areplural.Hence Presiding pursuing itis a criticalquestionforliberaltheory andpracticewhether theassociative passionsand energiesof ordinary people are likelyoverthelonghaul to survivetheFourMobilitiesandprovethemselves sufficient to therequirementsofpluralism. Thereis at leastsomeevidencethattheywillnotprove sufficient-without a littlehelp. But,to repeatan old question,whence comethourhelp?A fewoftheexisting socialunionsliveintheexpectation of divineassistance.For therest,we can onlyhelpone another, and the whichhelpofthatsortcomesmostexpeditiously agencythrough is thestate. Butwhatkindofa stateis itthatfosters associativeactivities? Whatkindof a socialunionis itthatincludeswithout incorporating a greatanddiscordant variety ofsocialunions? Obviously,it is a liberalstateand social union;anyotherkindis too forcommunities dangerous andindividuals alike.Itwouldbe an oddenterpriseto arguein thenameofcommunitarianism foran alternative state,for thatwouldbe to argueagainstourownpoliticaltraditions andto repudiate whatevercommunity we alreadyhave. But thecommunitarian correction does requirea liberalstateofa certainsort,conceptually thoughnothistorically unusual:a statethatis, at least over some partof the terrainof sovereignty, deliberately nonneutral. The standard liberalargument forneuis an induction trality fromsocialfragmentation. Sincedissociatedindividuals will neveragreeon thegood life,thestatemustallowthemto live as theythinkbest,subjectonlyto JohnStuartMill's harmprinciple, without orsponsoring endorsing anyparticular understanding ofwhat"best"means.
Walzer/COMMUNITARIANCRITIQUE
17
Butthereisa problem individuals here:Themoredissociated are,thestronger thestateis likelytobe,sinceitwillbe theonlyorthemostimportant social inthestate,theonlygoodthatis sharedbyall union.Andthenmembership individuals, maywellcometoseemthegoodthatis "best." This is onlyto repeatthefirstcommunitarian critique,and it invitesa responselikethesecondcritique: thatthestateis notinfacttheonlyoreven, forordinary socialunion. peopleintheireveryday lives,themostimportant All sortsofothergroupscontinue toexistandtogiveshapeandpurposeto thelives of theirmembers,despitethetriumph of individualrights,the thatit FourMobilitiesinwhichthattriumph is manifest, andthefree-riding makespossible.Butthesegroupsarecontinually atrisk.Andso thestate,if itis toremain a liberalstate,mustendorseandsponsorsomeofthem, namely, thosethatseemmostlikelytoprovideshapesandpurposescongenialtothe sharedvaluesof a liberalsociety.'7 No doubt,thereareproblemsheretoo, andI do notmeanto denytheirdifficulty. ButI see no wayto avoidsome - andnotonlyfortheoretical suchformulation reasons.Theactualhistory of thebestliberalstates,as ofthebestsocialdemocratic states(andthesetend to be thesamestates),suggestthattheybehaveinexactlythis increasingly way,although oftenveryinadequately. Let me givethreerelatively familiar examplesof statebehaviorof this kind.First,theWagnerActofthe1930s:Thiswas nota standard liberallaw, thehindrances tounionorganization, hindering foritactively fostered union and it did so precisely organization, by solvingthefree-rider problem.By requiring collectivebargaining whenever there wasmajority support (butnot necessarily unanimous support)fortheunion,andthenby allowingunion shops,theWagnerAct sponsoredthecreationof strongunionscapable,at leastto somedegree,of determining theshapeof industrial relations."8 Of course,therecouldnotbe strongunionswithout workingclass solidarity; unionization is parasiticon underlying communities of feelingand belief. But thoseunderlying communities werealreadybeingerodedby theFour Mobilities whentheWagnerActwaspassed,andso theActservedtocounter thedissociative ofliberalsociety. tendencies Itwasnevertheless a liberallaw, fortheunionsthatithelpedcreateenhancedthelivesofindividual workers andweresubjecttodissolution andabandonment inaccordancewithliberal principles shouldtheyevercease to do that. The secondexampleis theuseoftaxexemptions andmatching grantsof taxmoneyto enabledifferent religiousgroupsto runextensivesystemsof day-carecenters,nursinghomes,hospitals,and so on-welfare societies insidethewelfarestate.I do notpretendthattheseprivateand pluralist societiescompensate fortheshoddiness oftheAmerican welfarestate.But
18
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990
theydo improvethedeliveryof servicesby makingit a moreimmediate function of communalsolidarity. The state'srolehere,besideestablishing minimalstandards, is to abate,sincein thiscase itcannotentirely solvethe Ifsomenumber free-rider problem. ofmenandwomenendup ina Catholic nursing home,eventhough theynevercontributed toa Catholiccharity, they willatleasthavepaidtheirtaxes.Butwhynotnationalize theentire welfare systemandendfree-ridership? The liberalresponseis thatthesocialunion of social unionsmustalwaysoperateat twolevels:A welfaresystemrun entirely byprivate, nonprofit associations wouldbe dangerously inadequate andinequitable initscoverage;anda totally nationalized woulddeny system expression tolocal andparticularist solidarities.'9 The third exampleis thepassageofplant-closing lawsdesignedtoafford someprotection tolocalcommunities ofworkandresidence. Inhabitants are insulated, although onlyfora time,againstmarket pressure to moveoutof theiroldneighborhoods andsearchforworkelsewhere. themarket Although "needs"a highly mobileworkforce,thestatetakesotherneedsintoaccount, not only in a welfarist way (throughunemployment insuranceand job retraining programs) butalso in a communitarian way.Butthestateis not to thepreservation similarly committed ofeveryneighborhood community. Itis entirely neutral towardcommunities ofethnicity andresidence, offering no protection againststrangers who wantto move in. Here,geographic remainsa positivevalue,one oftherights mobility ofcitizens. Unions,religious andneighborhoods eachdrawonfeelings organizations, andbeliefsthat,in principle ifnotalwaysin history, predatetheemergence oftheliberalstate.How strong thesefeelings andbeliefsare,andwhattheir survivalvalueis,I cannotsay.Havetheunionsestablished sucha griponthe oftheirmembers imaginations as to makeforgoodstories?Therearesome firsttold,thenretold, goodstories, andsometimes evenre-enacted. Butthe narrative linedoes notseemsufficiently compelling toyounger workers to sustainanything liketheold working class solidarity. Noris itsufficient for a religious organization toprovidelifecycleservicesforitsmembers ifthey arenolongerinterested initsreligious services.Norareneighborhoods proof forlongagainstmarketpressure.Still,communalfeelingand beliefseem considerably morestablethanwe once thought theywouldbe, and the proliferation of secondaryassociationsin liberalsocietyis remarkable evenifmanyofthemhaveshortlivesandtransient memberships. One hasa senseof peopleworkingtogether and trying to cope,and not,as thefirst communitarian critique suggests, justgetting byontheirown,bythemselves, one byone.
Walzer/COMMUNITARIANCRITIQUE
19
Vl.
for stateenhancesthepossibilities A goodliberal(or socialdemocratic) in such a state account of John a useful Dewey provided coping. cooperative ThePublicandItsProblems.Publishedin 1927,thebookis a commentary criticism. ofanearlierroundofcommunitarian onanda partialendorsement "pluralists," ofhistime,whocalledthemselves Deweysharedwiththecritics withthesovereign state,buthewas notquiteas uneasyas most anuneasiness forwhathe called "primary shared an admiration of themwere.He also were thanthepluralists more inclined he was the state, but within groupings" and are "good, bad, he wrote, Primary groupings, to qualifyhisadmiration. of state limits fix the mere existence by their andtheycannot indifferent," of The stateis not"onlyan umpireto avertandremedytrespasses activity. the desirable "It renders It has a largerfunction: one groupuponanother." uponinjurious associationsoliderandmorecoherent....Itplacesa discount groupingsand renderstheirtenureof life precarious. . . [and] it gives the
it and security; individualmembersof valuedassociationsgreaterliberty members to conditions....Itenablesindividual relievesthemofhampering willdo."20Thesemayseem uponwhatothers countwithreasonable certainty bythe liketaskstoo extensivefora liberalstate,buttheyare constrained (on -which arethemselves rights ofindividual establishment constitutional ofwhatindividuals notso muchrecognitions thepragmatic understanding) ofhopeaboutwhattheywillbe anddo. bynatureareorhaveas expressions in certainways,stateactionof thesortthat acttogether Unlessindividuals Whenwe recognizethe"rightof cannotgetstarted. Deweyrecommended toassemble,"forexample,we arehopingforassemthecitizenspeacefully we do so amongsuchassemblies, bliesof citizens.Ifwe thendiscriminate on limitedgrounds, fostering onlythosethatreallydo expresscommunities ofassociation. offeelingandbeliefanddo notviolateliberalprinciples I state,whoseactivities It is oftenarguedthesedaysthatthenonneutral A terms. inrepublican is bestunderstood tojustify, havemadesomeattempt providesmuchof thesubstanceof revivalof neoclassicalrepublicanism communitarian politics.The revival,I haveto say,is largely contemporary in Dewey'stimeand academic;unlikeotherversionsofcommunitarianism and Therereallyare unions,churches, ours,it has no externalreference. no examplesof in Americansociety,buttherearevirtually neighborhoods such orpartyaimedat promoting associationandno movement republican association.Deweywouldprobablynotrecognizehis"public,"norRawls ifonlybecauseinboththese ofrepublicanism, his"socialunion,"as versions
20
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990
have been drainedfromthesingularand cases, energyand commitment narrowly politicalassociationto the morevariousassociationsof civil and unitary doctrine society.Republicanism is an integrated by contrast in on the whichenergy andcommitment arefocusedprimarily politicalrealm. It is a doctrine adapted(in bothitsclassicaland neoclassicalforms)to the wherecivilsocietyis radically needsofsmall,homogeneous communities, undifferentiated. Perhapsthe doctrinecan be extendedto accountfora "republicofrepublics," a decentralized revisionofliberal andparticipatory A considerable wouldthen democracy. oflocal governments strengthening anddisplayofcivic be required inthehopeofencouraging thedevelopment virtueina pluralist varietyofsocialsettings. ofthe Thisindeedis a pursuit intimations ofcommunity within forithasmoretodo withJohn liberalism, StuartMillthanwithRousseau.Nowwe aretoimaginethenonneutral state empowering cities,towns,andboroughs;fostering commitneighborhood teesandreviewboards;andalwaysonthelook-out forbandsofcitizensready totakeresponsibility forlocal affairs.2' None of thisis any guaranteeagainstthe erosionof the underlying communities or thedeathof local loyalties.It is a matter of principlethat communities mustalwaysbeatrisk.Andthegreatparadoxofa liberalsociety is thatonecannotsetoneselfagainstthisprinciple without alsosetting oneself againstthetraditional practicesand sharedunderstandings of thesociety. Here,respectfortradition requirestheprecariousness of traditionalism. If thefirstcommunitarian iftherewereno critiqueweretruein itsentirety, communities and no traditions, thenwe couldjust proceedto inventnew ones. Insofaras thesecondcritiqueis even partlytrue,and theworkof communal invention is wellbegunandcontinually inprogress, we mustrest - theywouldbe, in content withthekindsofcorrections andenhancements fact,moreradicalthanthesetermssuggest -that Deweydescribed.
VI. I haveavoideduntilnowwhatis often takentobethecentral issuebetween liberalsandtheircommunitarian critics -the constitution oftheself.22 Liberalism,it is commonly said,is foundedon theidea of a presocialself,a solitaryand sometimes heroicindividualconfronting society, who is fully formed beforetheconfrontation begins.Communitarian criticsthenargue, first,thatinstability and dissociationare the actual and disheartening achievement of individuals ofthissortand,second,thattherereallycannot be individuals ofthissort.The criticsarecommonly said in turntobelieve
Walzer/COMMUNITARTANCRITIQUE
21
in a radicallysocializedselfthatcan never"confront" societybecauseitis, fromthebeginning, entangledin society,itselftheembodiment of social values.The disagreement seemssharpenough,butin fact,in practice, itis notsharpat all -for neitherof theseviewscan be sustainedforlongby anyonewho goes beyondstakingout a positionand triesto elaboratean Nordoes liberalorcommunitarian argument.23 theory requireviewsofthis sort.Contemporary liberalsarenotcommitted toa presocialself,butonlyto a selfcapableof reflecting critically on thevaluesthathavegovernedits socialization;and communitarian critics,who are doingexactlythat,can hardlygo ontoclaimthatsocialization Thephilosophical and is everything. psychological issuesherego verydeep,butso faras politicsis concerned, thereis littleto be wonon thisbattlefield; concessionsfromtheotherside cometooeasilytocountas victories. Thecentralissueforpoliticaltheory is nottheconstitution oftheselfbut theconnection ofconstituted selves,thepattern ofsocialrelations. Liberalism is best understood as a theoryof relationship, whichhas voluntary associationat itscenterandwhichunderstands voluntariness as theright of rupture or withdrawal. Whatmakesa marriage voluntary is thepermanent ofdivorce.Whatmakesanyidentity is the possibility oraffiliation voluntary ofalternative easyavailability identities andaffiliations. Buttheeasierthis easinessis,thelessstableall ourrelationships arelikelytobecome.TheFour Mobilitiestakeholdandsocietyseemstobe inperpetual motion, so thatthe actualsubjectof liberalpractice,it mightbe said,is nota presocialbuta postsocialself,freeat last fromall but themosttemporary and limited alliances.Now,theliberalselfreflects thefragmentation of liberalsociety: It is radicallyunderdetermined anddivided,forcedto inventitselfanewfor everypublicoccasion.Someliberalscelebratethisfreedom andself-invention;all communitarians lamentitsarrival, evenwhileinsisting thatitis not a possiblehumancondition. I have arguedthatinsofaras liberalismtendstowardinstability and itrequiresperiodiccommunitarian dissociation, correction. Rawls's"social unionof social unions"reflects and buildson an earliercorrection of this kind,theworkof Americanwriterslike Dewey,RandolphBourne,and HoraceKallen.Rawlshas givenus a generalized versionof Kallen'sargumentthatAmerica,afterthegreatimmigration, was and shouldremaina "nationofnationalities."24 In fact,however, theerosionofnationality seems to be a feature of liberalsociallife,despiteintermittent ethnicrevivalslike thatofthelate1960sand 1970s.Wecangeneralizefromthistothemoreor less steadyattenuation of all theunderlying bondsthatmakesocialunions orpermanent possible.Thereis no strong forcommunal remedy attenuation
22
POLITICAL THEORY /FEBRUARY 1990
of theFourMobilitiesand therightsof shortof an antiliberal curtailment anddivorceon whichtheyrest.Communitarians sometimes dream rupture that buttheyrarelyadvocateit.The onlycommunity ofsucha curtailment, mostof themactuallyknow,afterall, is just thisliberalunionof unions, andalwaysatrisk.Theycannottriumph overthisliberalalwaysprecarious reinforce itsinternal associativecapacities. ism;theycan only,sometimes, becausethecapacityfordissociation The reinforcement is onlytemporary, is also strongly andhighly valued.Thatis whycommunitarianinternalized ism criticismis doomed- it probablyis not a terriblefate- to eternal recurrence.
NOTES 1. Karl Marx,"On theJewishQuestion,"in Early Writings, ed. by T. B. Bottomore (London:C. A. Watts,1963),p. 26. 2. AlasdairMacintyre, After Virtue (NotreDame: University ofNotreDame Press,1981). 3. ThomasHobbes,TheElementsofLaw, Part1,ch. 9, para.21. 1 havenoticedthatthe twofavorite writers ofcommunitarian ofthisfirst kindareHobbesandSartre. critics Is itpossible thattheessenceofliberalism is bestrevealedbythesetwo,whowerenot,intheusualsenseof theterm, liberalsatall? 4. See AlbertHirschman's Exit,Voice,andLoyalty(Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press,1970). 5. Maclntyre, AfterVirtue, chs.2, 17. 6. Thisis RichardRorty'ssummary ofSandel'sargument: "ThePriority ofDemocracyto Philosophy," inTheVirginiaStatue ed.byMerrill D. Peterson forReligiousFreedom, andRobert C. Vaughan(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1988),p. 273; see Sandel,Liberalism and theLimitsofJustice(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1982). 7. ThomasHobbes,De Cive,ed.byHowardWarrender (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1983),PartI, ch. l. 8. RobertBellah et al., Habitsof theHeart (Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, 1985),pp.21, 290; see Rorty'scomment, "Priority," p. 275,n. 12. 9. And also its practicalworkingout,in thecareeropen to talents,therightof free movement, legaldivorce,andso on. 10. See A. Campbelletal., TheAmericanVoter(New York:Wiley,1960),pp. 147-148. 11. See theevocationofKinginHabitsoftheHeart,pp. 249,252. 12. RobertoMangabeiraUnger,TheCriticalLegal StudiesMovement (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press,1986),p. 41. 13. Cf. Buff-Coat (RobertEverard)in thePutneydebates:"Whatsoever ... obligations I shouldbe boundunto,ifafterwards God shouldrevealhimself, I wouldbreakitspeedily, ifit werean hundred a day."In Puritanism and Liberty, ed. byA.S.P.Woodhouse(London:J.M. Dent,1938),p. 34. Is Buff-Coat thefirst superliberal orUngera latterday Puritan saint? 14. I do notintenda determinist argument here.We mostlymovearoundwithininherited worldsbecausewe findsuchworldscomfortable andevenlife-enhancing; butwe also moveout
Walzer/COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE
23
whenwe findthemcramped-andliberalismmakestheescape mucheasierthanit was in preliberal societies. A PoliticalPerspecworksinethnicgroupsin"Pluralism: 15. 1describehowfree-ridership tive,"in theHarvardEncyclopediaofAmericanEthnicGroups,ed. by StephanThernstrom MA: HarvardUniversity Press,1980),pp.781-787. (Cambridge, Press,1971), 16. JohnRawls,A TheoryofJustice(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity pp.527ff. inJosephRaz, thanneutrality) 17. See theargument fora modest"perfectionism" (rather Press,1986),chs.5 and6. TheMorality ofFreedom(Oxford:Clarendon 1933-1941 Turbulent Years:A Historyof theAmericanWorker, 18. IrvingBernstein, Mifflin, 1970),ch. 7. (Boston:Houghton State, 19. See myessayon "SocializingtheWelfareState"inDemocracyand theWelfare Press,1988),pp. 13-26. ed. byAmyGutmann NJ:Princeton University (Princeton, 20. Dewey,ThePublicandItsProblems(Athens,OH: SwallowPress,1985),pp. 71-72. of whatI is also likelyto advancetheprospects republicanism 21. This kindof pluralist called"complexequality"inSpheresofJustice (NewYork:Basic Books,1983).1cannotpursue can take andcommunitarianism thisquestionhere,butit is worthnotingthatbothliberalism ofliberthecommunitarian correction forms. Similarly, egalitarian andnon-orantiegalitarian the alismcan strengthen theold inequalities oftraditionalist waysof lifeor it can counteract is state.The "republicofrepublics" andthebureaucratic newinequalities oftheliberalmarket ofthesecondsort. tohaveeffects likely,though byno meanscertain, 22. The issueis starkly posedinSandel,Liberalismand theLimitsofJustice;muchofthe withSandel'sbook. on orargument recentdiscussionis a commentary in CanadianJournalof 23. See Will Kymlicka,"Liberalismand Communitarianism," Philosophy (June,1988),pp. 181-204. 24. Kallen,Cultureand Democracyin theUnitedStates(New York:Boni & Liveright, 1924).
NewJersey. StudyinPrinceton, at the nstituteforAdvanced MichaelWalzeris Professor booksand articlesonpoliticaltheory. He is theauthorofnumerous