Communitarianism, as a philosophy, began as a critical response to John Rawls and his book and philosophy, A Theory of Justice. Rawls defines justice as fairness from which he derives two principles: the liberty principle and the difference principle. I can do neither principle justice here in regards to explanation, but my post on communitarianism demands some explanation of Rawls and his theories. So, I present a modest frame of reference of Rawls and his two principles. It is woefully inadequate, but it will provide what is needed to understand communitarianism.
The first principle states: "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others." Basic liberties include the political liberty to vote and run for office, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest. These liberties are basic and protected by this principle; all others are not.
The second principle, referred to as the difference principle, demands that all primary goods be equally distributed to all, and the only allowance for an unequal distribution would be for those who are the least advantaged of society. Now, there is much more to discuss regarding Rawls theory; there is the "veil of ignorance" and the "original position," which are both important points of the theory, but this is a post on communitarianism, as I mention above, right? These points are moderately important in our discussion of communitarianism because of its epistemological ties to Rawls. I have found that theories arising in response to other theories are lacking in areas of cultural space and in providing asnwers on how to live interacting with others who believe differently. Communitarianism has this flaw as well.
Communitarians believe values and beliefs are formed in this cultural space, which is where debate takes place. It emphasizes the importance of community in the functioning of political life, in the analysis and evaluation of political institutions, and in understanding human identity and overall human well-being. Where many Liberal (I use the capital L here in reference to the philosophy.) philosophies are stuck in an individualistic vortex, communitarianism begins with the idea of the individual as part of a collective unit. I believe this is helpful and advantageous as it is how we all live. A communitarianism's focus on social cohesion can easily be misconstrued as socialist or communist, but it is neither of these. It is central, but not. It is religious, but it does not have to be. It is often seen as an advocate of big government or of a welfare state, but neither of those would be endorsed by a true communitarian.
Because our individual identity is thought to be partly constituted by our culture and our social relations in culture, communitarians believe that there is no means of formulating individual rights or individual interests in cogitation from social contexts. Communitarians posited that culture ( I use the term in order to reference society in totality.) must heed the moral claims of two core values, the common good and autonomy and rights. The tendency of individuals and subcultures is egocentric, active action towards a valued or favored core value over others, which consistutes a need for re-calibration towards center. Communitarians advocate attention to the role of civil society, including families, local and nonresidential communities, voluntary associations, schools, places of worship, foundations, and nonprofit corporations. The theory emphasizes that most behaviour must be regulated in any society due to this tendency toward the egocentric. Communitarianism, while not Christian in nature, is the first philosophy I have found that actually addresses this egocentric aspect of human nature in a semi-correct manner. Most major philosophies refuse to draw swords over this question. We don't talk about the nature of man because we want everyone to assume whatever they want about the issue. There is no answer, and most philosophers build their philosophies, assuming whatever is necessary to make their particular philosophical theory work.
With communitarianism, we have a dual focus on the "collective" and the "other" which leads to a form of selflessness, which is required in order to embrace a common good. To embrace an idea like the common good, requires thinking and acting that is other-centered and collective-oriented, two characteristics missing in today's world. Communitarianism still has some questions to answers and some theories to work out in order for it to be viable option that can be applied to life, but I think these areas are minor. In the areas of major importance, communitarianism, in my opinion, has a right perspective and a workable landscape which will produce a forward movement in culture which the Christian can embrace from a Biblical and philosophical perspective.
Is communitarianism community? Well, in one sense, it is. It is specifically oriented towards community and takes account of community. But, in another sense, it is not. It has not developed a system of checks and balances preventing communitarianism from falling into socialism or communism. As a Christian, I am intensely interested in communitarianism as a means of philosophical discourse with others who do not share my view of the world. I am also interested in working out the ramifications of communitarianism as an educational philosophy, applied in school settings by way of vision and mission. Communitarianism's orientation towards community also, quite naturally, embraces difference from a communal perspective, which provides a healthy starting point for discourse, unlike most philosophical frameworks, which require some epistemological knowledge and modest agreement of the philosophy in question to begin discourse. So, in this sense, communitarianism is community in more ways than those that are collective and superficial.
As I conclude, let me state that I am not currently ready to embrace communitarianism personally. I have more reading and studying to do inside the philosophy before I am ready to embrace its tenets and join its ranks. However, I find that there is much of it that I do like and embrace. I will keep you posted (No, pun intended.) on my thinking and progress in this area.
Two final thoughts: First, I have posted bits and pieces of some of my formal work here in the past. I will not be doing that in the future. I am going to begin a new blog for that work. I will make that announcement on this blog and via my twitter account at a future date. It will not be until sometime in the summer. This blog will continue in its original intention... an informal postings of those things that spill out of my head.
Finally, this will most likely be my last post before Thanksgiving so I warmly wish everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving. May the Lord richly bless you and your family this Thanksgiving season!
2 comments:
Thanks for the information. I heard a radio program dealing with Communitarianism today, specifically in the Southern Baptist Convention. Apparently, Fred Luter, the head of the SBC, uses a lot of communitarian terms and ideas in his speeches and writings. The hosts of the program were completely against communitarianism because they said it involves trying to create the kingdom of God on Earth and focused on social reformation instead of personal salvation.
What do you think?
Thank you for your comment. I like what I have read on Fred Luter, so far. In my opinion, personal salvation should always lead to social reformation. How can it not? Are we to condemn Jesus and His disciplines... there personal salvation lead to a radical social reformation. Communitarianism, for me, is a bridge-of-sorts for the Christian to begin conversations with those he or she might not otherwise engage. It is, for me, the beginnings of a Christian theoretical framework that places Christianity in the marketplace of ideas with all those other ideas by placing Christianity in the same framework as all other competing philosophies. Part of the issue in the West, in my opinion, is our attitude. We expect others to listen to us as we speak in our own terms. Paul did the opposite - taking Christ into the Greek temples to compete on their terms according to their own rules, and Paul won many to Christ. Christianity will stand up to any and all frameworks; we just need to do the work. I appreciate your comment and question. Thanks for reading!
Post a Comment