Communitarianism and Its Critics

by Daniel A. Bell

Many have criticized liberalism for being too individualist, but few have offered an alternative that goes beyond a vague affirmation of the need for community. In this entertaining book, written in dialogue form, Daniel Bell fills this gap, presenting and defending a distinctively communitarian theory against the objections of a liberal critic. In a Paris cafe Anne, a strong supporter of communitarian ideals, and Philip, her querulous critic, debate the issues. Drawing on the works of such thinkers as Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, and Alasdair MacIntyre, Anne attacks liberalism's individualistic view of the person by pointing to our social embeddedness. She then develops Michael Walzer's idea that political thinking involves the interpretation of shared meanings emerging from the political life of a community, and rebuts Philip's criticism that this approach damages her case by being conservative and relativistic. She goes on to develop a justification of communal life and to answer the criticism that communitarians lack an alternative moral and political vision. The book ends with two later discussions, by Will Kymlicka and Daniel Bell, in which Anne and another friend, Louise, argue about the merits of the book's earlier debate and put it in perspective. Daniel Bell's book is a provocative defence of a distinctively communitarian theory which will stimulate interest and debate among both students of political theory and those approaching the subject for the first time.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction

266 pages, Hardcover

First published December 9, 1993

About the author

Daniel A. Bell is Chair Professor of the Schwarzman Scholar Program at Tsinghua University in Beijing and director of the Berggruen Institute of Philosophy and Culture. He was born in Montreal, educated at McGill and Oxford, has taught in Singapore and Hong Kong, and has held research fellowships at Princeton’s University Center for Human Values and Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

Reviews

[Chris Meyers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Daniel Bell’s book is written in the form of a dialogue between two graduate students in philosophy—one defending a communitarian political theory and the other offering up criticisms of the approach.

Many political theorists who are labeled “communitarians” criticize liberalism for its individualism and blame it for various social problems and a general breakdown in society. But few of them provide much of a positive alternative except for some vague insistence on the importance of community. In this respect, Bell’s book is a refreshing addition to the communitarian/liberalism debate. His protagonist lays out a clear and coherent theory that links many important communitarian ideas—the socially embedded nature of the self, the importance of community for individual well-being, and the source of obligation in communal relations—into a complete theory and uses this theory to argue for specific policy recommendations.

The major flaw with Bell’s book, however, is the philosophical weakness of the antagonist critic of communitarianism who serves as more of a punching bag than a sparring partner. Instead of thoughtful arguments, his criticisms consist mostly of mere expressions of outrage and indignation. He comes across as more of an emotivist than a liberal. There are many opportunities for good critique that the “critic” wiffs on. For example, in response to the claim that choice (and freedom from coercion) itself is important, the protagonist insists that the opposition between force and choice is a false dichotomy—many of our actions are neither forced nor consciously chosen. The critic fails to pursue the issue: what about the misfit or the rebel? When someone disagrees with the status quo in her society, then there must either be freedom of choice (to dissent) or force (to conform). In response to the objection that the relativism inherent in communitarianism does not allow for us to critique Nazi society, the protagonist claims that the general population of Germany during the 1930s was not anti-Semitic. They sent their Jewish neighbors off to death camps not out of animosity but out of fear of the ruling Nazi government. Even if that were believable, it would still be true that there was a community of anti-Semitic Nazis (the brown shirts and party members) within the larger German population. (And that community would be immune to our criticism on the communitarian view.)

This weakness (the lack of good criticism of the communitarian view) is remedied somewhat by an appendix, written by the great liberal political theorist Will Kymlicka, who offers his own dialogue in which the protagonist gets schooled by a liberal feminist.

Another problem with the book is Bell’s claims about “shared understandings.” Bell uses Walzer’s method of arguing from the shared meanings within society, and (unlike Walzer) actually tries to back up his claims with opinion polls. Nevertheless, his claims about alleged shared understandings are highly suspect. For example, he claims that most Americans agree that healthcare should be distributed according to need. The rabid opposition to healthcare reform in this country casts serious doubt on this claim.

[Hassan Farooqi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A readable and enjoyable text on the liberalism/communitarianism debate. The Socratic dialogue style allowed for the rapid overview of some fundamental differences between the two political philosophies; the ontology of the self and its social embeddedness drawing from Heidegger and others, state neutrality with respect to conceptions of the good vs broader civic communities of shared understanding, limits on individual choice, among others. Two Appendixes at the end of the book essentially serve as the final two chapters and are probably the strongest sections overall due to an actual liberal critic - Kymlicka- engaging with the text followed by the authors response. Overall a solid primer.

[Nanto]

Pernah membacanya cuma tidak tamat. Disertasi yang ditulis dalam bentuk dialog tentang judul buku ini.

Awal dialog pun terjadi di sebuah kafe di Paris. Kedua tokoh di situ berbincang mengenai communitarianism setelah mereka berdebat mengenai kelaziman minum kopi. Gaya mana yang mau diikuti, Amerika atau Perancis? Belum lagi persoalan bahasa Inggris di sebuah kota besar pusat Francophone.

Ah menarik tentunya membuka topik besar dari hal-hal sederhana di sekitar kita.

[Soha Bayoumi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the dialog form of the book!