Advertisement

The Western Critique of Liberalism: Communitarianism

  • Filippo Dionigi
Part of the Middle East Today book series (MIET)

Abstract

Since the age of the Enlightenment, domestic and international politics have been increasingly influenced by the rise of liberalism. The legitimacy of liberal norms and institutions, nonetheless, has been constantly disputed, and in this chapter I propose a selective discussion of the criticism that has targeted liberal norms in Western political theory tradition. The discussion that will be presented refers primarily to the distinction between communitarian and liberal theories.1 Although this dichotomy has obvious limitations and is unforgivably reductive, its analytical value will become evident in a comparative analysis undertaken in the following chapters which shows how Islamism shares theoretical assumptions analogous to communitarianism.

Keywords

Political Theory Political Community Liberal Theory Social Contract Theory Ethical Conception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    An important study developing on the relevance of the liberal communitarian distinction in International Relations and to which this chapter is greatly indebted is Chris Brown, International Relations theory: new normative approaches (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paul Kelly, Liberalism, Key concepts (Cambridge; Maiden, MA: Polity, 2005), p. 10. More generally, Kelly’s discussion of the concept of liberalism is the main working reference for the account of liberalism presented in the next pages along withGoogle Scholar
  3. John Charvet and Elisa Kaczynska-Nay, The liberal project and human rights: the theory and practice of a new world order (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    For a useful account of Hegel’s influence on communitarian political theory, the reader can refer to Andrew Linklater, The transformation of political community: ethical foundations of the post-Westphalian era (Oxford: Polity, 1998), pp. 52–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charles Taylor, “Atomism,” in Philosophical papers: philosophy and the human sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    For a definition of constitutive community, see, for example, Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the limits of justice, 2nd ed. (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge Universtiy Press, 1998), p. 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    James Griffin, On human rights (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeremy Waldron, “Nonsense upon stilts”: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the rights of man (London: Methuen, 1987), p. 3.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    David Boucher, Political theories of international relations: from Thucydides to the present (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 314–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edmund Burke, Francis Canavan, and Edward John Payne, Select works of Edmund Burke: a new imprint of the Payne edition, 4 vols. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1999), p. 100.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    R. J. Vincent, Human rights and international relations (Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 28.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    Edmund Burke, David P. Fidler, and Jennifer M. Welsh, Empire and community: Edmund Burke’s writings and speeches on international relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), p. 54.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Michael Walzer, “The communitarian critique of liberalism,” Political Theory 18, no. 1(1990): p. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 19.
    Karl Marx, “On the Jewish question,” in Karl Marx: selected writings, ed. David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 60–1.Google Scholar
  15. 24.
    Ibid., p. 59. For a different interpretation of Marx’s view on the idea of rights and justice, see Allen E. Buchanan, Marx and justice: the radical critique of liberalism (London: Methuen, 1982).Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    See among others an account of Hegel’s influence in international political theory in Chris Brown, Sovereignty, rights, and justice: international political theory today (Maiden, MA: Polity, 2002), pp. 49–51.Google Scholar
  17. 26.
    Charvet and Kaczynska-Nay, liberal project, p. 121. For a modern reinter-pretation from a communitarian perspective of the concept of nation and its moral implications, see David Miller, On nationality, Oxford political theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    Benedict R. Anderson, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Rev. ed. (London; New York: Verso, 2006).Google Scholar
  19. 30.
    Immanuel Kant, Political writing, 2nd ed. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  20. 33.
    Edward Hallett Carr and Michael Cox, The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939: an introduction to the study of international relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), p. 30.Google Scholar
  21. 36.
    The next section will refer to the revised edition. See John Rawls, A theory of justice, Rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Univeristy Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  22. 37.
    Michael Walzer, Spheres of justice: a defense of pluralism and equality (New York: Basic Books, 1983), p. XVIII.Google Scholar
  23. 53.
    Robert Nozick, Anarchy, state, and utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975).Google Scholar
  24. 57.
    Alasdair C. Maclntyre, After virtue: a study in moral theory, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984). Especially Chapter 17.Google Scholar
  25. 61.
    Common way of paraphrasing this idea of the priority of rights is Ronald Dworkin’s conception of “rights as trumps.” Ronald Dworkin, “Rights as trumps,” in Theories of rights, ed. Jeremy Waldron (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  26. 62.
    Alasdair C. MacIntyre, Whose justice? Which rationality? (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. 334.Google Scholar
  27. 67.
    Chris Brown, “Universal human rights: a critique,” The International Journal of Human Rights 1, no. 2 (1997): p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 68.
    Emanuel Adler, Communitarian international relations: the epistemic foundations of international relations, The new International Relations (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 8. There are many examples of conciliatory accounts between liberal and communitarian conceptions in international political theory. The present analysis only considers a few. One interesting contribution that cannot be discussed herein but deserves to be mentioned isGoogle Scholar
  29. Amitai Etzioni, From empire to community: a new approach to international relations, 1st ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).Google Scholar
  30. 73.
    Mervyn Frost, Ethics in international relations: a constitutive theory, Cambridge studies in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 77.
    Peter Sutch, “Human rights as settled norms: Mervyn Frost and the limits of Hegelian human rights theory,” Review of International Studies 26, no. 02 (2000): p. 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 80.
    Timothy Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, Human rights in global politics (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999). pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 81.
    Charles Taylor, “Conditions of an unforced consensus on human rights,” in The East Asian challenge for human rights, ed. Joanne R. Bauer and Daniel Bell, Conditions of an Unforced Consensus (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 124.Google Scholar
  34. 82.
    Richard Rorty, “Human rights, rationality and sentimentality,” in On human rights: the Oxford amnesty lectures, ed. Stephen Shute and S. L. Hurley (New York: BasicBooks, 1993), p. 119.Google Scholar
  35. 85.
    According to Rawls: “A decent people must honour the laws of peace, its system of law must be such as to respect human rights and to impose duties and obligations on all persons in its territory.” John Rawls, The Law of peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 67. Note that Rawls theorizes a minimalist conception of human rights, see note 86 belowGoogle Scholar
  36. 89.
    David Miller, “The ethical significance of nationality,” Ethics 98, no. 4 (1988): p. 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 90.
    Michael Walzer, Thick and thin: moral argument at home and abroad (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  38. 96.
    Charles R. Beitz, Political theory and international relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Filippo Dionigi 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Dionigi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations