The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism

Author(s): Michael Walzer

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: 31-05-2015 03:08 UTC

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 support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walzer/COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE

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;

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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,
This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Walzer/COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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-

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 200.76.166.4 on Sun, 31 May 2015 03:08:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions