• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Communitarianism

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
This is Part 1 of a two part thread based on what this dude says the modern idea of self is.

I just recently began to look at communitarianism so I'm not sure what it's about. I'm curious to hear people's opinions.

Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities. Unless we begin to redress the balance toward the pole of community, communitarians believe, our society will continue to become normless, self-centered, and driven by special interests and power seeking.

Communitarians argue that the one-sided emphasis on rights in liberalism is related to its conception of the individual as a "disembodied self," uprooted from cultural meanings, community attachments, and the life stories that constitute the full identities of real human beings. Dominant liberal theories of justice, as well as much of economic and political theory, presume such a self. And our "habits of the heart" deeply draw upon this, even in many cases where we behave as committed community activists.
Source

Communitarianism springs from the recognition that the human being is by nature a social animal as well as an individual with a desire for autonomy. Communitarians recognize that a healthy society must have a correct balance between individual autonomy and social cohesion. Much recent thinking has focused on an assumed conflict between the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the government. When you put "community" back into the equation, you find that the apparent conflict between the individual and the government can be resolved by public policies that are consistent with core American values and work to the benefit of all members of our society.Source

Communitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What do people think? What's right about this philosophy? What's wrong about it?

The major criticism I've found is that it "mischaracterizes liberalism, attributing to it rigid theoretical dichotomies and implausible assumptions about moral psychology and social life to which liberals were not committed either by intent or by implication; and second, that many of the practical reforms that communitarians endorsed were viable and indeed desirable within a liberal framework."

And to provide balance, here is the the Anti Communitarian Manifesto.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Its fascism by another name, but with the same good intentions.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
It sounds as if this person wants to pressure people into according with what their ideas of community and values are.

I disagree with much of this. I think the only way you can meaningfully be part of a community is if you have the freedom to choose not to be. If you don't have a choice, it means nothing, the community is just a forced construct. If you choose to donate your time and energy into a community, then it means a lot. If you choose to accept a particular position and be a part of a particular group of people by claiming that you identify with them, that means something. If you just have to be part of that group because you're expected to be, and you don't have much say or awareness of options, then that doesn't mean anything.

Connection loses meaning when it is forced. Being able to choose your friends and the people you identify with is an integral part of human identity. The people you're forced to be around, and the values they try to impart can shape you, but that isn't what really defines you as a person.

Does that make sense?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Dayam. All I know is that when I want to insult someone I call them a fascist.
That's because the word 'fascist' is commonly employed to describe someone who is intolerant of others, in particular someone who is intolerant of people because they are of another race, nationality, religion, sex, etc. It is true that fascist regimes, such as that in Germany under the nazis, often practice some such intolerance, but it is not the defining characteristic of fascism. In fact, if you were to substract from nazi doctrine the rampant racism, and anti-semitism in particular, then nazism would likely qualify as a form of communitarianism. It is worth noting that the term 'nazi' was not common among nazis, but instead they would have described themselves as national socialists.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Does that make sense?
If I were to stub my toe on the doorstep tomorrow then I would not hold that doorstep morally responsible for my pain, and nor would I hold it responsible for my good fortune if in my moment of pain I were to spot $100 which I would otherwise have not noticed. The doorstep is not a decision-making agent, and no punishment nor reward could have any consequence on its future behaviour. The doorstep will not move aside to prevent me stubbing my toe in the future, and nor will it leap into my path to draw my attention toward some item of worth.

An entity, such as the state, which forces someone to "do good", denies that same someone the opportunity to be a decision-maker and also denies to them, as the laws of the universe deny my doorstep, any responsibility for their behaviour. It is only for our status as decision-makers that we are regarded as responsible for our behaviour, whether our behaviour is right or wrong. Therefore, by substituting the decisions of many individuals for the decisions of a few powerful elites, those individuals are denied their opportunity for moral action.

If it were possible to compel each and every individual to do the right thing, so that noone could be regarded as a decision-maker, then nobody would ever have the opportunity for moral action. The daily interactions of individuals would be like a well-greased machine, flawless, but heartless. Unfortunately, many seem to promote ideas and policies which deny others the opportunity for moral action, seduced by soothing words like 'community', 'cohesion', and 'nature', and disgusted with selfishness and the loss of the tribal society.

Despite communitarian's dislike of power-seeking, that is exactly what they seek over others, because 'promoting cohesion' are just soothing words to describe what constitutes the overriding of other peoples decisions by those in power.
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
What Lee is saying, Athenian, is that D.A.R.E is a well-meaning waste of money.

The simplest way to devalue virtue, by legalism, is to comprehensively mandate it.

On the other hand, assuming that individuals will accommodate one another through spontaneous conceptions of right and wrong invests too much in mechanism -- or statistics, depending on how you look at it. James Fitzjames Stephen said, "men are so closely connected together that it is quite impossible to say how far the influence of acts apparently of the most personal character may extend," and he was right. Morality must be substantiated externally, therefore it must be shared. And to be at all meaningful it must be enforced: not statutorily, by government; but socially, by community. There is some distance between diktat, and mores, and once more anarchy.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I liked the philosophy and I'm just about the farthest thing from a fascist. In fact it sounds like a balance of socialism and liberalism to me. Am I missing something?

Edit: In fact, reading nocturne's post just makes me think he is a hardcore liberal. The community is essential to the development of each individual. I don't know where the state even comes into play. It's only one aspect of a community.

It doesn't hurt anything to compel people to help. Nobody is forcing them to, and I don't see anywhere in this philosophy where it suggests people would.


But I find all political philosophies to be inherently coercive one way or another. In every single case, some value has to be imposed on others.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Nocturne: It seems from what you said as if you agree with what I said, but I'm not sure. Do you?

HTB: It seems like you want to impose some kind of unfair idea where people are completely beholden to all of other people's expectations with no opportunity for appeal or a way to get outside them, and no guarantee that the rules or punishments be spelled out. I don't like that very much. If someone has an expectation, I want to have the right to confront it, know exactly what it is, and what I'll lose if I violate it, and then have the opportunitity to do so if I still wish to, and whether I really need to do so.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Communitarians tend to favor policies designed to protect and promote ties to the family and family-like groups. This would include such measures as encouraging marriage and increasing the difficulty of legal marriage dissolution. These policies are supported by empirical evidence that points to the psychological and social benefits of marriage (Waite 1996). Communitarians also favor political legislation that can help to restructure education in such a way that peoples deepest needs in membership and participation in psychological communities are tapped at a young age. The primary school system in Japan, where students learn about group cooperation and benefits and rewards are assigned to the classroom as a whole rather than to individual students, could be a useful model (Reid 1999).

:shocking:

No thanks.
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
HTB: It seems like you want to impose some kind of unfair idea where people are completely beholden to all of other people's expectations with no opportunity for appeal or a way to get outside them, and no guarantee that the rules or punishments be spelled out. I don't like that very much. If someone has an expectation, I want to have the right to confront it, know exactly what it is, and what I'll lose if I violate it, and then have the opportunity to do so if I still wish to, and whether I really need to do so.
I certainly don't support communitarianism. However, social restriction can be effected by only two agents: private individuals and entities, and the state. Because evidence confutes the idea that behavior of one does not (or even cannot) affect others, individuals will inevitably turn to a regulatory agent to proscribe that which they dislike. I for one would prefer enforcement that is merely social, not legal. Your concern at being "beholden to people's expectations" I find vague and lost in theory. Who are these people? Are they going to put you in jail? Take your property? And even if a certain community punishes violations, we're not talking about 200 aboriginals on a tiny island; life as it is provides thousands of subcultures in the United States alone. Pick one and act according to most of its rules -- you do already.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
:shocking:

No thanks.

But...we do much of that already. Marriage is already encouraged via tax and insurance benefits. And for good reason since it's shown that those who are married live longer and happier lives. And some states have made it harder to get a divorce. I believe you have to wait at least one year in Virginia.

And elementary schools across the country have been restructured to follow foreign models, particularly the Japanese model because of how much more effective those schools are.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Nocturne: It seems from what you said as if you agree with what I said, but I'm not sure. Do you?

HTB: It seems like you want to impose some kind of unfair idea where people are completely beholden to all of other people's expectations with no opportunity for appeal or a way to get outside them, and no guarantee that the rules or punishments be spelled out. I don't like that very much. If someone has an expectation, I want to have the right to confront it, know exactly what it is, and what I'll lose if I violate it, and then have the opportunitity to do so if I still wish to, and whether I really need to do so.
Yes, I was agreeing with you :)
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
In fact, reading nocturne's post just makes me think he is a hardcore liberal.
Yes, I like my liberalism as I like my pornography... hardcore and with a Cadbury's cream egg. It is just so much better that way. Try it sometime. MMMmmm...

I like liberalism as much as the next guy, since the respect of liberty is the difference between civility and barbarity. If society is to stray from the ideal of liberty, let us pray that it does not stray too far, eh? The policies advocated under the banner of communitarianism are fascist, a thinly veiled rehash of the ideas of Mussolini, and presented with many soothing words intended to seduce the socialist and conservative in us all, an appeal to the intolerant occupants of both ends of the political "spectrum".

Let us do a little experiment,

The Christian Right emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities. The Christian Right argue that the one-sided emphasis on rights in liberalism is related to its conception of the individual as a "disembodied self," uprooted from cultural meanings, community attachments, and the life stories that constitute the full identities of real human beings. The Christian Right tend to favor policies designed to protect and promote ties to the family and family-like groups. This would include such measures as encouraging marriage and increasing the difficulty of legal marriage dissolution. The Christian Right also favor political legislation that can help to restructure education in such a way that peoples deepest needs in membership and participation in psychological communities are tapped at a young age.​

It doesn't take a village *cough* Hillary Clinton *cough* to see the similarities. It seems that these days its hard to know where you'll find fascists lurking, on the right on the left, running for the Democrat nomination, currently occupying the White House, etc. Scary stuff. That said, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. The apparent conflict between socialism and fascism is not ideological, both advocate very similar policies and ideals, and for a long time socialists in the US would sing the praises of the likes of Mussolini, not unlike they did for Lenin and Stalin--only much later did 'fascism' become a dirty word. No, the conflict arises because socialism and fascism compete in the same marketplace, and appeal to people of the same mind and mentality. In other words, that McDonalds is most fiercely competitive with Burger King is not for their differences but because of their similarity.

On that note:

"To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom, however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us, although for some very much more than for others. Before man could truly be free, the 'despotism of physical want' had to be broken, the 'restraints of the economic system' relaxed." - Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I don't really see the similarities. For one, the Christian Right didn't emerge in the 1980's. They don't embody individual rights in accordance with social responsiblity. From what I have seen, most of the Christian right embrace liberalism. Honestly, just plugging "Christian Right" in place of Communitarianism is not a good argument. In fact, it verges on a logical fallacy.

It seems to me you are just inserting your own value judgments and assumptions rather than attacking the actual philosophy. That might work for some of the yahoos on this forum, but it's the classic NTJ tactic of retortion which doesn't fool me. (See NTJ tactics thread)

There is merit in this philosophy which is very evident because we are utilizing some of these ideas in the here and now. The community is essential in the development of human beings. For example...
Infants that are not held will die.
Feral children have shown the extraordinary importance of socialization in learning and development.
Language is one of the first things children acquire and it is absolutely necessary for learning pretty much everything.

It is undeniable that the community shapes individuals. Without it we would be little more than mindless beasts scavenging to stay alive. Teaching people the importance of cooperation, community, and family is necessary for the next generation of individuals.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
It seems to me you are just inserting your own value judgments and assumptions rather than attacking the actual philosophy. That might work for some of the yahoos on this forum, but it's the classic NTJ tactic of retortion which doesn't fool me. (See NTJ tactics thread).
Okay, I admit it, you've seen right through me! I can't fool you it seems.

There is merit in this philosophy which is very evident because we are utilizing some of these ideas in the here and now. The community is essential in the development of human beings. For example... Infants that are not held will die. Feral children have shown the extraordinary importance of socialization in learning and development. Language is one of the first things children acquire and it is absolutely necessary for learning pretty much everything. It is undeniable that the community shapes individuals. Without it we would be little more than mindless beasts scavenging to stay alive. Teaching people the importance of cooperation, community, and family is necessary for the next generation of individuals.
Oh, I see... and here I was, thinking that cooperation, community, learning, and family were bad, horrible, illiberal, ideas promoted by socialists and fascists, and that child mortality rates could do with being a little higher, you know, because that would be more individualistic or something. In fact, I am beginning to think that social activity of any kind is morally wrong and unacceptable.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Where exactly in this philosophy does it say that no one is allowed to leave the community? Where does it say that it forces people to participate in the community? Perhaps, I am mistaken, but those are the ideas that both you and Athenian have interjected into this philosophy, so where exactly does it suggest that?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Where exactly in this philosophy does it say that no one is allowed to leave the community? Where does it say that it forces people to participate in the community? Perhaps, I am mistaken, but those are the ideas that both you and Athenian have interjected into this philosophy, so where exactly does it suggest that?
I am sorry, you're right, communitarianism is just liberalism by another name. Oh, wait, that's not right...
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
htb: Thanks for clarifying, I think what you're saying makes sense. I just misinterpreted it at first as meaning that people's expectations should be considered to be as valid as laws, and that real laws weren't necessary.

There is merit in this philosophy which is very evident because we are utilizing some of these ideas in the here and now. The community is essential in the development of human beings. For example...
Infants that are not held will die.
Feral children have shown the extraordinary importance of socialization in learning and development.
Language is one of the first things children acquire and it is absolutely necessary for learning pretty much everything.

It is undeniable that the community shapes individuals. Without it we would be little more than mindless beasts scavenging to stay alive. Teaching people the importance of cooperation, community, and family is necessary for the next generation of individuals.

No one is arguing about that, Kiddo. No one here ever said that community or society was unneccessary and had no purpose. You're putting words in our mouths, and misrepresenting our arguments. What we are arguing about here is whether people should be forced to be part of a community and adopt it's values without any exposure to alternative choices. What I am saying is that taking away individual choice and pushing people towards accepting the values of their community, regardless of their own convictions isn't healthy. In fact, I would venture to say that communities based on people who understand and choose to be a part of them are more suited to their member's well-being. I think it's important for people to be able to choose whom they associate with and whom they do not. Who you are willing to associate with is an integral part of your identity and values. That's why each person should be given a choice about who they associate with, rather than having it mandated to them what they should value and whom they should associate with. I respect you enough to assume that you understand the value of this.

Children, the handicapped, and the insane are a different matter than reasonable adults. Since they cannot yet understand anything well enough to choose anything in any reasonable capacity, then they have to be protected by others. What I am arguing is that it is detrimental to the well-being of people in the long-term to teach them only how to follow other people's expectations, and not how to examine them or make good choices themselves.

I'm not saying that people don't need other people. I'm saying that people should have a choice of how involved they are. One level could be just paying taxes, working, not breaking the law, and purchasing services for money. Then at the next level, you could have volunteering or involvement in large groups or campaigns. Basically, I believe that people have a natural right to seek out like-minded individuals rather than being compelled to adopt the values of people they can't relate to against their will.

Perhaps I don't actually understand what you're talking about, because I only read the part quoted by Proteanmix, and the subsequent arguments, rather than the actual page.
 
Top