Philosophy
Communitarianism vs. Liberalism: The Individual and the Community
Quick fact
Communitarians like Michael Sandel argue that the liberal view of the 'unencumbered self'—a person defined only by their choices—is metaphysically false: we are always already embedded in communities that constitute our identity, making an impartial 'veil of ignorance' an impossible ideal.
Why this is interesting
We often think of ourselves as free individuals who choose our own values. But what if who we are is largely shaped by the communities we belong to?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Communitarianism vs. Liberalism: The Individual and the Community
Imagine two ways of thinking about a person. Liberalism (as in John Locke, Immanuel Kant, or John Rawls) starts with the individual as a free, rational agent who creates their own values and rights. Society, in this view, is a contract between such individuals to protect those rights. Communitarianism (with thinkers like Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and Alasdair MacIntyre) flips this: it starts with the community. It says our values, language, and even our sense of self are deeply shaped by the families, traditions, and cultures we grow up in. So, a communitarian might argue that a truly just society must not be 'neutral' but should support the shared values and good lives of its communities. Consider a key debate: should a state fund art that only some people like? A liberal might say no—the state shouldn't favor any particular vision of the good life. A communitarian might say yes, if that art reflects the community's heritage and helps sustain its identity.
A deeper explanation
The core dispute is about the nature of the self and the basis of justice. Liberals demand neutrality: the state must not endorse any particular conception of the good, so all can freely choose and pursue their own. Communitarians argue this 'unencumbered self' is a fiction. As Sandel put it, we cannot step outside our identities into the 'veil of ignorance' because our values and attachments are partly what make us who we are. This leads to different politics. For example, on abortion or same-sex marriage, a liberal might say these are private choices; the state should not impose one view. A communitarian might argue that these practices affect the community's moral fabric, so the community has a right to deliberate and shape them. On social welfare, communitarians often support stronger social safety nets because they see citizens as members of a shared community, not just self-interested contractors. They also emphasize civic duty and collective responsibility. The communitarian critique does not reject all liberal rights, but it insists that rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the common good. This fuels real-world debates—from curriculum in schools to the limits of hate speech—showing that the philosophical question of who we are has concrete consequences.