Editing Communitarianism (section)

== Academic communitarianism ==<!-- 'Academic communitarianism' redirects here. -->
Whereas the classical liberalism of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] can be viewed as a reaction to centuries of authoritarianism, oppressive government, overbearing communities, and rigid dogma, modern communitarianism can be considered a reaction to excessive individualism, understood as an undue emphasis on individual rights, leading people to become selfish or egocentric.<ref name=":1">{{Cite encyclopedia|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/communitarianism#ref299521|title=Communitarianism {{!}} political and social philosophy|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|access-date=2018-08-16|language=en}}</ref>

The close relation between the individual and the community was discussed on a theoretical level by [[Michael Sandel]] and [[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Charles Taylor]], among other academic communitarians, in their criticisms of philosophical liberalism, especially the work of the American liberal theorist [[John Rawls]] and that of the German Enlightenment philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]]. They argued that contemporary liberalism failed to account for the complex set of social relations that all individuals in the modern world are a part of. Liberalism is rooted in an untenable ontology that posits the existence of generic individuals and fails to account for social embeddedness. To the contrary, they argued, there are no generic individuals but rather only Germans or Russians, Berliners or Muscovites, or members of some other particularistic community. Because individual identity is partly constructed by culture and social relations, there is no coherent way of formulating individual rights or interests in abstraction from social contexts. Thus, according to these communitarians, there is no point in attempting to found a theory of justice on principles decided behind Rawls' [[veil of ignorance]], because individuals cannot exist in such an abstracted state, even in principle.<ref name=":1" />

Academic communitarians also contend that the nature of the political community is misunderstood by liberalism. Where liberal philosophers described the polity as a neutral framework of rules within which a multiplicity of commitments to moral values can coexist, academic communitarians argue that such a thin conception of political community was both empirically misleading and normatively dangerous. Good societies, these authors believe, rest on much more than neutral rules and procedures—they rely on a shared moral culture. Some academic communitarians argued even more strongly on behalf of such particularistic values, suggesting that these were the only kind of values which matter and that it is a philosophical error to posit any truly universal moral values.

In addition to Charles Taylor and Michael Sandel, other thinkers sometimes associated with academic communitarianism include [[Michael Walzer]], [[Alasdair MacIntyre]], [[Seyla Benhabib]], [[Shlomo Avineri]], and [[Patrick Deneen (political theorist)|Patrick J. Deneen]].<ref name=":1" />

=== Social capital ===
Beginning in the late 20th century, many authors began to observe a deterioration in the social networks of the United States. In the book ''[[Bowling Alone]]'', [[Robert Putnam]] observed that nearly every form of civic organization has undergone drops in membership exemplified by the fact that, while more people are bowling than in the 1950s, there are fewer bowling leagues.

This results in a decline in "[[social capital]]", described by Putnam as "the collective value of all '[[social networks]]' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other". According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy.<ref name=":2" />

Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of [[civil society]]. The Responsive Communitarian Platform described it thus:<ref name="platform">The Communitarian Network, ''[http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/RCP%20text.html Responsive Communitarian Platform Text] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100114032208/http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/RCP%20text.html |date=2010-01-14 }}''.</ref>

Many social goals require partnerships between public and private groups. Though the government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned.

=== Positive rights ===
Important to some supporters of communitarian philosophy is the concept of [[negative and positive rights|positive rights]], which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state-subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.

A common objection is that by providing such rights, communitarians violate the [[negative and positive rights|negative rights]] of the citizens; rights to ''not'' have something done for you. For example, taxation to pay for such programs as described above dispossesses individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights, by attributing the protection of negative rights to the society rather than the government, respond that individuals would not have any rights in the absence of societies—a central tenet of communitarianism—and thus have a responsibility to give something back to it. Some have viewed this as a negation of [[natural and legal rights|natural rights]]. However, what is or is not a "natural right" is a source of contention in modern politics, as well as historically; for example, whether or not universal health care, private property or protection from polluters can be considered a birthright.

Alternatively, some agree that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost.

Still, other communitarians question the very idea of natural rights and their place in a properly functioning community. They claim that instead, claims of rights and entitlements create a society unable to form cultural institutions and grounded social norms based on shared values. Rather, the liberalist claim to individual rights leads to a morality centered on individual emotivism, as ethical issues can no longer be solved by working through common understandings of the good. The worry here is that not only is society individualized, but so are moral claims.<ref>MacIntyre, Alasdair C. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame, 1984.</ref>