The Case for a Radical Moral Communitarianism
Introduction
An earlier paper published in the British Journal of Community Justice – ‘Moral Ambiguity, the Schizophrenia of Crime and Criminal Justice’ (Hopkins Burke, 2007) – entered into the debate ‘about the contested meanings of the concept of community justice’ (Williams, 2004:1) and argued that the parameters of discussion be extended to encompass observations about the very nature of community, crime and criminal justice in contemporary societies. That paper concluded with a proposal that any legitimate community justice needs to be located in the context of a wider ‘new liberalism’ which considers equally both the rights and responsibilities of individuals and societies.
This is the first of two papers which return to that debate and discuss the rationale, theoretical foundations and the policy implications of that ‘new liberalism’, a radical moral communitarianism with its foundations in the work of the French social theorist Emile Durkheim and a particular conception of individualism – French individualism – which provides the basis of a rather different form of social organisation than those offered by competing notions of individualism. This first paper presents the case for a radical moral communitarianism. It commences with an exploration of the political philosophy of communitarianism and its perceived authoritarian deficiencies in implementation, a consideration of the alternative agenda proposed by radical egalitarian communitarians and their analysis of the socio-economic inadequacies of contemporary society. It concludes with a discussion of the neoliberal response to economic decline and its failings evidenced by the increasing expansion of a seriously unbalanced UK economy and the emergence of a neoliberal communitarianism which has sought through the implementation of a multifarious multitude of disciplinary tutelage strategies to manage and control a fragmented and diverse population. Problematically, these interventions have merely accentuated these socio-economic problems and impacted disastrously on the process of capital accumulation to the extent it is argued where a tipping point has been reached and where we need a new way of doing things: a new social contract between the state and it citizens. We will start by considering the parameters of the orthodox communitarian agenda.
The Communitarian Agenda
Orthodox communitarianism emerged as a political philosophy in the USA during the 1980s as a response to what its proponents considered to be the limitations of liberal theory and practice. It is significant for the conclusions reached in this paper that diverse strands in social, political and moral thought, arising from very different locations on the political spectrum - such as Marxism (Ross, 2003) and traditional ‘one-nation’ conservatism (Scruton, 2001) - can be identified within communitarian thought. The general concept thus has support across political boundaries but nevertheless with significant differences in emphasis.
The two dominant themes of orthodox mainstream communitarian philosophy are first, that the individual rights promoted by traditional liberals need to be balanced with social responsibilities and second, autonomous individual selves do not exist in isolation but are shaped by the values and culture of communities. The key proposition is that unless we redress the balance toward the pole of community our society will continue to become normless, self-centred, and driven by special interests and power seeking. In response this paper argues that the balance has subsequently shifted excessively and unhealthily towards the pole of community with a much greater contemporary emphasis on the responsibilities of individuals to the detriment of their rights in the context of the neoliberal backlash of austerity policies. The radical moral communitarianism proposed seeks a reconstituted appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities in the context of a fairer society and these themes are developed in more detail in the second paper in this series.
It is this critique of the one-sided emphasis on individual civil or human rights that is the key defining characteristic of orthodox communitarianism. ‘Rights talk’, it is argued, has corrupted political discourse, inhibited genuine discussion and has been employed without a corresponding sense of responsibilities (see Emanuel, 1991; Glendon, 1991; Etzioni, 1993, 1995a, 1995b). It is a perception 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. Moreover, dominant liberal theories of justice as well as much of economic and political theory, presume such a self (see Etzioni, 1993).
Communitarians shift the balance and argue that the ‘I’ is constituted through the ‘We’ in a dynamic tension. Now, significantly, this is not an argument for the restoration of traditional communities with high levels of mechanical solidarity (Durkheim, 1933) and the repressive dominance of the majority or the patriarchal family, although some conservatives have influentially adopted that position. Orthodox communitarians are indeed critical of community institutions which are authoritarian and that cannot bear scrutiny within a larger framework of human rights and equal opportunities. Indeed, they appear to be accepting of the (post)modern condition argument that we are located within a complex web of pluralistic communities – or organic solidarity - with genuine value conflicts within them and within selves (see Hopkins Burke, 2013b).
Etzioni et al. (1991) outline the basic framework of orthodox communitarianism urging that the focus should be on the family and its central role in socialisation proposing that employers should provide maximum support for parents through the creation of work time initiatives, such as the provision of crèche facilities, and they warn us against avoidable parental relationship breakdowns, in order to put the interests of children first:
'The fact is, given the same economic and social conditions, in poor neighbourhoods one finds decent and hardworking youngsters next to antisocial ones. Likewise, in affluent suburbs one finds antisocial youngsters right next to decent hardworking ones. The difference is often a reflection of the homes they come from.' (Etzioni, 1995b:70)
Etzioni influentially referred to the existence of a ‘parenting deficit’ in contemporary western societies where self-gratification is considered a much higher priority for many parents than ensuring that their children are properly socialised and instilled with the appropriate moral values that act as protection against involvement in criminality and anti-social behaviour. The outcome is both inevitable and disastrous:
'Juvenile delinquents do more than break their parents’ hearts. They mug the elderly, hold up stores and gas stations, and prey on innocent children returning from school. They grow up to be useless, or worse, as employees, and they can drain taxpayers’ resources and patience…Therefore, parents have a moral responsibility to the community to invest themselves in the proper upbringing of their children, and communities – to enable parents to so dedicate themselves.' (Etzioni, 1995b:54)
In the UK, Dennis and Erdos (1992) explained the ‘parenting deficit’ in terms of the liberalisation of sexual mores that has been endemic in western societies since the 1960s. They observed that the illegitimate children of single parents do less well on several fronts with young males becoming involved in criminal behaviour because of the absence of a positive male role model while, at the same time, the whole project of creating and maintaining the skills of fatherhood is being abandoned and lost in contemporary societies.
Communitarians seek to reverse these trends and they demand a revival of moral education in schools at all levels, including the values of tolerance, peaceful resolution of conflict, the superiority of democratic government...
To continue reading
Request your trial