Abstract
Communitarianism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the importance of community in the functioning of political life, in the analysis and evaluation of political institutions, and in understanding human identity and well-being. It was developed in the 1980s and '90s in explicit opposition to the theoretical liberalism of thinkers such as John Rawls. According to communitarians, liberalism relies on a conception of the individual that is unrealistically atomistic and abstract; it also places too much importance on individual values such as freedom and autonomy. Indeed, liberalism is a philosophy or movement which aims at developing individual freedom. Today, liberalism has changed. Is this change a consequence of the communitarian critique? If so, what is the degree of efficiency? To my mind, effectiveness involves both the question of the theoretical coherence of the communitarian critique (I), and its concrete effects, if it is taken into account by the liberals to reformulate their arguments. (II)
I. The theoretical coherence of the communitarian critique of liberalism
A. Liberal principles are not sufficient to guarantee social justice
Liberal principles are too abstract and do not reflect the social justice. One of the precursors of the critique of liberalism was Burke, who explained: “I have never met a man but French, a German, Spanish…” Two main criticisms of this universalism are developed by communitarians: first of all, liberalism does not recognize differences; individuals are universal. On the contrary, for the Communitarians, there exists a right to have rights. Some rights should exist for some groups, as this is the only way to reduce inequalities. The Communitarians aim at real equality contrary to liberalism which aims at equality in the eyes of the law. Secondly, for communitarianism, organizing an effective redistribution is impossible if we do not share some common values, such as language. For instance, in Belgium, Flanders was fed up with paying for Wallonia.
