TAM - EVOLUTION OF COMMUNITARIAN IDEAS : history, theory and practice.

Communitarian ideas offer a distinct approach to dealing with the perennial challenges that arise from human interactions . Rather than characterising them as some third or fourth option alongside prevailing modes of thinking, we may understand their meaning and significance better by recognising them as the on-going adaptation and application of what is arguably the first way in ethicsthe way of reciprocal cooperation.

The Golden Rule of treating others as one would have others treat one was not only implicit in the mutually supportive behavioural traits of early human communities (Bowles and Gintis ). A corollary of this ethos is that people are expected, not to refer exclusively to ones own inclinations or defer routinely to others demands, but to explore with others on a mutually respectful basis how they should behave towards one another. However, as relatively simple community structures gave way to more complex forms of social organisation, the gap between the recommended norm and actual practices began to widen.

The divergence was accelerated when tribes and clans were increasingly merged into larger political entities. Some individuals were able to secure much more power than the rest in the name of organising for better production or protection. Amongst them would be those who, driven by selfish impulse or delusion of infallibility, declared that they were so superior that it was unobjectionable for them to treat others in ways they would never expect or allow others to treat them in return. And because of the greater power they had acquired or inherited (to deceive, bribe, intimidate, harm), they could impose asymmetric treatment on those around them. In time, supporters and critics of the powerful would argue about what rulers should or should not do, by invoking notions such as the proper character of leaders, hallowed traditions , universal duties , the will of God , the glory of ones nation , the size of the economy , the rights of individuals, or the sum of human happiness . These notions, whatever their merits might be under different interpretations, shifted the ensuing debates away from what was once the primary focus on cooperative human relations. Instead of looking to work out with others what would be appropriate under varied circumstances, people were directed to look at themselvestheir own power, rights , desires, religious faith , economic interests, inherited loyaltyto establish what should be done.

But the ethos of reciprocity was not entirely forgotten. In this book, we will examine how thinkers with communitarian ideas continued through the ages to contribute to theories and practices relating to the development of cooperative community life. Together, they have reminded us of the value of interdependence , and provided us with evolving guidance on how we should live as mutually supportive members of overlapping communities.

Before we proceed with our detailed exposition, we should dispel a number of misconceptions of the term communitarian, which has only entered our political lexicon relatively recently. A key distinction should be drawn at the outset between casual usage and serious attribution based on historical understanding. The former comprises generic, rhetorical, and pre-conceived deployment of the term. Some people use communitarian in a generic way to describe just about anything connected with the notion of community. For example, a book about communities is cited as a communitarian publication, a talk about the activities going on in a local community is described as a communitarian speech. Such usage is broad and may be considered unobjectionable so long as no one takes it as a pointer to what constitutes communitarian ideas.

The rhetorical use is mostly found amongst commentators who associate the term communitarian with their own personal vision of a good society, and are inclined to ascribe it to any public figure they wish to claim as backing that vision. Despite their contrasting approaches and policies, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barrack Obama have all been described in the US as communitarians (Milbank ).

As for preconceived usage, this happens when writers associate any invocation of community with certain socio-political features they have strong reservations about. Consequently, they express their opposition to communitarian ideas because they assume such thinking must be, for example, navely idealising a form of community life that never actually existed and never will (Phillips ).

By contrast, any serious attribution of communitarian would fully take into account its affinity with what can be called the conceptual DNA to be found in the core formulations of communitarian/communitarianism. There are broadly five sets of such formulations that are found in the history of the concept, which are distinct from any generic, rhetorical, or pre-conceived usage.

The first set of formulations appeared around the middle of the nineteenth century. They related to the ideas and practices of Robert Owen and people who wanted to apply these to the development of cooperative arrangements to facilitate better social and economic relations (Owen ).