Liberalism VS. Communitarianism

Varying philosophies present us with an opportunity to look at individual cases through opposing lenses and arrive at what can best be called objective truth. In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, we can formulate two very distinct positions by looking through two opposing lenses. The Yoder case raises societal and philosophical questions that require us to consider the very basic understandings of how society is to be structured, organized, and which values are to be given priority. The purpose of this paper is to take a comparative analysis of both liberalism and communitarianism through responses and positions of each with respect to the Yoder case. Utilizing this analysis of positions, I will then make a comparative and contrasting claim as to which may be the best possible solution to the central question. The first response will deal with liberalism, and will be followed by the communitarian response/position to the respective case.

Liberalism, while remaining a diverse school of philosophy in its own, has several key distinguishing aspects regarding notions of rights, liberty, and the individual. Liberalism places an excessive priority on freedom of the individual, as well as incorporating other rights-based principles such as those espoused by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (Sandel, 587). This becomes essential in understanding and formulating a position in regards to Yoder, as we must understand the very basic tenets of the liberal philosophy.

Generating a clear position on this matter forces us to consider several points of view within the liberal sphere of thought, while at the same time honoring the very basic principles of liberalism. The question that needs addressing is simple: whose rights should be given priority? The Justices in the original Yoder decision outlined the defense as relevant to religious claims, under which the defendants have a claim under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (Justice Burger, 611). The Amish parents have a positive right to practice their religion as they choose so long as they do not inflict harm upon anyone else. They also have claim to a negative right against the government not to interfere with the practice of these religious beliefs. That, insofar as the case is concerned, is established by virtue of being an American citizen. The conflict arrives within the liberal position of the interests of the child in question. Does the very nature of the Amish way of life, which in this case includes removing the children (aged fourteen and fifteen) from the public schools to pursue a traditional Amish way of life, conflict with the individual rights and interests of the children? The interests of the child have to be taken in accordance to their future expectations, interests, and desires. Allowing the parents to remove their children from the public school limits their opportunities in the future, thus subjecting them to an Amish life; a decision in which they took no part in making.

This conflict of interests represents a problem inherent with liberalism. In drawing a conclusion, the decision inevitably rests with allowing maximum social choice and mobility for the children-whose interests seem to trump the wishes and religious practices of the parents. Philosophical liberalism could posit a response similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas from the Yoder decision. Mr. Justice Douglas responded to the majority decision by focusing on the interests of the children, pointing out that the decision equates to the imposition of the parents' religious duty unto the children.

In drawing a communitarian response to the Yoder case, we're presented with distinctions that separate the two philosophies on fundamental concepts. The justification for a communitarian's response relies not on abstract rights of individuals, nor conceptions of a neutral framework for the "good," but rather on notions of a practical concept of a common good. The communitarian philosophy is both an enumeration of ideals relating to a common good, as well as a criticism of the unencumbered self of the liberal philosophy.

This is one of the many distinguishing characteristics of communitarianism. Liberals assert that ruling with a vision of the "good" is a destructive end towards minorities and those who may disagree with the majority; conversely, communitarians hold that the concept of a common "good" which may bind society together and a perception of society that sees man not as independent and detached from society, but as organic and integral members of a community, society, or nation. Thus, being members of this collective, we become attached to the ends and goals of that given society-essentially the polar opposite of the notion of an unencumbered self.

More importantly, philosophical communitarianism holds a different idea of what constitutes our identity. Communitarian thought holds that we're not defined by virtue of being individuals with autonomy, but rather by our role in our communities (Sandel, 589). Thus, humans are social beings not defined by their individual will, interests, or autonomous actions, but rather by the various communities for which they are a part of and the way in which they interact with other members of the community. The Amish community has interest above the individual; as a community it shapes and defines its members and requires of them more than the considerations of any given individual. The distinguishing mark in regards to Yoder, which makes the communitarian response quite unique, is the amount of consideration that it accords to the interests of the Amish community.

If man is a social being, and his identity is partly (or entirely) defined by his community, then notions of maximizing individual liberty and choice would not be relevant in comparison to the overall common good. The basis for a communitarian response to Yoder would coincide with the decision reached by Justice Burger and the majority of the court. Communitarians would agree that the interests of the Amish community require the honoring of their traditions and the perpetuation of their way of life over the individual interests of the children. The Amish children are not isolated individuals (much less capable of making decisions on their own) and their future courses of action are in part established by their past participation in their respective community. The children have roles as members of the Amish community, and their identities reside within the realm of that community. This analysis has yet to offer which position is superior, and I will now address this issue.

While neither a liberal nor a communitarian, I uphold the notion that man is not isolated from the rest of mankind by virtue of being an autonomous individual. I disregard the notion of the unencumbered self as problematic, and furthermore, I do not accept the neutral concept of the good as posited by philosophical liberalism. Individuals cannot successfully isolate themselves from the rest of their community, nation, or social networks without negative consequences befalling them. We have roles that are in fact determined by more than our individual will; these roles are necessary for the survival and affluence of any community, and must be respected.

What is most troubling about philosophical liberalism is the avoidance of prescribing a notion of the good. The value-neutral assessment of the "good life" removes the collective will of humanity. While liberals may deny that this collective will exists, it manifests itself in the daily organization of contemporary human society. Even the most technologically advanced nations on the face of the Earth exhibit numerous aspects of tribalism in their structure and values. This collective will is what allows human beings to perpetuate language, culture, art, science, and society in general. The unencumbered self runs counter to human nature-not the other way around. Man is a social being, and that being rests upon his willingness to submit himself to the collective and work towards a common good.

As a Marxist-Leninist, I can appreciate the principles of philosophical communitarianism through its emphasis on community and notions of a common good over the unencumbered self. The liberal belief that attempting to govern by accordance to any vision of a common good is a "slippery-slope" towards dystopia is nothing more than a baseless device of sophistry. Communitarianism, while not my ideal, offers a different perspective on issues of individual identity within the community, as well as returning emphasis on a sense of collective involvement rather than individual liberty. The former is responsible for the successes of society; the latter resulting in selfishness, isolation of individuals, and furthermore an alienated sense of individuality responding to social traditions and institutions based upon liberal ideals.

In regards to the Yoder case, I find the communitarian position to be more compelling and more in concert with what it means to serve within a community. The interests of the individual are important insofar as the community is concerned. Human nature is not individualistic, but social-as history and the organization of society show us. We do not isolate ourselves nor seek to further our own interests on a morally licit basis; instead, we concern ourselves with our fellow citizens and community members whom we all share a collective interest. I believe that concepts of the common good are indistinguishable from a successful society, and individual rights (if they're to be recognized at all) are secondary to the concept of the good.

Sources:
Arthur, John. Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy, 7th ed. New York: Prentice Hall, 2004.