Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2006
  • Online publication date: July 2010

6 - Communitarianism



Can communitarianism meet the ecological challenge? In keeping with the purposes of this volume, I interpret this challenge to mean, ‘Does communitarianism provide the appropriate insights, conceptual resources and norms to guide political communities along ecologically sustainable paths?’

This question admits of no straightforward answer because communitarians are an unruly bunch who defy simple political classification. Communitarians can be more easily identified in terms of what they are against rather than what they are for. We all know that communitarians are critical of cosmopolitanism (see Linklater, chapter 7 in this volume) and the Enlightenment idea of Universal Reason, but it is not always easy to find a common thread in their positive political prescriptions. Some are conservative or traditional while others are civic republicans. Some draw on Aristotle, others on Hegel. Some communitarians have a theoretical affinity with postmodernism while others find common cause with realism. There are also some interesting hybrids, such as liberal communitarians, liberal nationalists and Third Way ‘new communitarians’, who are keen on rebuilding social capital so we no longer go ‘bowling alone’.

Despite this political diversity, it is possible to single out one preoccupation that does unite communitarians, and that is a special preoccupation with questions of identity and the significance of social bonds. It is this preoccupation that partly explains their critique of cosmopolitanism, on the one hand, and the diversity of their political prescriptions, on the other (after all, there are many different ties that bind people together).

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. London: Verso.
Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dobson, A. (2004). ‘Why Be a Cosmopolitan?’ Unpublished paper.
Dodge, J. (1981). ‘Living by Life: Some Bioregional Theory and Practice’, CoEvolution Quarterly 32 (Winter): 6–12.
Graham, K. (1930). The Wind in the Willows. London: Methuen.
Hage, G. (1998). White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Sydney: Pluto Press, 165–78.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D. (1999). ‘The Transformation of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization’, in Shapiro, Ian and Hacker-Cordon, Casiana (eds.), Democracy's Edges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 84–111.
Kingsnorth, Paul (2004). ‘Nimbys Are the True Democratic Heroes’, New Statesman 17. 805 (3 May): 22–4.
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. London: Duckworth.
Matthews, F. (1991). The Ecological Self. London: Routledge.
Miller, D. (1993) ‘In Defence of Nationality’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 19. 1: 3–16.
Miller, D. (1995). On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1996). For Love of Country?Boston: Beacon Press.
Rorty, R. (1998). ‘Justice as a Larger Loyalty’, in Cheah, Pheng and Robbins, Bruce (eds.), Cosmopolis: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 45–58.
Sandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saward, M. (2000). ‘A Critique of Held’, in Holden, Barry (ed.), Global Democracy: Key Debates. London: Routledge, 37–8.
Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Walzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and Social Criticism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.