New Communitarian Thought and the Future of Social Policy

Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets, 2009

2018

The pursuit of social justice is at the heart of social work's mission. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics cites social justice as a centerpiece of the profession's principal aims. In the context of current political tensions in the U.S. and abroad, it is important for social workers to understand the essential relationship between the profession's social justice mission and political philosophy as they chart their individual social action agendas. This article explores the philosophical foundations of social justice and social action concerning three overarching issues that pertain directly to social work: the role of government with regard to the citizenry's wellbeing and welfare; the fair and just allocation of social resources (distributive justice); and the complex relationship between welfare and rights. The author traces the evolution of philosophical thinking about social justice from Plato's time and connects these core ideas to social work's current challenges and efforts to pursue social justice in a politically charged environment.

2008

Taylor, Sandel, Walzer, and MacIntyre waver between granting the community authority over the individual and limiting this authority so severely that communitarianism becomes a dead letter. The reason for this vacillation can be found in the aspiration of each theorist to base liberal valuesequality and liberty-on particularism. Communitarians compound liberal formalism by adding to the liberal goal, individual autonomy, the equally abstract aim of grounding autonomy in a communally shared identity. Far from returning political theory to substantive considerations of the good, communitarianism legitimizes really existing liberal politics-the politics of the nation-state.

Societas Ethica Jahresbericht, 1997

The debate between liberalism and communitarianism is often said to be the central debate in moral and political philosophy, as well as in much moral theology, during the 1980s and 1990s. One easily gets the impression that it is a debate between two coherent social philosophies, where liberalism represents the dominating ideology of modern Western societies, and communitarianism represents an alternative vision. But this is quite misleading, in many respects. Why it is so, is the first of three themes in this paper. I will question the very idea of communitarianism as a coherent and clearly fixed movement or idea. It is not at all clear what communitarianism is and who represents it. Although I will for practical reason still use the label, I doubt its helpfulness. 2 My second theme is more positive. I will point to some of the ideas that have made these clusters of thought so attractive for many and relate them especially to the ideas of justice and solidarity in relation to the welfare state. Third, as I am a theologian, I will also indicate the possible relevance of these ideas for church and theology, at the same time as I show why a communitarian perspective might be as problematic for the Christian church as liberalism, and ironically enough, why it is especially problematic for precisely theologians most often described as communitarians. What is communitarianism? Who are the communitarians? One peculiar matter with so-called communitarianism is that the people most often associated with that "position" usually dissociate themselves from it. The four most influential "communitarians" among contemporary philosophers are Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Michael Sandel. At least the first three don't want to be considered communitarians. 3 And Sandel sees himself primarily as retrieving the tradition of civic republicanism, with its stress on self-government, which he thinks was the dominating public philosophy in America for a long time. One might however describe this republican tradition as one important historical expression of what today is often called communitarianism. The same is true for theologians such as

South African Journal of Philosophy 16 (1997): 150-157

Respecl lor the creatirritr.'ar-t6 L*aror1 of eyer.,,individual is an attitude rvortn prcseriins and llnds expres5ioll in rarious liberal social institutioirs-But at th3 sarne time those institutions u'ili tend to become corrupied if rheir mcral fbundations are not acknorvledsed and lhe conditions for freedom to develop not fostered. fhe communitarian notion of a social practice as foundational in rnoraliS,can rvell sen,e to complement the unCerstandins of fi-eedom in liberalisr thoueht-It has the potential lor integralirg in our understandir-rg ofn-roral values, the findings ofthe sircial sciences concernins the various social andps-''chological conditionsforirumanderelopment. lnorderforthisnoriontoservethisfuncrionitlsnecessar'1 ro brins in some lbrm of transcendental argument Ibr morality of the kind that Lonersan provides. Lonergan's theorl oi' knor,,iedge helps us to place the findings ofthe social sciences in respect ofthe eflectuation ofhuuran fieedont u,ithirr the fiaire*'ork ofthe necessarl sei ofconditions defining such freedonr.

This seminar traces the interrelated development of social policy and social services, the philosophy of social welfare, and the evolution of the social work profession in the United States. It analyzes the values and assumptions that form the foundation of existing services and institutions, and explores the social, economic, political, and cultural contexts in which they have developed. The seminar will explore the evolution of cash assistance and social service provision in light of the nation's enduring legacy of economic and social inequality, racism, and sexism. It will examine those aspects of U.S. social welfare development that are unique and those it shares with other industrialized countries. Finally, it will analyze the development of the social work profession from different perspectives and assess the potential future of social services in the U.S. in the context of economic globalization and its consequences.

Contemporary Sociology, 1999

proposes a policy agenda for citizens to work for the common good. First, he endeavors to bring together the diverse strands of communitarian ideas developed by various thinkers in Europe and America, and, then, through a synthesis of these ideas, attempts to formulate a critical theory of social and political reforms necessary for building inclusive communities. Reading more like a manifesto than an academic treatise, the book makes a plausible argument for reconstituting some of the major institutions of democratic societies. Tam begins by proposing that the communitarian agenda for realizing an inclusive community-a space where common interests are developed (and pursued) with the participation of alI citizens as equals-consider three factors: (I) the principles of cooperative inquiry, mutual responsibility, and citizen participation; (2) an application of these principles to matters concerning the education, work opportunities, and protection of alI citizens; and (3) what colIective actions those involved with the state sector, the business sector, and the third sector of voluntary and community groups can take in order to bring about the necessary reforms. The principles of cooperative inquiry, mutual responsibility, and citizen participation, Tam posits, have been formulated on the basis of communitarian thinking that has evolved through the ages. Unfortunately, he does not say which sources he surveyed in inventorying these principles. Nor does Tam mention how he arrived at their formulation. Through logical deduction? Through empirical investigation of objective data? And aside from some passing references to Plato, John Stuart Mill, and a few others, it is difficult to get a sense for exactly which communitarian thinkers and what ages Tam has in mind. As a method for resolving social and political differences, the principle of cooperative inquiry requires that any knowledge-claim about the kinds of common values needed to build inclusive communities be judged as valid only if informed citizens deliberating together in open communication accept that claim. The second communitarian principle, that of mutual responsibility, requires alI members ofa community to take responsibility for helping each other pursue those common values that have stood the test of time across diverse cultures. According to Tam, these include the values of love, wisdom, justice, and selffulfillment. Again, Tam does not say how he arrived at these particular values. Few would deny that love, wisdom, and justice are universals that have been prized in most civil societies throughout human history, but so also have been the notions of civility, sacrifice, and faith, to name just a few others. And as for Tam's value of self-fulfillment, which is rights-based not duty-based, it can hardly be said to

Society, 1977

Social welfare agencies enhance capitalist institutions. s ocial welfare doctrines have become unsettled in the past decade. One only has to remember how liberals generally, and social service professionals in particular, once confidently defined the social services as the progressive and humanitarian sector of American society. Services in health, education, welfare, housing, child care, and corrections were taken as institutional proof that the American state had reached the stage where it was ready and able to intervene in the so-called free enterprise economy to protect people against some of its worst abuses. In other words, the United States, mainly through its public programs-and to a lesser extent through the voluntary sector-no longer tolerated the vagaries in human welfare produced by a capitalist economy, and no longer left the victims of the economy to fend for themselves. One had only to look at the splendid array of legislation, and the multitude of agencies spawned by that legislation, to know that this situation was so. Liberal Faith To be sure, liberals acknowledged that there were problems in thc social service sector. Great progress had been made, but there was still a distance to go. The problems were largely attributed to the underfunding of social service programs; the agencies were inhibited by lack of money from doing what they knew how to do and urgently wanted to do to From Radical Social Work with an introductory chapler by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Edited by Roy Bailey and Mike Brake.

İnsan ve Toplum - The Journal of Humanity and Society, 2024

Abstract: Communitarian thought could be a noteworthy alternative to the prevailing moral-political realities established by liberal assumptions and presuppositions, as its interpretations on issues it broaches in the realms of being, knowledge, and value indicate. However, it is not entirely accurate to say that communitarianism is examined as an alternative to liberal thought in the literature. The role assigned to it is more so to serve as a corrective that moderates the extremes of liberal thought. This article aims to reinterpret communitarianism not as a corrective of liberalism, but as an alternative thought system to it. The main contention of the article is that, just like liberalism, communitarianism can indeed be read as a standalone political philosophy. This claim is sought to be grounded in the article by the existence of a unique philosophical foundation from which the criticisms of communitarian thinkers toward liberalism also emerge and are nourished - in other words, the fundamental premises and assumptions that make the communitarian critique “communitarian”. In this context, rather than focusing on the critiques of communitarians against liberalism, the article offers an examination that reveals the ontological, epistemological, and axiological foundations of communitarian thought. Keywords: Political philosophy, Communitarianism, Ontology, Epistemology, Axiology Öz: Varlık, bilgi ve değer düzlemlerinde tartışmaya açtığı meselelere ilişkin yorumları; komüniteryan düşüncenin, cari ahlaki-siyasi gerçekliğimizi tesis eden liberal kabul ve faraziyelerin kayda değer bir alternatifi olabileceğini göstermektedir. Fakat literatürde komüniteryanizmin liberal düşüncenin bir alternatifi olarak incelendiği söylemek pek de mümkün değildir. Ona biçilen rol, daha ziyade, liberal düşüncenin aşırılıklarını törpüleyecek bir düzelticisi olmasıdır. Bu makale, komüniteryanizmi liberalizmin bir düzelticisi değil, ona alternatif bir düşünce sistemi olarak yeniden yorumlamayı amaçlar. Makalenin temel iddiası, tıpkı liberalizm gibi komüniteryanizmin de müstakil bir siyaset felsefesi olarak okunabileceğidir. Bu iddia, makalede, komüniteryan düşünürlerin liberalizme yönelik eleştirilerini de doğurup besleyen özgün bir felsefi zeminin-bir diğer ifadeyle komüniteryan eleştiriyi "komüniteryan" kılan birtakım temel kabul ve varsayımların-mevcudiyetiyle temellendirilmeye çalışılır. Bu bağlamda makale, komüniteryanların liberalizm eleştirilerine odaklanmak yerine; komüniteryan düşüncenin ontolojik, epistemolojik ve aksiyolojik temellerini açığa çıkaran bir inceleme vaat etmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Siyaset felsefesi, Komüniteryanizm, Ontoloji, Epistemoloji, Aksiyoloji Source: https://www.insanvetoplum.org/sayilar/14cilt-3-sayi/m0740