Political Philosophy: Communitarianism
You Didn't Build That Self: The Philosophy That Challenges Liberal Individualism
The story you tell about being a self-made person may be the most socially constructed fiction of all.
The Idea
Modern liberal thought — the kind that undergirds most Western democracies — rests on a particular image of the person: a freely choosing individual who exists prior to, and somewhat apart from, their social context. You have rights, preferences, and a life plan, and the job of the state is largely to protect your freedom to pursue it. This picture is so deeply embedded in political life that it barely registers as a philosophical choice. Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a direct challenge to this image. Thinkers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and Michael Walzer argued that the liberal 'unencumbered self' — the self prior to community — is not a person at all. It is a fiction. Who you are, what you value, what counts as a good life: none of this arises in a vacuum. It is constituted by the communities, traditions, and relationships you are born into and shaped by. This is not a call to subordinate yourself to the group. It is a more subtle ontological claim: that the individual, as liberals conceive of them, simply does not exist at the starting point. Your identity is not something you bring to society and then choose whether to share. It is something society, in large part, makes. The communitarian critique asks us to take seriously what we owe to those making conditions — and to stop pretending those debts don't exist.
In the World
In 1982, Michael Sandel published Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, a pointed critique of John Rawls — arguably the twentieth century's most influential political philosopher. Rawls had asked us to imagine designing a just society from behind a 'veil of ignorance': without knowing your place in it, what rules would you choose? It was a powerful thought experiment, and the book built on it became a landmark. Sandel's objection was elegant and unsettling. He pointed out that the person behind Rawls's veil — stripped of their history, community, and attachments — is not a neutral rational agent. It is a very specific kind of person: the deracinated individual of liberal modernity, untethered from everything that actually makes someone who they are. You cannot strip away someone's deep commitments and loyalties and call what remains their 'true self'. What remains is closer to nothing. Sandel later made the same point more publicly in his Harvard course Justice, which became one of the most-watched lecture series in the world. He used cases like affirmative action, military service, and surrogacy to argue that real moral dilemmas cannot be solved by appeals to neutral procedure. They require communities to argue, openly, about what is actually good — and that requires acknowledging that we are embedded, partial, historically situated beings, not sovereign individuals operating behind a veil.
Why It Matters
Communitarianism is not just an academic debate. It surfaces every time someone asks whether a corporation owes something to the town that built it, whether elite universities should consider community origins alongside individual merit, or whether wealthy individuals bear obligations that go beyond what the law requires. More personally, it invites a different kind of self-reflection. The individualist frame encourages you to audit your achievements and ask what you earned. The communitarian frame encourages you to ask what you were given — in the form of language, culture, education, norms, and the accumulated effort of people who came before you — and what that gift might ask of you in return. This is not guilt. It is what Sandel calls civic republicanism: the idea that freedom is not just the absence of interference, but the active participation in shaping the community that makes you possible. The self, properly understood, is always already in relation. Noticing that is not a constraint on your freedom. It might be the beginning of a more honest account of it.
A Question to Ponder
Which of your deepest values did you actually choose — and which were quietly installed by the communities you happened to be born into?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable