I will attempt to answer the question in which way Walzer’s perspective on political community is one that is incomplete and further a perspective which’s application is normatively highly objectionable. In the first chapter I shall explain what Walzer means when he speaks about political community and how the concept can be used to justify the use of force. Secondly, I will recite various omissions on Walzer’s part in regard to political community, respectively I will outline what he, in my view, did not see when he engaged in the theorizing of the communitarian concept. In the last chapter of my contribution, I will then analyze why Walzer’s notion of political community may normatively be seen as indecorous and even dangerous.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1: Walzer’s Political Community
2: Political Community – What Michael Walzer did not see
3: A normative critique of Walzer’s communitarian philosophy
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper examines Michael Walzer’s concept of the "political community" as primarily outlined in his work 'Just and Unjust Wars'. The research investigates the validity of Walzer’s assertion that political communities are monolithic, unitary actors, and critically analyzes the normative implications of his communitarian philosophy, particularly regarding state legitimacy, intervention, and the moral permissiveness of "supreme emergency" justifications.
- The role of the political community in determining state legitimacy and the "fit" with government.
- The critique of the political community as a unitary actor versus the reality of heterogeneous partial communities.
- The dangers of ethnocentrism and communal self-righteousness in the international system.
- The normative consequences of Walzer’s relativistic account of justice and communal autonomy.
Excerpt from the Book
2: Political Community – What Walzer did not see
Next, I will show that Walzer’s picture is incomplete and that there are other significant factors that influence and interact with political community, factors that do not appear in Walzer’s theory on just war. By no means, however, shall I impute the non-significance of political community itself. Indeed, political communities that have existed for a long time, normally share political cultures with deep ramifications for how people think about goods and justice (Carens, 2000). I argue, and in my opinion Walzer has convincingly described, that political community is a powerful constitutive factor when talking about the organization of social life in an international system of states. What I want to do is point to out some of the omissions of Walzer and to draw a more complete picture of the institution described.
When reading Walzer’s texts, one quickly recognizes the impressive and authoritative role he comes to ascribes to his concept of political community. Much of its power thereby derives from the political community’s coherence as a unitary actor to determine the identity of individuals living within it. According to Walzer, the political community is in a unique and superior position to shape the identity of its subjects. Although Walzer does not state this explicitly, this must be the case as without this monopole on character formation, the political community could not fulfil the functions Walzer ascribes to it.
This view on political community is problematic. It is my opinion that subject’s identities within the political community are not as homogeneous – derived solely from the political community they are part of – as Walzer sees them. As Kukathas convincingly argues, the political community is only one sort of community that underlies the identity formation process of individuals. Besides the political community, in which, without question, individuals living in a certain state are subjected to, these individuals are also part of other communities. Therefore, a political community, such as any other community, is only a “partial community” (Kukathas, 2009, p. 89).
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This chapter introduces Michael Walzer’s 'Just and Unjust Wars' and establishes the paper's goal of critiquing his concept of political community as incomplete and normatively problematic.
1: Walzer’s Political Community: The chapter outlines Walzer’s view of the political community as a non-contractual entity formed by long-term shared experiences that validates government legitimacy through an essential "fit".
2: Political Community – What Michael Walzer did not see: This chapter argues that Walzer’s view is too homogeneous and fails to recognize that individuals belong to multiple "partial communities" that complicate identity and loyalty.
3: A normative critique of Walzer’s communitarian philosophy: This chapter contends that Walzer’s focus on absolute communal autonomy promotes dangerous ethnocentrism and an overly permissive moral framework regarding "supreme emergency".
Keywords
Political community, Michael Walzer, Just war theory, Communitarianism, State legitimacy, Social contract, Partial community, Identity formation, Ethnocentrism, Supreme emergency, International relations, Moral relativism, Communal autonomy, Political culture, Self-determination.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper critically examines the concept of "political community" as defined by Michael Walzer in his scholarly work on just war theory.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
Key areas include the social construction of states, the nature of political identity, the limits of communal autonomy, and the normative risks of privileging political communities over individual rights.
What is the central research question?
The author questions in what ways Walzer’s perspective on political community is incomplete and why its application in international relations is normatively objectionable.
Which scientific method is utilized in this paper?
The research employs a normative theoretical analysis, drawing upon literature in political philosophy and international relations to challenge and deconstruct Walzer's arguments.
What topics are addressed in the main body?
The body discusses the origins of political community (comparing Walzer to Rousseau), the heterogeneity of individual identities, the influence of partial communities on state actors, and the dangers of ethnocentric self-righteousness.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is defined by terms such as Political Community, Just War, Communitarianism, Identity Formation, and Normative Critique.
Why does the author argue that Walzer's view on military loyalty is flawed?
The author argues that because soldiers belong to multiple partial communities (e.g., military or professional guilds), their loyalty is not solely dictated by the political community, which contradicts Walzer’s assumption of unitary communal identity.
How does the author interpret the concept of "supreme emergency"?
The author criticizes Walzer’s account of "supreme emergency" as being too permissive, arguing that it allows states to unilaterally prioritize their own survival over the rights of innocent people based on a relativistic understanding of justice.
- Citation du texte
- Fabian Hoffmann (Auteur), 2018, The Government and its People. Challenging Walzer´s Notion of "Political Community", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/437592
