John Rawls's Political Liberalism

Introduction: addressing the failure of Theory of Justice

Ever since the publication of A Theory of Justice,1 John Rawls has been
modifying his conception of justice as fairness. He realized that the kind
of stability that would be needed in a democratic society that is marked
by a pluralism of reasonable, but comprehensive moral views was
inconsistent with the account of stability given in Theory. In Theory,
Rawls had conceived of his principles of justice as an alternative
systematic conception that was superior to utilitarianism. (PL xv; Martin
737-8) But conceived in this way, justice as fairness turned out to be
simply another reasonable comprehensive doctrine that was
incompatible with other reasonable doctrines, such as utilitarianism and
Kantian moral theory. This meant that the well-ordered society of justice
as fairness was an unrealistic ideal for a democratic society. What Rawls
came to realize is that the failure of Theory was that it did not
distinguish between two very different kinds of moral conceptions: that
of a comprehensive moral theory which addressed the problem of
justice, and that of a political conception of justice that was independent
of any comprehensive theory. (Martin 738)2 This distinction is crucial in
understanding the transformations that have taken place in Rawls's
theory of justice. But it is also the focus of his new book, Political
Liberalism.3 In what follows it is worth explain this distinction and how
it functions and shapes his new theory of justice.

The conditions of a comprehensive moral theory - and thus of a

political conception of justice

Rawls regards a moral theory to be comprehensive when it satisfies the

following conditions. First it must apply to a wide range of subjects.

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
1
This is what makes it general. It becomes comprehensive "when it
includes conceptions of what is of value in human life, as well as ideals
of personal virtue and character, that are to inform much of our
nonpolitical conduct...." (PL 175). A political conception, on the other
hand, differs from a general and comprehensive theory because "it is a
moral conception worked out for a specific subject...." (PL 175). In this
case, the subject is the basic structure of a democratic society. But a
political conception has two other important and distinctive features.
One is that in accepting a political conception a person is not committed
to any deeper comprehensive theory or doctrines. The other is that a
political conception has its basis in certain fundamental ideas "latent in
the public political culture of a democratic society." (PL 175).

The political conception of justice and the problem of political

stability

These features of a political conception of justice are the basis for how
Rawls proposes to solve the problem of political stability. Since a
political conception of justice has its basis in ideas that are "latent in the
public political culture," it is noncontroversial in nature. It is possible for
persons with conflicting, but reasonable comprehensive views to agree
that it should be the account of justice that is most compatible with their
own views. As such the political conception would then be the object of
an overlapping consensus about justice. (PL 15).

But what are these latent ideas? According to Rawls there are three
fundamental ideas underlying a democratic society. The 'central
organizing idea' is that of "society as a fair system of cooperation over
time, from one generation to the next." It is accompanied by two
companion ideas: the idea of citizens as free and equal persons, and the
idea of "a well-ordered society as a society effectively regulated by a

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
2
political conception of justice." To these Rawls adds the idea that a
political conception has as its subject the basic structure of a society.
Finally Rawls completes his set of fundamental ideas by introducing the
idea of the original position. Now this idea differs from the other
members of this set in that it is not necessarily latent in the public
political culture. Rather it is regarded as necessary as a mediating model
that integrates the other fundamental ideas into a coherent scheme of
justice.

Resulting Changes from Theory of Justice

This marks a change in the role of the original position as it was

introduced in Theory. In Theory, the original position not only justified
the principles of justice. It also specified the political setting that would
give rise to the democratic institutions that would be necessary in justice
as fairness. In Political Liberalism, the original position has a more
modest task. It seeks to show that only a specific set of principles is
compatible with the fundamental ideas implicit in a democratic society
marked by the fact of reasonable pluralism.

This change in the role of the original position means that there is also a
change in the process of justifying justice as fairness. It is now a two-
stage process. Recall that the original position now has the less
ambitious task of specifying that justice as fairness is the only
conception that is fully compatible with the fundamental ideas of a
democratic society. But even though this is a more modest task, it is still
a very important one. For in showing that justice as fairness is the most
compatible conception, Rawls has shown that it is also a 'freestanding
view,' one that is independent of any comprehensive moral theory or
doctrine. This independence means that it can also be linked to a variety
of reasonable comprehensive views.

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
3
Political stability and the further need for "overlapping consensus"

But this is still not sufficient to solve the problem of stability mentioned
at the outset. Rawls must go one step further and show that his political
conception would be preferred by reasonable persons over any other
political conception. Rawls argues for this point by introducing the idea
of an overlapping consensus. An overlapping consensus "consists of all
the reasonable opposing religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines
likely to persist over generations and to gain a sizable body of adherents
in a more or less just constitutional regime, a regime in which the
criterion of justice is that of political conception itself." The necessity of
an overlapping consensus arises because those with comprehensive
moral views must seek some common ground for reaching consensus
about principles of justice. The actual circumstances of living in a
democratic society then provide individuals with the motivation for
accepting a political conception that is not in conflict with each other's
comprehensive views. Rawls's political conception is noncontroversial
for two reasons. The first is that because it has its basis in the
fundamental ideas of a democratic society that all citizens share, it is
acceptable to the wide variety of comprehensive views. The other reason
is that the political conception makes no controversial claims about any
reasonable comprehensive views. It is neither skeptical nor indifferent to
the claims made by these views. Instead, it seeks to provide a basis for
citizens to determine what issues can be removed from the political
agenda and those that cannot. Given these considerations, Rawls claims
that his principles of justice would then be the object of an overlapping
consensus by those persons holding reasonable, but incompatible
comprehensive views.

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
4
Overlapping consensus vs. modus vivendi

In order to better understand the idea of an overlapping consensus Rawls

contrasts it with another way of reaching agreement on a political
conception, that of a modus vivendi. Rawls sees that one objection to his
theory is that it appears to be a consensus based on self-interest rather
than on the principles of justice. In fact with the more subdued role of
the original position such an interpretation is likely. A social consensus
based upon a political conception is communitarianism compatible with
liberal political principles?

For the past two centuries, there has been a sort of consensus throughout
a large area of political thought, centered around the 'primacy of the
individual' over the state. This can be seen especially in the philosophy
permeating both the French and American Revolutions. There have been
a few exceptions to this, but these tend to either be marginalized or
viewed with scorn. In the later half of this century, with the Cold War
between the liberal democracies of the West, and the Communist Soviet
Bloc, the rhetoric of the West centered around the essence of liberal
democracy - freedoms and rights of the individual. In the last ten years,
however, with the end of the Cold War, it is easier for political
philosophers to question these so-called 'foundations' of liberalism, and
in doing so, putting forward a doctrine which suggests that 'community'
is far more important than is considered under traditional liberalism.
This is communitarianism.

In answering this question, the first task to be undertaken is to

investigate what are 'liberal political principles'. As communitarianism is
essentially just a challenge to liberalism, then it is far clearer to examine
the objection after seeing to what exactly it is objecting. Next, a full

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
5
examination of how communitarianism deals with these objections to
liberalism, and finally it shall be seen if it is possible for the two
doctrines to somehow be reconciled, and some compromise reached, in
order to allow for communitarian theories and practices to be allowed to
exist in a liberal society, or vice versa.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice is the most recent comprehensive attempt

to justify modern liberalist society, by defining justice in terms of
individual liberty, and ensuring complete impartiality across all people
and societies. His theory is based on what he calls 'the unencumbered
self' and the 'Difference Principle'. This is based upon the concept of
equal liberties for all, and a social distribution based on the 'veil of
ignorance', which ensures that any inequality in society is to the benefit
of the person lowest in the social distribution. Rawls defines these as his
two basic principles of justice. Although also based on degrees of liberty
and equality, Rawls hits out at utilitarianism and free-market
libertarianism.

His criticism of utilitarianism takes place on several fronts. Firstly, that

it fails to take seriously the difference between two people, in other
words, places little value on individual worth, but places equally little
worth on all individuals. Related to this, utilitarianism treats society as it
would treat one person - it is the total utility that is of value to a
utilitarian. This also means that the actual distribution in society means
little to a utilitarian; they would be indifferent between a vastly unequal
distribution, and one of complete equality, so long as the total utility was
the same. Finally, though, and possibly most significantly, the issue of
rights is contingent and uncertain under a utilitarian. This is
unacceptable to Rawls, who values rights highly in his political
philosophy.

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
6
Against free-market liberalism, Rawls finds that justice is not served,
due to the arbitrary nature of the distribution. It is not simply the
arbitrary nature of the initial endowments people receive in a libertarian
economy, but the lack of any resolve to redistribute that arbitrary wealth.
Rawls sees it as unjust that it is impossible for the results of everyone's
talents to be shared, so that those with less natural assets can advantage
from their lucky neighbor.

As can be seen liberalism is firmly based in individualism. The doctrine

is designed to ensure a large degree of individual freedom, rights, and
autonomy. In the end, however, the difference principle is one of
sharing, in that it must be possible for complete redistribution in society.
This already begins to indicate how this theory may begin to break
down, because this concept of sharing conflicts already with the ideas of
plurality and distinctness of persons. An individualist society is
somewhat a contradiction in terms. Or rather, it implies that both
concepts, that of the individual and the society must be compromised in
order to coexist. In order to redistribute in a society of this kind, Sandel
states that, 'any claim on me is not of a constitutive community whose
attachments I acknowledge, but of a collectivity whose entanglements I
confront.' Essentially, Sandel is claiming that it is not just for
redistribution to occur in a society which demands of its members
actions which are not in their individual interests.

The solution to this problem put forward by Sandel and others is to place
value on the community. Although this has been put forward by a
number of political theorists, there can be found a common ground to
help find a workable definition of communitarianism. The most
important feature is that they place a positive value on community. This
has a number of implications. Firstly, a clear advocacy among all
communitarians for involvement in public life, in the form of increased
The University of Dodoma
Department of Political Science and Public Administration
7
participation in small associations. This is one way in which
communitarians avoid the accusation that their theory in practice could
be an excuse for oppression and totalitarianism. In participating in small
groups, each individual can have their case heard, and be taken into
account. Also, the existence of many small groups would help prevent
one particular group building up a great deal of power.

Before examining other criticisms of communitarianism, it is more

useful to see how the criticisms of liberalism are dealt with under
communitarianism. The main and most basic objection of liberalism is to
deal with its inherent conception of the person. It has been criticized that
it is too shallow conception, and ignores fundamental aspects of human
nature. In terms of the liberalism/communitarianism debate, liberalism
has often been condemned for ignoring the possibility that external
attachments which an individual develops over time can play a part in
determining the identity of the person. Many scholars would argue that
the community of which one is a member plays a very significant role in
defining the person, and so to deliberately ignore this is a serious flaw of
liberalism. Essentially the criticism is that individualistic liberalism fails
to recognize the significance of community. It is possible that there are
goods which are inherently communal, and these have no place in an
individualistic regime.

Other criticisms of liberalism include the fact that

 Apart from degrading the importance of community, it also

disregards the significance of culture.
 Also, there is a point that the social outcome may be arbitrary; Due
to chance of initial endowments and difficulties in or a reluctance
to pursue redistribution.

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
8
  Another contentious point with liberalism is the fact that it would
be intolerant to views of society which did not value the autonomy
of all citizens.

It can be seen that communitarianism is the solution proposed to these

problems, and it solves them in very fundamental way.

 By shifting the focus of society from the individual to community,

it broadens the scope of the conception of the person to include
many of the missing points in liberalism.
 In questions of justice, such as the latter examples, it
(communitarianism) again avoids the pitfalls of liberalism by
leaving it to small communities, and communal wants to best
determine that particular groups wants, and the means by which to
pursue them.

Although the two doctrines of liberalism and communitarianism seem to

be inherently opposed, there may be chance for reconciliation. In order
to satisfy both doctrines, restrictions could be placed on what could
constitute a just community. These restrictions could be in the form of
guarantees of certain rights, as well as the obligations which come hand
in hand with being members of a community. The main objection to this
framework would be that this would arbitrarily declare some
communities and cultures unjust, this argument stemming from the
communitarian side, and that the obligations enforced by being an active
member of a community may not be in the direct interests of the
individual. Finally, then, it would seem that the overall debate over
communitarianism has forced liberal philosophers to question the
soundness of the foundations upon which their political theories rest.
The overall question which has to be answered in this debate is to what
extent the individual should be prime, and how much the community of

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
9
which the individual is a member constitutes. Both doctrines have flaws,
in that liberalism totally disregards community, communitarianism could
encourage division and intolerance in modern societies, with a disregard
for communities other than one’s own. It would seem, then, as with
many solutions in the study of politics, that to apply these theories in
practice, in order to create the most just society, would be to find an
appropriate compromise between the two - a society in which
community is valued highly, and citizens actively participate in public
life, but also that the community guarantees a degree of individual
liberty, equality, and is tolerant and impartial towards other
communities.

 Communitarianism is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection

between the individual and the community. Its overriding
philosophy is based upon the belief that a person’s social identity
and personality are largely molded by community relationships,
with a smaller degree of development being placed on
individualism.
 Communitarianism also refers to a theory or system of social
organization based on small self-governing communities.
 It is an ideology which emphasizes the responsibility of the
individual to the community and the social importance of the
family unit.

Amitai Etzioni (2015) defines communitarianism as a social philosophy

that, in contrast to theories that emphasize the centrality of the
individual, emphasizes the importance of society in articulating the
good. Communitarianism is often contrasted with liberalism, a theory
which holds that each individual should formulate the good on his/or her
own. Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions of the good
are formed, transmitted, justified, and enforced.
The University of Dodoma
Department of Political Science and Public Administration
10
Liberalism

Is a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of

the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically
believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being
harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can
pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer
Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at
best “a necessary evil”. Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure
the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be
turned against him.

Ronald Chau (2009) states that liberalism as a political and moral

philosophy is centered on two main principles...... these are
individualism and liberty. Firstly, liberalism places the individual at the
heart of society and argues that the highest value social order is one that
is built around the individual. Secondly, the purpose of society is to
allow individuals to reach their full potential if they want to, and that the
best way to do this is to give the individual as much liberty as possible.

The University of Dodoma

Department of Political Science and Public Administration
11