New Labour's communitarianisms

Abstract

This article argues that communitarianism can be analysed on different levelssociological, ethical and meta-ethical -and along different dimensions -conformistpluralist, more conditional-less conditional, progressive-conservative, prescriptivevoluntary, moral-socioeconomic and individual-corporate. We argue that New Labour's communitarianism is a response to both neo-liberalism and old social democracy. It is sociological, ethical and universalist rather than particularist on the meta-ethical level. Labour increasingly favours conditional, morally prescriptive, conservative and individual communitarianisms. This is at the expense of less conditional and redistributional socioeconomic, progressive and corporate communitarianisms. It is torn between conformist and pluralist versions of communitarianism. This bias is part of a wider shift in Labour thinking from social democracy to a liberal conservatism which celebrates the dynamic market economy and is socially conservative.

Public Participation in New Local Governance Spaces: The Case for Community Development in Local Strategic Partnerships

“…The New Labour government sought to challenge the failings of the prevailing neo-liberal political hegemony, introducing policies that rejected the view that societies can flourish simply by promoting 'competitive individualism' and unfettered private enterprise (Driver & Martell, 1997). They highlighted roles in shaping society both for government and individuals based on values of co-operation and collaboration to contain the excesses of the market system, believing that a society of individuals recognising the extent to which they are inter-dependent is likely to be more effective than one in which they simply seek to assert their individual rights and preferences.…”

A challenge to liberalism? The communitarianism of the Big Society and Blue Labour

“…Driven by this need, New Labour initially looked to communitarian theories with some enthusiasm (Driver and Martell, 1997;Levitas, 2000). By emphasizing the importance of social responsibility and obligation, it seemed that communitarianism rejected both the economic individualism of neoliberalism and the social rights approach of the post-war left, which was deemed to be politically untenable.…”

Popular discourse and the ethical deficiency of ‘Third Way’ conceptions of citizenship

“…It is a distinction that is in certain respects related to that between liberal and civicrepublican traditions of citizenship (e.g. Oldfield 1990) or between libertarianism and communitarianism, albeit that contractarianism can, for example, include highly moralistic and illiberal conceptions of citizenship, whereas solidarism would not necessarily include all the diverse philosophies that describe themselves as communitarian (Driver and Martell 1997), especially not those premised on contractarian 'club rule' principles (see Jordan 1996). Contractarian repertoires are premised on an essentially individualistic view of civil order in which a more or less explicit trade-off or metaphorical contract or covenant is required between competitive and self-interested individuals: aspects of individual sovereignty or freedom must be surrendered in return for a measure of protection against the predations of others.…”