Communitarians claim values and beliefs exist in public space, in which debate takes place. They argue that becoming an individual means taking a stance on the issues that circulate in the public space. For example, within the United States debate on gun politics, there are a number of stances to be taken, but all of these stances presuppose the existence of a gun politics debate in the first place; this is one sense in which the community predates individualism. Similarly, both linguistic and non-linguistic traditions are communicated to children and form the backdrop against which individuals can formulate and understand beliefs. The dependence of the individual upon community members is typically meant as descriptive. It does not mean that individuals should accept majority beliefs on any issue. Rather, if an individual rejects a majority belief, such as the historic belief that slavery is acceptable, he or she will do so for reasons that make sense within the community (for example, Christian religious reasons or reasons deriving from the Enlightenment conception of human rights) rather than simply any old reason. In this sense, the rejection of a single majority belief relies on a deep tradition of other majority beliefs.
The following authors have communitarian tendencies in the philosophical sense, but have all taken pains to distance themselves from the political ideology known as communitarianism, which is discussed further below.
This results in a decline in "social capital", described by Putnam as "the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other". According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy.
Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. The Responsive Communitarian Platform described it thus:
A common objection is that by providing such rights, they are violating the negative rights of the citizens, rights to not have something done for you. For example, taking money in the form of taxes to pay for such programs as described above deprives individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights, by attributing the protection of negative rights to the society rather than the government, respond that individuals would not have any rights in the absence of societies, and are thus obligated to give something to it. Some have viewed this as a negation of natural rights. However, what is or is not a "natural right" is a source of contention in modern politics; for example, whether or not universal health care can be considered a birthright, or how far the government can go to protect the environment.
Alternatively, some agree that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost. In the same vein, supporters of positive rights further argue that negative rights are irrelevant in their absence. Moreover, some communitarians "experience this less as a case of being used for others' ends and more as a way of contributing to the purposes of a community I regard as my own.
Authoritarian governments often rule with brute force, accompanied with severe restrictions on personal freedom, political and civil rights. Authoritarian governments are overt about the role of the government as commander. Civil society and democracy are not generally characteristic of authoritarian regimes. For the most part, communitarians emphasize the use of non-governmental organizations in furthering their goals.
The Communitarian Network, founded in 1993 by Amitai Etzioni, is the best-known group advocating communitarianism. One of the network's many initiatives to reach out to a broader public is the transnational project Diversity within Unity, which advocates a communitarian approach towards immigration and minority rights in today's diversifying societies. The project is endorsed by a diverse and international group of supporters, including current Dutch prime-minister Jan-Peter Balkenende from the Christian Democratic Appeal, Rita Süssmuth from the Christian Democratic Union; the Hungarian dissident and philosopher György Bence; the renowned British political scholar David Miller, and many more.
A think tank called the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies is also directed by Etzioni. Other voices of communitarianism include Don Eberly, director of the Civil Society Project and Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone.
President Bill Clinton was open about his support for much of Amitai Etzioni's philosophy, though whether this reflected on his actual policy program is debatable. It has also been suggested that the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by President Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign was a form of conservative communitarian thinking, though he too failed to implement it in his policy program. Cited policies have included economic and rhetorical support for education, volunteerism, and community programs, as well as a social emphasis on promoting families, character education, traditional values, and faith-based projects.
Dana Milbank, writing in the Washington Post, remarked of modern communitarians, "There is still no such thing as a card-carrying communitarian, and therefore no consensus on policies. Some, such as John DiIulio and outside Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, favor religious solutions for communities, while others, like Etzioni and Galston, prefer secular approaches."
There has been very little systematic criticism of ideological communitarianism, if only because its exact premises and policy consequences are difficult to pin down. Those wary of it tend to be individualist thinkers who argue that communities are already naturally most benefitted when everyone is free to act in their individual self-interest and that self-described communitarians are actually stealth collectivists; or, more plausibly, that the main effect of well-intentioned communitarian rhetoric is to provide cover for collectivists with a much farther-reaching and harsher agenda than the communitarians intend.
Conversely, many on the Left would see communitarianism as a nostalgic form of communism.
Liberal theorists such as Simon Caney disagree that philosophical communitarianism has any interesting criticisms to make of liberalism. They reject the communitarian charges that liberalism neglects the value of community, and holds an "atomized" or asocial view of the self. If they are correct in this, then communitarian doctrine reduces to little more than traditionalism and moral relativism.
Critical communitarianism combines epistemology, theories of sociopolitical power, theories of identities, and human rights studies. It offers to look into non-ruling communities in order to better comprehend state-society relationships. Theoretically, it shifts the attention from the state as the sole venue of political power and drills into theorizing state-society relations through looking into alternative and challenging locations of political power. Consequently, it invites new insights into the classical questions of what are the boundaries between state and society; what is a 'collective' good, and where and how human beings are shaping their consciousness, identities and practices. Normatively, it generates normative questions about relative morality and encourages us to empower cultural relativism and yet to acknowledge the existence of some cosmopolitical values. Empirically, it fosters empirical studies that examine internal conflicts, institutions, and power struggles within non-ruling communities in the context of local, regional, and global forces. Accordingly, it challenges the domination of liberalism and liberal jurisprudence as the hegemonic paradigm for explication, theorization, and substantiation of human virtues. Instead, it invites to include liberalism alongside elements of communitarianism as relative ways to both challenge symbolic power and to foster protection of non-ruling communities in order to achieve justice and peace.