Shoring Up Foundations 157traditional organic pastoral communities. This was also reflected again in the twenti-
eth century political writings of T. S. Eliot, Charles Maurras, and Christopher Dawson.
At the close of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, the most fam-
ous rendition of the distinction was Ferdinand Tönnies’ contrast between community
and association—GemeinschaftandGesellschaft—also echoed in R. M. MacIver’s dis-
tinction between communal and associated groups, Otto Gierke’sGenossenschaftand
Herrschaftgroups and Emile Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity. Similar
types of contrasts have gone on reappearing in twentieth century theories, and in
most, the idea of community usually, though not always, appears as more natural,
consensual, and organic.
The above is, by no means, an attempt to give a potted history of the idea of
community, rather it is designed to make one point, namely, that the claims of com-
munity do mutate between many differing political sentiments. One would be as
likely to find community-based language in continental liberalism, utopian social-
ism, fascism, national socialism, or corporatist authoritarianism. It is a forlorn hope
to expect to see communitarian appeals in just one sector of human political experi-
ence. However, on a more superficial level, communitarianism does indirectly share
much of the mid-twentieth century opprobrium heaped upon nationalism. This is
understandable, in so far as 1980s communitarianism never clarified its relation-
ship with nationalism. The conceptual connection of communitarianism to suspect
romantic, conservative, fascist, reactionary, nationalist, or just illiberal ideas has been
noted many times by commentators during the twentieth century (see Plant 1976:
33–4). This partly explains the zeal of, for example, Stephen Holmes’ denunciation of
communitarianism, where even soft-hearted political thinkers such as MacIntyre are
lumped with ultramontanist conservatives, such as Joseph de Maistre, and national
socialistsmanqué, such as Carl Schmitt (see Holmes 1993). However, even the fiercest
critiques of liberalism by Taylor, Sandel, or Walzer really do look very meek and mild
comparative to, say, Maistre’s political jeremiads.
As to exactly why communitarianism developed at such a fast pace during the 1980s
is puzzling, although its rapid decline in the late 1990s is equally intriguing. My own
suspicion is that its rise is bound up with the deeply-negative feeling generated by the
temporary, but stormy, dominance of the ‘new right’ (in academic as well as policy-
related areas) during the same period. An alternative language was being sought, by
certain groups, which rejected (what was seen to be) the libertarian and classical liberal
theoretical and practice excesses. This language was also one which had to take account
of the deep decline of interest in Marxism, particularly after 1989. The language of
communitarianism, which had been present within eighteenth century theories of
consensual, ethical communities (qua Hegel or Herder), was ideal to fill that gap.
The latter language also carried a heavy weight of philosophical gravitas. In addition,
globalizing pressures, the unpredictable and random effects of market-based liberal
policies, fears over rising levels of immigration and unemployment, the development
of an anomic industrial underclass, the growing anomie of atomized conceptions of
individualism, fast technological change, and the like, led to a sense of profound loss
of communal cohesion. In the terms which have now become more significant—these