In the classical liberal tradition, individuals have rights, but groups do not. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, men, not nations or cultures, are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet today, some liberal thinkers are revisiting this stance to make powerful arguments about the rights of communities.

One such thinker is Dr. Chandran Kukathas, an esteemed political philosopher at Singapore Management University. In his highly readable book, The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom, Kukathas defends the rights of communities in a way that should appeal to the most ardent individualist.

The title of Kukathas’ book is a clear reference to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s most famous work, The Gulag Archipelago. Yet unlike that Soviet nightmare, Kukathas’ archipelago is an inspiring one. In it, Kukathas lays out his vision for the best possible liberal society.

Individuals are real, Kukathas points out, but so are communities. It is communities that develop and share religion, music, language, and moral values. Though they may be impossible to touch, communities are an inextricable part of life.

Because liberals tend to focus on individual rights, they often overlook communities. Kukathas says that this often leads to the destruction of communities’ rights.

For example, liberals who focus on individual rights often object to traditional religious practices. As a recent CNN article puts it, “Why do millions of women belong to religious groups like the SBC that do not treat them as equal to men or allow them to have full control of their bodies?” From the perspective of individualistic liberalism, there is no value in a community that recognizes different roles for men and women. For these liberals, recognizing different roles necessarily means assigning more rights to some individuals than to others.

For the traditional liberal, it doesn’t matter where, when, or who you are. Rights are rights.

Yet Kukathas offers an alternative vision—one that recognizes the importance of both diversity and freedom. As he writes, “complete social unity, marked by a uniform and common culture which integrates and harmonizes the interests of individual and community, is unattainable and undesirable.” In his view, it’s impossible to eliminate all differences between communities, and no one should want to do that anyway.

Instead, liberalism is, at its core, a legal framework that allows people to live in whatever community they might choose to be a part of. A liberal government, he says, “should take no interest in the character or identity of individuals, nor should it be concerned directly to promote human flourishing.” All that a truly liberal government should do is enforce laws that apply to all equally.

Kukathas calls his project the “liberal archipelago” because he envisions a society much like a chain of islands, with distinct communities “floating” side-by-side. The job of a liberal is not to decide which island has the best values. Rather, it is to ensure that the rule of law applies for all.

What about communities that imprison their members? For Kukathas, that is a step too far. He says that in a liberal society, people can join all sorts of repressive religions, clubs, and societies—so long as they have the right to exit. If people are being held against their will, then the state does have a responsibility to intervene in community affairs on behalf of individual rights.

But when people do have the right to exit, liberals should not waste their time passing judgment on traditional religions. Instead, they should work to ensure that they contribute to a legal system in which people with different values can get along in peace.

In the end, freedom is the ability to choose your community—to submit yourself to certain standards, even if those standards aren’t accepted or even respected by those around you. The question is, after ignoring the rights of communities for so long, can we adjust our view of rights in a way that respects them?

—

Image credit: Pexels