Revision summary
Rawls’s original position models persons as free and equal choosers who do not know their social identities. Sandel calls this an unencumbered self that cannot explain unchosen obligations. Walzer, MacIntyre, and Taylor add social meanings, narrative, and recognition. Political Liberalism replies that the self of justice is political, not a full metaphysics of the person. Indian group rights and Ambedkar’s civil equality show both the force and the limit of the communitarian critique.
Model answer
Introduction
John Rawls models persons in the original position as free and equal, choosing principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance. Communitarian critics say that this ‘liberal self’ is too individualistic because it strips away the communities, histories, and goods that actually make a person who she is.
Body
Rawls’s liberal self
- In A Theory of Justice (1971), parties in the original position do not know their class, talent, sex, or conception of the good.
- They choose equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle, which permits inequality only if it benefits the least advantaged.
- The self is prior to its ends: persons can revise their plans of life, so the state should not impose a single comprehensive good.
- Mill’s individuality is an ancestor of this picture; Hobbes’s atom of fear is not, because Rawls’s persons are reasonable, not only self-preserving.
Communitarian critique
- Michael Sandel in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argued that the unencumbered self cannot account for obligations of membership, gratitude, and shared identity that we do not choose in a bargain.
- If the self is prior to its ends, civic republican virtue and constitutive attachments become optional tastes, which Sandel says is false to moral experience.
- Michael Walzer rejected a single original-position metric. Justice is internal to social meanings: what a doctor, a citizen, or a religious office may claim is not decided by one veil.
- Alasdair MacIntyre treated the liberal self as a person without a narrative, which cannot make sense of desert or tradition.
- Charles Taylor added that identity is dialogical and that recognition by others is a condition of freedom, not an extra.
Rawls’s later reply and the Indian bearing
- In Political Liberalism, Rawls presented the self of justice as a political, not metaphysical, conception: citizens of a constitutional regime, overlapping in a public reason, not unencumbered souls in all of life.
- The reply meets part of Sandel’s charge about comprehensive individualism. It does not meet Walzer’s claim that goods are sphere-specific.
- Indian personal law, Articles 25 to 30, and caste as a lived membership show Walzer’s point: people are not only veil-of-ignorance choosers.
- Ambedkar still required that those memberships not cancel civil liberty, which keeps a Rawlsian priority of equal basic liberties against an unlimited communitarian veto.
- A fair comment therefore holds both: Rawls’s device is too thin as a picture of the whole person, and still useful as a test of the basic structure of a constitutional state.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD R[Rawls original position] --> S[Unencumbered self] C[Communitarians] --> SA[Sandel membership] C --> W[Walzer social meanings] R --> PL[Political Liberalism] PL --> BL[Basic liberties still first]
Conclusion
Communitarians say Rawls’s liberal self is too individualistic because it abstracts persons from constitutive communities. Sandel, Walzer, MacIntyre, and Taylor state the critique. Rawls later recast the self as political. Equal basic liberties remain the limit on any community’s claim.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
'Credo of Relevance' in post-behaviouralism advocates the importance of action science. Analyze
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q2). View answer →
-
Did Rawls deny that people have communities?
No. He denied that those communities should set the basic structure of liberty and opportunity by their full comprehensive doctrines.
-
Does the critique destroy the difference principle?
Not by itself. It challenges the method of derivation. The difference principle can still be defended on other public grounds.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Explain how Rawls used the liberal and egalitarian perspective to develop his theory of justice -
2022 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Ambedkar's idea of social justice leads to 'egalitarian justice' as compared to Rawls' 'justice as fairness' which aims at the notion of 'pure procedural justice'. Comment -
2022 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Examine the entitlement theory of justice -
2021 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
How has Rawls enriched the idea of justice in liberalism?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes).
Political Theory
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.