Involuntary Associations

Michael Walzer’s Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism sets out to examine and understand the core tenets of liberalism. One tenet Walzer examines is that of involuntary associations. Walzer defines involuntary associations as the immediate cause of inequality in a social system, because it consigns each individual to a place, or collection of places, in a social system without the consent of the individual. It is only when we recognize that these involuntary associations exist that we can then begin to create a society of free and mobile men and women that are place on an even playing field. Walzer proclaims that to deny the existence of involuntary associations would be foolish and that the abolition of such an institution is impossible. Walzer categorizes these involuntary associations in to four types: familial and social, cultural determination of available associational forms, political, and moral.

The first constraint of familial and social can be defined as the act of being born to a kin group, a nation, and that of a social class. The sexual birth identity of male and female also play into this constraint. The kin group or nation one is born in to also can affect religious affiliations. This in turn can cause infant baptism, circumcision, or a bar mitzvah, without ones consent. These associations created by kin groups and national identity will, in time, lead to decisions made in adult life, rather in favor or against such beliefs associated with the larger group of influence. While young people have the ability to break loose from these associations, such as family and social circumstances, it comes with a hefty price, one that most cannot bear at such an age. This lack of willingness to break loose is why this first constraint is deemed by Walzer as the “best predictors of their children’s connections, as political scientists discovered long ago with regard to party allegiance and voting behavior” (Walzer, 4). While the American political culture often uses the word “independence” to describe the political system used in the United States, it is not the case. Children grow up and often vote within the same political party as their ancestors, or direct kinfolk had. The same can be associated with church attendance and religious affiliations. The only aspect of change that parents, the nation, and kinfolk encourage from children are that of movement upward in the social hierarchy of the nation or social sphere. However, even such a task can be daunting due to already stated barriers.

The second constraint Walzer gives is that of the cultural determination of available associational forms. Walzer defines this as, “associates may choose one another, but they rarely have much to say about the structure and style of their association” (Walzer, 5). This can be easily examined with the institution of marriage. While marriage is a true meeting of the minds where two freely-thinking individuals come together in union, the individuals are accepting and bound to the culturally-set boundaries of marriage. This culturally-set institution is established the moment the two individuals acknowledge each other as husband and wife, or husband and husband, or the multitude of titles given in such a scenario. The two individuals have the ability to write their own bylaws of the union, however their partnership will still look similar to that of the other unions next door and down the street. This is due to the cultural restraints accepted and placed upon the union.

The third constraint given is that of political. The act of birth and residence causes an individual to become members of a political community. While membership of a political community has different meanings throughout time and place, using colonies and its constituents as examples, the standard practice has been narrowed down up through the twenty-first century. Walzer argues that we are all born citizens, unless we are truly unlucky, to some nation. However, we are not given the opportunity to agree and sign-off on our consent as citizens, therefor forcing us to oblige to the already established rules and regulations. “If you are here, and if you stay here, you are caught up in a set of arrangements that you had no part in designing” (Walzer, 8).

The fourth constraint given by Walzer is that of moral constraints. Walzer’s associated morality with the socialization process, the cultural code, and the legal order. However, Walzer further defines morality as an individual trait different from the three mentioned. Morality is a constraint that individuals hear in the back of their head, telling them to do the right thing, more than likely the thing they have not already done. This same voice tells individuals that they should join certain associations, or participate in social and political struggles. Sometimes the voice tells them to leave an association or to withdraw from a struggle. Walzer refers to Rousseau’s account of the right of emigration. Rousseau’s account allows citizens to leave at any given time, except when the republic, or homeland, is in danger. Then the citizens must stay and protect it. In addition, Walzer references the Jewish religious law of the members of the kahal. The kahal were an autonomous or semiautonomous community of the Middle Ages. The community was bound to protest against moral and religious transgressions. “They were free to leave, to look for a community where they would be more comfortable with the local practices, but not until they had protested in public and tried to change the practices at home” (Walzer, 10). The moral constraint allows individuals to leave certain groups, breaking ties created previously. These ties were created with a voluntary association. While it is possible to break ties with an involuntary association, it is much greater of a task than breaking away from a voluntary one. Walzer uses the example of arguing with family members and arguing with a spouse. Individuals are likely to argue longer with family members, because that tie is almost unbreakable, while ties are able to be broken with spouses, therefor arguments do not last as long.

Walzer’s analysis and examination of involuntary associations gives a just and reasonable explanation to the injustices placed upon individuals in what is labeled as a free and open society. While all four constraints listed above can stand on solid ground, the first constraint of familial and social ties stands above the rest in a personal examination of my life and those around me. The parents you are born to, or the kinfolk and individuals that raise you cannot be changed by you alone. Therefore, those who you are born to and those who raise you are the ones that mold you in to the supposed freethinking individual adult. I was born to a non-denominational Christian household. Without digressing too much, my mother grew up Southern Baptist in East Texas while my father grew up Atheist in Northern California, both during a culturally diverse period of the 1950s and 1960s. My father broke ties with much of his associations in California when he met my mother, while my mother did not break many, if any, of her associations from her childhood. It is the mixed associated background of these two individuals that would eventually mold my livelihood for the better or worse. The Christian upbringing I was raised in heavily influenced my outlook on society. Due to conservative tendencies of the Christian communities I was a part of throughout my adolescent life, the Republic Party became the focus point of my political influence, for better or worse. George W. Bush was to be respected and Rick Perry was the be voted back in to office every four years. This is the familial involuntary association I was born in to. Much of this did not change until slightly breaking ties when leaving for college. Once temporarily breaking ties from my adolescent associations, I then became a member of new associations and communities focused around the University of North Texas and Denton, Texas, a more liberally minded area.

I often wonder how much the involuntary associations individuals are placed in to cause ignorance or lack of respect and hatred for others. Walzer’s examination of the moral constraint reminds me of social issues plaguing society such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. Is the reason white individuals still look down to people of different color because of true belief in superiority, or is it due to a continuation of familial and moral involuntary association dating back to America’s infancy stages. If an individual is taught from birth that they are better than their African-American neighbor based on artificial truths, rather than that individual coming to that conclusion later on in life, then how is one to stop the constant cycle of racism? That individual cannot even blame the parent for placing that belief into their life, because their parent was, at one point in time, influenced by another elder and told to believe such things. This leads me to understand why racism and other injustices take multiple generations, if not centuries, to be removed from the society norms, because there will always be kinfolk to influence and mold ideals from their own childhood.

Walzer’s examination of involuntary associations leads to a problematic situation with the liberalistic model. With each individual in a society starting as members of certain groups, and each group already established on the social hierarchy ladder, then how does each individual obtain an equal fighting chance in the liberal society. An individual cannot begin on an even playing field if that individual is born to an African-American community in the lower-side of Chicago. The social hierarchy that was pre-established will place that individual at a major disadvantage when compared to an individual born to a White community in Connecticut. Walzer’s examination shines light on a gaping light within the liberalist model.

The ability to shrug-off or rid oneself of involuntary associates can be done, but not with ease. Historically, involuntary associations like religion, political activity, and location were considered some of the core associations one can rid themselves of, while associations such as race and gender were permanently fixed to the individual. However, in a twenty-first century society, involuntary associations such as gender can be altered or completely changed to the individuals choosing. While being a major hot-button issues culturally in many societies, it is a stepping stone for those who feel held back by such an involuntary association.

Walzer’s Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism set out to justify and examine, within the first section of the work, the flaw with the liberalistic society due to involuntary associations that plague each individual in the society. I agree with his findings and can easily relate all four constraints mentioned to my personal life and to others around me. While feeling hopeless due to the “involuntary” label placed upon many of these associations, much of them can be ridded of, such as church attendance and political activism.

Walzer, Michael. Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Print.