Abstract

This work concerns the relationship between liberalism and nationalism. I argue that liberal theories of justice are implicitly nationalistic insofar as they are concerned with the organization of nation-states as opposed to more, or less, inclusive units. Although liberals rarely defend this feature of their theories, it is the focus of two important criticisms of their views. Globalist critics object that focusing on nation-states is incompatible with liberalism's egalitarian and individualistic moral ideals. They argue that liberals should deny that distinctions between nations have fundamental significance, just as they deny the significance of distinctions among groups within nations. Particularist critics, on the other hand, hold that liberals underestimate the extent and the significance of divisions within nation-states. They argue that liberals should recognize the fundamental significance of groups that may divide a nation-state's members, just as they grant fundamental significance to national divisions in the world. ;Liberals occupy a middle position, incorporating both universal ideas about moral equality and particularistic ideas about the significance of national citizenship. I consider three attempts to reconcile these aspects of liberalism. Voluntaristic contract theories hold that important obligations of justice depend on the existence of contractual ties that may be limited to citizens. Kantian pragmatists concede that all people have equal rights and duties of justice but hold that justice is best realized within nation-states for pragmatic reasons. Some liberal nationalists appeal directly to the significance of nationality, claiming that all members of a nation are equal members and all have duties by virtue of their membership. ;In each case, defenses against one critic require important concessions to the other. The ties that might make a nation's citizens a special group compared with the world also unite the members of sub-groups within a nation. Attempts to explain why obligations to anonymous fellow citizens take priority over ties to the members of familiar sub-groups risk widening the scope of obligations to include everyone, not just citizens. Liberals are forced to choose between global equality and social inequality. In the end, their most basic commitments pull them towards the globalist side