Is Englishness Your Cup of Tea?

Some people are worried that the notion of England and symbols such as the flag of St George might have become too closely associated with a form of intolerant nationalism; and that it would be better to speak of Britishness rather than Englishness. 

Then there are those who insist that being ‘English’ is all about colonialism, imperialism, and class oppression.  And one should only mention it in an apologetic tone and never express Englishness with pride.

But surely how a national culture is defined cannot be left to people who try to hijack it for their own jingoistic fantasies, or to those who can see nothing but torturous nightmares in its history. Of course England, like any other nation, has good and bad elements. Yet while we should condemn wrongful deeds and prevent their recurrence, we should also celebrate the momentous and the inspirational.

When we reflect on our Englishness, what shines out?

Our capacity for integration. From the arrival of the French Normans in 1066, intermingling with Celts, Angles, Saxons, Danes, to subsequent enrichment with people from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Netherlands, other parts of Europe, Africa, the Caribbean, the Indian sub-continent, the Far East – giving us an incomparable cultural richness.

Our firm stand against arbitrary rule and oppression. We produced the Magna Carta in 1215; we rid ourselves of two unacceptable monarchs in the 17^th century; we abolished the slave trade in 1807; we resolutely fought the Nazis and fascists; and through the guidance of our MP for Liverpool West Derby, we helped to establish the European Convention for Human Rights (ratified in 1953).

Our inventiveness in creating a better society. Look back on the reformists who improved factory working conditions, and advanced public health; cooperative pioneers who shared returns more equitably; innovators in community land trusts to widen access to housing; and the politicians who created the National Health Service.

Our internationalist and compassionate outlook. We co-founded the United Nations. England is home to Eglantyne Jebb and Dorothy Buxton who founded Save the Children in 1919; to the establishment of Oxfam (Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) in 1942; and to Peter Benenson who set up Amnesty international in 1961.

Our scientific heroes. Francis Bacon and the Royal Society he inspired; Isaac Newton and the laws of physics; Charles Darwin and natural selection; Michael Faraday and electromagnetism; Francis Crick and the genetic sciences; Tim Berners-Lee and the World Wide Web. To name but a few.

Our creative geniuses. William Shakespeare, Henry Fielding, Jane Austen, George Eliot, Charles Dickens, H. G. Wells, Agatha Christie, George Orwell, Arthur C. Clarke, the list of writers alone goes on and on. Then there are the incredible filmmakers – Alfred Hitchcock, David Lean, Danny Boyle, Carol Reed, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan; the painters, the sculptors, the television show creators, the composers, and the great bands such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Genesis, Pink Floyd, the Specials, Queen, U2, Blur, etc.

What appeals to some of us may not appeal so much to others. But then again, diversity is a recurring feature of English achievements. We can each mix and match to come up with our own favourite brew of Englishness – to savour and to praise.

It’s ‘BAD’: Brexit Affliction Denial

It’s BAD, really BAD – we’re talking about Brexit Affliction Denial.

The 2024 UK elections have witnessed the disturbing political denial of one of the most calamitous acts of national self-harm to have taken place in a western democracy. The Conservative and Labour parties competed over who can say the least about Brexit – it was the dullest 0-0 draw in the history of electoral contest. The Liberal Democrats once made re-joining the EU a key part of their electoral platform, but this time round, they kept it very low key indeed (See Note 1).

With neither the Conservatives nor Labour prepared to address the many problems created by Brexit, one wonders if anything will ever be done about them by those in power. Worse still, in not speaking out about the severe damages it caused, they have allowed those who thrive on peddling Brexit delusions to carry on with their lies and misinformation.

Perhaps politicians are unduly worried that being honest about Brexit would lose them support. But as of May 2024, just 31% of people in Great Britain thought it was right to leave the EU, while 55% thought the decision was wrong [https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/]. According to an Opinium poll taken at the end of 2023, only 10% of those surveyed believed leaving the EU had helped their personal financial situation, while 35% said it had been bad for their finances; 9% believed Brexit had been good for the NHS, and 47% were convinced it had a negative impact on the health service; and barely 7% thought it had helped keep prices low in UK shops, compared with 63% believing it was a significant factor in both the ongoing cost of living crisis and in fuelling inflation. [https://www.euronews.com/2023/12/31/has-brexit-been-a-failure-a-majority-of-brits-think-so]

And it's not just a matter of subjective views. Objective analysis of the impact of the trade barriers which Brexit has landed the UK with in doing business with the EU, shows that the UK exports were £23billion down each quarter compared with its earnings had it stayed in the EU – a GDP reduction of 4-5% [https://www.cer.eu/insights/brexit-four-years-answers-two-trade-paradoxes]. According to a detailed study by Cambridge Econometrics, as a result of Brexit, the average Briton was nearly £2,000 worse off in 2023, and reduced export opportunities meant there were nearly two million fewer jobs overall in the UK [https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-uk-economy-almost-ps140billion-smaller-because-brexit].

In terms of business investment, which is vital for economic health, researchers at the Bank of England, using a large survey of business in the UK, estimated that it was 23% lower than it would have been in 2020/21 due to Brexit [https://www.economicsobservatory.com/how-has-brexit-affected-business-investment-in-the-uk]. In Scotland, it was found that as food price inflation reached a 45-year high, Brexit was responsible for a third of that rise [https://www.gov.scot/news/counting-the-impact-of-brexit/]. In Wales, the overall loss to the Welsh budget amounted to over £1billion [https://www.gov.wales/written-statement-loss-funding-wales-result-uk-governments-arrangements-replacement-eu-funding].

As for the wild claims about Brexit was needed to stop people trying to come to settle in the UK, before Brexit when the UK was part of an EU scheme which ensured unauthorised migrants to the UK could be returned to the first safe EU country they had entered, there was not one case of small boat crossing to the UK with asylum seekers. After Brexit, the UK severed cooperation with the EU, and refugees desperate to get to the UK had no choice but to risk their lives to get across by sea. The numbers then grew from the low hundreds in 2018 to tens of thousands in 2023 [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/15/small-boats-industry-science-brexit-made-our-lives-worse].

There are some who cling to their beliefs that Brexit has enabled the UK to do things like rolling out the Covid vaccine quickly, but that was something the UK could actually have done as a member of the EU. Then there are claims about the odd trade deals the UK has made on its own without having to go through the EU, but the tiny gains these brought pale into insignificance compared with the substantial trade that had been lost with our former EU partners, and they have come with having to make considerable concessions that we would not even have to contemplate as part of the much more powerful EU negotiating bloc.

The ultimate indictment of Brexit Affliction Denial comes from the fact that across Europe, the previously vocal EU-sceptics – in France, Italy, the Netherlands, etc – have all stopped advocating pulling their country out of the union. They know how bad it is.

--

Note 1: The SNP having to only think about voters in anti-Brexit Scotland, and the Greens with a chance of winning in just a few pro-EU areas, both talked about reconnecting with the EU; while Reform (formerly known as the Brexit Party) simply doubled-down with more fabrications about the wonderful life that would come from being even more anti-Europe, anti-immigration, and anti-minorities.

What Have the Privatisers Ever Done for Us?

For decades now the Thatcherite mantra has kept going: “If you bring in the private sector, things will get so much better”. Some people still believe that. And there are politicians who, finding themselves constrained by the state of public finances, think the private sector may give them a way out. 

So for the benefit of all who pine for private sector salvation, let us recap on just what handing public money and control over to private companies has done for us.

Once the national assets we used to own have been sold off cheaply to private firms, those firms gain from the rising value of the assets in years to come, and the country is left with much depleted capital resources.

With vital services they can charge for, private firms will focus on making a profit out of us and pay billions in dividends to their shareholders; and whenever it proves difficult to make enough money, they call for support and demand billions more in subsidies from the public purse. 

When things go wrong, we can’t hold the government to account because they say it’s not a matter for them, but for the private company in charge; and the private company refuses to disclose anything on the grounds that their business activities are protected by commercial confidentiality. If we nonetheless press for public action against them, they hold us to ransom by saying that if they were not left to get on with things as they see fit, they could step away and leave us with no service at all.

For any of us who can’t pay the escalating prices they ask for, they threaten to cut off the service in question, regardless of how essential it is.

Let them … 

·      take charge of water, and they leak sewage into rivers and beaches; and where disease causing parasites are found in the water they are supposed to make safe to drink, they blame it on rising temperature.

·      take charge of our country’s information technology infrastructure, and the rolling out of a reliable fibre optic network for broadband communications is repeatedly delayed, especially in our rural (not-so-profitable for them) areas.

·      take charge of trains and buses, and services routinely run late and many routes get cut altogether.

·      take charge of energy, and they will take no notice of what people can actually afford, and leave it to the government to use public money to bail out any cost-of-living problems, while keeping them in profit.

·      take charge of schools, and they remove requirements for teaching qualifications so they can pay staff less, while they push up their own exorbitant salaries.

With PFI (private finance initiative), they build facilities which they own and we pay ever-rising rent and assorted fees to them on their terms, as we cannot afford not to have access to those facilities on which crucial public services rely.

With competitive tendering, they bid to deliver public services at a cheaper rate by reducing service quality, making people redundant, and cutting the pay of many of the remaining workers; and next time round they bid at a higher rate when the public sector team has been disbanded.

Of course, some private sector firms have helped to improve the provision of public services. But there are many cases of improvement which have not required any private sector input at all. The key to improvement is to combine effective public accountability, stakeholder challenge, and citizen involvement in quality control. The height of folly is to assume private companies will put public wellbeing above their own financial interests.

Being Unreasonable About Reason

The cult of irrationality is growing in politics and more widely across society. Many people are ready to subscribe to groundless claims and harmful policies regardless of the evidence. When contradictions and lies are pointed out to them, they shrug and persist with their views.

Why is this happening? One key factor is the erosion of a shared understanding of the role of reason in resolving arguments. At the most basic level, we recognise discussions about what are to be believed should be free and open – with the critical proviso that what is said is relevant, coherent, objectively checkable, and not abusive or intimidatory. Overlooking the need for this proviso has led to some very confused reactions. Let’s look at some of these.

First we have the ‘Anything Goes’ mantra. Everyone is ‘entitled’ to have their own views, and they are free to express those views any time, anywhere. It does not matter that they are groundless and dangerous – declaring a life-saving vaccine a deadly potion; calling an innocent man a serial killer; describing a shelter for vulnerable people as a home for nasty criminals. Any attempt to restrict the propagation of such views is then attacked as ‘censorship’ or ‘cancel culture’.

Next we have the ‘better tough than reasonable’ outlook. We don’t want understanding, we are told, just action to sort things out. Overlooking the fact that without understanding a problem, you can’t solve it, those impatient (and in some cases, incompetent) with working out what a reasoned approach should be, fall for ‘strongman’ politicians, cult leaders, charlatans who claim to speak for God, and go with whatever thoughtless actions they call for.

Then there are those who, without any sense of irony, cloak their arbitrary dogmas by invoking their own twisted brand of ‘Reason’. From the Robespierre-led extremists in the French Revolution to those who believe that their grasp of dialectical history justifies Stalinist oppression, there are people who insist that they know what Reason declares to be unquestionably true. Alas, anyone who rejects critical analysis and rebuffs objective scrutiny can hardly be considered reasonable at all.

Finally, we have the random sceptics who are convinced that there is no distinction between what is in line with or what goes against reason. Reason for them is a mirage, and no one can tell them what is or what is not reasonable. They can believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and anyone trying to point out flaws in their views would simply be dismissed as lacking any coherent basis to do so.

The antidote to all this is to remind ourselves how we get through the most basic everyday decisions – understanding options, learning from experience, seeing what happens when different choices are made, reviewing assumptions in the light of new evidence or cogent arguments put forward by others, etc. We only get by if we work through ideas in an objective and non-contradictory manner. We all implicitly reason about what we are to believe and what to do. Anyone seriously making their choices without reasonable deliberations would find themselves in all kinds of trouble – with their home, their job, their health.

We need to apply our grasp of reasonableness consistently to wider societal issues and recognise that there is an important difference between reasonable ideas that merit consideration and unreasonable claims that should be exposed as unwarranted. To learn more, here are a few suggestions: Stephen Toulmin’s Return to Reason, P. F. Strawson’s Skepticism and Naturalism, Henry Tam’s What Should Citizens Believe, and Thomas A. Spragens Jnr’s Reason and Democracy.

Morality, Education & Public Policy

The teaching of moral issues is a contentious matter. Some people think that if education neglects the development of a common moral understanding, society is in peril. Others feel strongly that morality should be left to individuals, and any collective steer would inevitably be authoritarian and unacceptable. 

On the surface, this deadlock seems unbreakable if there is no such thing as a universal moral outlook that can be legitimately imparted.  If we take a deeper look, however, we will see that explicitly or implicitly we all recognise the golden rule of reciprocity. We take it as correct to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. We reject as wrong the behaviour of anyone who act on others in a manner they would not wish upon themselves.

This moral alignment with the ethos of reciprocity has been confirmed in research into the behaviour of young children, in anthropological studies of diverse groups of people, in game theory experiments testing the propensity towards mutual cooperation, and in everyday observations of how we all tend to welcome those who reciprocate civility and helpfulness, and think badly of those who repay courtesy and kindness with inconsiderate and selfish acts. None of this is surprising given the centrality of the golden rule in the moral teachings recorded in the most revered texts in all ancient civilisations.

Based on a concern with upholding the morality of reciprocity, it makes sense to have public policies that support its practical adoption and guard against its erosion by false notions and harmful deception. For example, consider the following types of policy:

[A] Public policy that requires and supports the teaching in all schools of moral understanding of issues such as:

·      Acting with civility and mutual respect towards one another.

·      Resolving disagreement non-violently with the help of objective evidence and coherent arguments.

·      Learning to cooperate in the exploration and pursuit of common goals.

·      Discovering how some people can suffer from circumstances beyond their control and why they would need help as we would in similar circumstances. 

[B] Public policy that disallows and sanctions against the teaching by schools or parents which inculcates beliefs, attitudes and behaviour such as:

·      Disparaging, hating, or intimidating others on the grounds of their race, religion, customs, gender, disability, poverty, appearance or any other prejudice-based factor.

·      Being supportive of those who advocate the use of force to terrorise target groups or undermine democratically elected government institutions.

·      Embracing assumptions that one can impose sexual acts on others without their consent, and blame them for objecting to such action.

·      Accepting false claims about why one should consume certain dangerous substance or refuse to receive essential medical treatment.

[C] Public policy that rules out the teaching of unfounded doctrines and dangerously misleading ideas such as:

·      “White people should be treated favourably and encouraged to live here while non-white should be frowned upon and made to feel unwelcome.”

·      “One religious denomination is correct about everything and all other denominations, sects, religions, and non-believers are unforgivably mistaken whenever they disagree with the one true faith.”

·      “Women should stay at home to look after their family, comply with their husband, and not seek equal opportunities as men.”

·      “Scientific expertise and widely peer-assessed research findings are to be dismissed whenever these run counter to what certain ideological groups with wealthy backers want to assert.”

Why would anyone object to the above types of public policy? Is type A policy not promoting the reciprocity that is needed to sustain a civil and mutually supportive society? Is type B policy not necessary to protect children and the wider community from serious harm? Is type C policy not essential to keep at bay the vilest indoctrination that would otherwise fuel arbitrary oppression?  Only those who reject reciprocity, who want to treat others in repugnant ways they would never put up with themselves, would push against these types of policy. Rather than conceding to their objections, society should confidently and resolutely develop such policies for the common good.

Curb Their Lobbying Enthusiasm

How does political lobbying work? In theory, anyone can speak to their elected representative to present their views in the hope that they will be taken into account. In practice, access to elected representatives (especially those holding key government positions) is very limited, and politicians pay far more attention to the small number of people who possess a vast amount of influence.  Of these influential people, the most powerful are those with substantial wealth that enables them to offer campaign donations, prospects of future directorships, generous perks, valuable connections with others in their circles, and countless other benefits that money can always buy.

These plutocrats consider lobbying as their prerogative to press their preferences on people in public office.  They know that there are quite a few who will be receptive to their approach because they have gone into politics to advance their own material interests.  Even when they come across politicians whose priority is to serve the public, they may still be able to intimidate them by threatening to give more money to their opponents in electoral contests unless they trim their policies.

Lobbying enables plutocrats to subvert democracy by getting politicians to do their bidding at the expense of what the wider population require. Legislation to reduce preventable deaths have been blocked or delayed by tobacco companies, fossil fuel producers, and makers of sugary food and drinks. Measures to cut air pollution and environmental damages are constantly halted or substantially watered down by those who profit from acts that ruin the health of others. Regulation to stop irresponsible gambling on the financial markets that has repeatedly caused economic crises and wrecked innumerable lives, is pushed back by corporate interests that thrive on chaos for ordinary people.

What can be done about it?

We propose two restrictions:

[1] Any member of the legislature in receipt of something of tangible value (financial or in kind; on-going or one-off; directly or via their spouse/civil partner) from any individual or organisation must register it, and not be allowed to vote on any proposed legislation that can significantly affect the individual or organisation which has provided the benefit in question. Any member who voted and subsequently found to have not disclosed their prior pecuniary connection with relevant individual(s) or organisation(s) shall be prosecuted for committing the crime of subverting democratic proceedings (with expulsion from the legislature as a penalty for serious cases).

[2] Once a bill has been introduced, any contact with any member of the legislature to discuss elements of the bill must be made through a formal process that is open and supervised. Arguments for and against parts or all of the bill will be presented at one of the sessions organised by an independent administrative body. Written submissions can be sent directly to politicians, but face-to-face (or via video link) presentations will only be allowed in one of the official, public sessions. Any personal contact to set up or take part in a private meeting will constitute a criminal offence in subverting democratic proceedings. Any member of the legislature agreeing to or participating in such private meetings will also be prosecuted (with expulsion from the legislature as a penalty for serious cases).

In case anyone tries to bring out the old ‘this is restricting our freedom’ slogan, let us not forget that there has never been freedom granted to bribe politicians. Using one’s wealth to bend legislators to one’s will is not acceptable.  It’s time we close the gaping loopholes.

Communitarianism: don’t let it be misunderstood

Since the 1990s, the terms ‘communitarian’ and ‘communitarianism’ have found their way into media commentary as well as academics texts. This is not surprising as it was around that time that ‘communitarianism’ came to be applied to the ideas of a number of philosophers who criticised certain individualistic conceptions of morality and justice [Note 1], and ‘communitarian’ was used by a range of social and political theorists in the UK and the US to describe the approaches they were putting forward [Note 2]. On the basis of these writings, a distinct outlook can be discerned and indeed traced back to precursors in the 19^th and early 20^th century [Note 3].

One would suppose that commentators and academics using the term ‘communitarian’ in their writings would base it on the actual ideas expressed by the thinkers we alluded to above [Note 4]. Unfortunately, many of them seem to connect it simply to anything that is about community. If someone has written a reactionary book lamenting the loss of traditional communities, they refer to the book as ‘communitarian’. If a politician gives a speech about communities, rather than the state, must deal with their own problems, they say that is a ‘communitarian’ speech. But to use a word so casually, cut off from its intellectual roots, is irresponsibly misleading.

Based on the works of the thinkers who can legitimately be regarded as exponents of distinct communitarian ideas (and not just anyone who has written about communities), the following misunderstanding ought to be cleared up once and for all.

Traditions

While there are commentators who associate communitarianism with nostalgic attachment to old traditions, even though these may be oppressive, the fact is that none of the communitarians identified above can be accused of having such sentiments. On the contrary, their emphasis is on the evolving experiences of communities and how traditions should be preserved and celebrated in so far as they enhance people’s sense of their wellbeing, but should be revised or even ended if they are found to cause harm and instability for community members. As for the much-quoted dichotomy of Gemeinschaft (tightly knit traditional community) or Gesellschaft (loose association of self-centred individuals), communitarians reject both and call for strong cooperative communities based on mutual respect and shared intelligence [Note 5].

Responsibilities & Rights

Communitarians are often alleged to have focused on the need for people to take responsibility for their own lives and neglected the importance of their rights. Based on their actual writings, it would be more accurate to say that they are concerned that people should take their social responsibilities seriously, especially those with considerable wealth and power as they accordingly ought to do more for their communities. At the same time, communities should ensure that appropriate rights to mutual respect and support are established for their members, and that these are honoured to avoid fragmentation and marginalisation. 

Community Autonomy 

Some conservative-minded writers have written about leaving communities to sort out their own problems regardless of whether or not they lack the financial resources to do so, or if those problems are rooted in local prejudices and oppressive arrangements. But for communitarian thinkers, no individual or community should be cut off from the outside world as though their fate is no one else’s business. Diverse individuals and communities form social connections, and it their shared experiences – not some ideology about what governments should or should not do – that reveal what level of cooperation and wider support are appropriate to deal with the difficulties they face. In practice, cosmopolitan engagement is more dependable than parochial seclusion.

Reactionary or Progressive 

Although some may still insist on calling any conservative writer who champions ‘traditional values’ or ‘small government’ a communitarian, the fact remains that the paradigmatic thinkers who used the ‘communitarian’ term to describe what they put forward, and those who have influenced their ideas, are all on the progressive side of the political spectrum. Jonathan Boswell and Robert Bellah opposed ‘free market’ ideology and referred to their own position as ‘democratic communitarianism’. Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, and Robert Putnam summed up their stance as ‘liberal communitarianism’. David Miller and Charles Derber stressed that what they advocated was best understood as a form of ‘left communitarianism’. David Marquand wrote of his “vision of a communitarian ethical socialism”. And Henry Tam has used the label, ‘progressive communitarianism’ [Note 6].

Communitarianism offers important insights and approaches for dealing with a wide range of social and political challenges.  But the misunderstanding of it as some form of conservative thinking has become a barrier to more people exploring it.  Perhaps we can help to change that.

--

Henry Tam is the author of:

·      Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship (Palgrave Macmillan, 1998).

·      'Communitarianism', in the Encyclopedia of Action Research (Sage Publications, 2014).

·      ‘Communitarianism, sociology of’, in International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), (Elsevier, 2015). 

·      ‘Communitarianism’ in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism, ed. by Martin Kusch (Routledge, 2020).

·      The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

·      Communitarianism: philosophy, politics & public policy (Bloomsbury, forthcoming 2025).

He is also the editor of the following books on communitarian arguments and policies:

·      Punishment, Excuses and Moral Development (Avebury Press, 1996).

·      Progressive Politics in the Global Age (Polity, 2001).

·      Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons in community-based transformation in the age of global crises(Policy Press, 2021). 

--

NOTES

Note 1: These include Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Michael Sandel, whose critiques of certain forms of individualism came under the general heading of ‘communitarianism’ in academic circles in the 1990s. None of them adopted the label themselves.

Note 2: These thinkers were from the UK (e.g., David Miller, Jonathan Boswell, David Marquand, Henry Tam) and the US (e.g., Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, Robert Bellah, Robert Putnam, Charles Derber). Unlike those mentioned in Note 1, they all used ‘communitarian’ and ‘communitarianism’ to designate the ideas they were putting forward.

Note 3: Thinkers who have been recognised as precursors to the modern development of communitarianism include Emile Durkheim, John Dewey, L.T. Hobhouse, Jane Addams, and Mary Parker Follett. The intellectual lineage can be traced further back to the cooperative movement initiated by Robert Owen and his followers – indeed the term ‘communitarian’ was coined in association with Owenite ideas and practices in the 19^th century.

Note 4: For more details of these thinkers and their writings, see Tam, H., The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

Note 5: See the work of Durkheim, Dewey, and Hobhouse on ideas relating to the development of organic solidarity (as distinct from the mechanical solidarity integral to any form of Gemeinschaft).

Note 6: These are the paradigmatic writers who in the 1990s defined communitarian thinking with key texts in which they set out ideas they would explicitly associate with the terms ‘communitarian’/‘communitarianism’. There were of course conservative writers who put forward quite different views on community life, but they did not adopt the label ‘communitarian’, and there is no reason why they should be taken to be representative of communitarianism which is quite clearly non-conservative. Calling them ‘communitarians’ would be akin to coming across people who argue that one’s own utility/happiness is all that matters, and calling them ‘utilitarians’.