Michael Walzer on Spheres of Justice: A Society Free from Domination

Context

Michael Walzer published Spheres of Justice in 1983, at a time when political philosophy was dominated by the debate between John Rawls's liberal egalitarianism and Robert Nozick's libertarianism. Walzer's book offered a third way: a communitarian and pluralist approach to justice that emphasized the social meaning of goods and the importance of context in determining what counts as a just distribution.

The passage above — "The aim of political egalitarianism is a society free from domination" — is Walzer's concise statement of the goal of his theory of "complex equality." He argues that the real evil that egalitarianism should oppose is not inequality as such but domination: the ability of those who possess one kind of good (such as wealth) to use it to gain advantages in other spheres (such as political power or social recognition).

Philosophical Meaning

Walzer's claim is deceptively simple. The aim of political egalitarianism is not to make everyone equal in all respects — an impossible and undesirable goal — but to create a society in which no one is dominated by others. Domination, in Walzer's sense, occurs when the possession of one social good enables its possessor to control the distribution of other social goods. The wealthy person who uses their money to buy political influence, the powerful person who uses their authority to accumulate wealth, the socially prestigious person who uses their status to gain economic advantage — these are all examples of domination.

The remedy for domination is what Walzer calls "complex equality." In a society characterized by complex equality, different social goods are distributed according to different principles, and the boundaries between spheres are maintained. Money, for example, should be distributed according to market principles; political power should be distributed according to democratic principles; education should be distributed according to need or merit; and so on. The goal is not to eliminate inequality within each sphere — some people will always have more money than others, and some will always have more political power than others — but to prevent inequality in one sphere from generating inequality in another.

This argument is a powerful critique of both capitalism and socialism. Capitalism, Walzer argues, tends to allow wealth to dominate other spheres, creating a society in which the rich can buy political power, social status, and educational advantage. Socialism, by contrast, tends to allow political power to dominate other spheres, creating a society in which the party elite controls the distribution of all goods. The ideal of complex equality is a society in which the boundaries between spheres are respected, and no single good — whether money, power, or status — dominates the others.

Modern Relevance

Walzer's theory of spheres of justice has been enormously influential in political philosophy, particularly in debates about distributive justice, pluralism, and the limits of markets. The idea that different goods have different social meanings and should be distributed according to different principles has become a standard framework for thinking about justice in complex, pluralistic societies.

The concept of "blocked exchanges" — the idea that certain goods should not be bought and sold — has been particularly influential. It provides a philosophical foundation for the critique of market fundamentalism and the defense of non-market goods such as health care, education, political influence, and human organs. In an age of increasing commodification, Walzer's argument that there are some things that money should not buy is more relevant than ever.

Yet Walzer's theory also raises difficult questions. How do we determine the boundaries between spheres? Who decides what counts as a "social meaning"? And what happens when different social meanings conflict? Critics argue that Walzer's theory is too dependent on the particular cultural context of a given society and does not provide a sufficiently universal standard of justice. Defenders reply that this is precisely its strength: a theory of justice that is sensitive to context and respectful of pluralism is more likely to be accepted and implemented than one that imposes abstract principles from above. The debate between these positions continues to shape contemporary political philosophy.