Groups have had a role in liberalism since its inception. John Locke argued that churches ought to be voluntary associations, with members freely choosing to join or leave. Tocqueville celebrated the associations he found in America, contending that they were a crucial site where citizens learn democratic virtues. James Madison argued that factions were an important element in maintaining democratic freedom. The existence of factions, along with the protection of freedom of association, ensured that no enduring majority would dominate over any minority because, in order to advance their interests, factions constantly form and re-form alliances with other factions. As Robert Dahl put it some years later, democratic governance was a matter, not of majority rule, but of “minorities rule” (Dahl 1956: 132). The groups celebrated by these classical liberals are open-ended: people presumably join or leave them as they please.

In contrast, ascriptive groups – groups whose membership is not open-ended, such as racial, ethnic, and sometimes national groups – were traditionally not a focal point of liberal thinking until the late 1980s. At that time, the attraction of communitarian thinking, the increased political activism in the United States of religious conservatives, and the rise of nationalism in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, all contributed to an increased interest in the role that ascriptive groups play in liberal theory and practice.