In political science as in the real world of politics, the language of “community” evokes both appeal and apprehension. Leaders often use the language of community (or associated metaphors: family, brotherhood, kinship) to woo their constituents, legitimize their mode of governance and mobilize public support for specific policies. Some disparage the notion of community, which they see as a fig leaf for state dominance at the expense of individual autonomy. But if the concept sparks controversy at the domestic level, it arouses disbelief when applied to international relations. Realists, who dominate both the study and practice of international relations, view the international system as anarchic, in which states exist in perpetual fear and mistrust of each other, and where self-help trumps community-help. In constant pursuit of national security, their best hope is for co-existence, rather than collective fulfilment. Other scholars, admittedly less numerous, accept the possibility of community. They not only recognize the existence of community in international relations, but also claim that community-guided behaviour can reshape security perceptions and even create pacific relations among states.

But what is community? A community has two key features. First, it implies a social, rather than purely instrumental, relationship. The key attributes of a community, to use American political scientist Ernst Haas’ words, are “trust, friendship, complementarity, and responsiveness” (Haas 1973, p. 116). Second, a community is not just a group of culturally similar people. While people in communities have cultural and physical attributes in common, they are also people who “display mutual responsiveness, confidence, and esteem, and who self-consciously self-identify” (Puchala 1984, pp. 186–87).

In a classic formulation, Ferdinand Tonnies distinguishes between two kinds of social relationships. The first describes a kinship or a communal relationship (Gemeinschaft). The other refers to an organized, purposive association (Gesellsschaft). The two are different to the extent that a person cannot simply wake up one morning and decide to join a Gemeinschaft. He/she is either born into it or grows into it through an evolutionary process of adaptation and assimilation. Gesellschaft, on the other hand, connotes a voluntary association based on rational self-interest. The process of entering into a Gesellsschaft is akin to signing a contract, which is an instrumental and practical way of achieving one's goals.