本文探討當代西方社群主義對國家認同問題的論述，並檢討其含蘊之問題。由於 社群主義一詞甚為籠統，本文依通例以沈岱爾、麥金泰爾、瓦瑟、泰勒等四人為社群主義之 代表人物，逐一分析他們對「自我」、「社群」及「國家認同」等概念之看法。歸結而言， 社群主義主張自我之定位須須特定歷史文化脈絡中尋得，自我不能像自由主義所主張那樣具 有充分選擇人生目的及歸屬認同的能力。因此，國家（作為一種社群）之所以能夠號召國民 的認同，主要是由於它是民族文化的承載者與維護者，故能使國民為它奉獻犧牲，雖有怨言 亦不致背離。 社群主義的國家認同觀明顯排斥國家是「個人實現一己目的或利益之工具」的想法，也不認 為政治經濟制度的良窳是公民對國家產生認同心理的主要憑藉。這種理論的優點是提醒我們 歷史文化對個人自我認同確實有深刻影響，而其缺點則是過度誇大此種文化感情的重要性。 其結果不僅削弱社群成員對所屬社群的反省批判餘地，也容易產生一種父權式的文化威權主 義，使團結的獲得必須以犧牲多元文化為代價。因此就現代社會的集體認同問題而言，社群 主義並不能提供妥善的解決之道。

　　　　　In this essay I examine the idea of national identity as it appeared in the writings of contemporary communitarians Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Walzer and Charles Taylor. Communitarianism generally perceives the self as an "embedded" person who must seek his （ her ） identity in a particular historical setting. Unlike that of liberalism, the communitarian self is deprived of the right to choose freely his life-plan and community. Accordingly, one gives one's loyalty to a state not because the political system of that state is just or agreeable, but because it is the bearer of a particular culture. The idea of national identity in communitarianism reminds us of the importance of sentimental belonging for an individual, but it overemphasizes the role of cultural commitment. It tends to limit a person's power to criticize his own community, and gives easy access to cultural authoritarianism, which will in turn undermine the energy of a plural society. As far as national identity of a modern society is concerned, the communitarian solution is not a good one.