Communitarianism vs. Rawlsian Liberalism - An attempt at reconciliation

Ok, so the argument I'm going to look at here I think is best exemplified by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/#DebOveSel):

"Communitarian thinkers in the 1980s such as Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argued that Rawlsian liberalism rests on an overly individualistic conception of the self. Whereas Rawls argues that we have a supreme interest in shaping, pursuing, and revising our own life-plans, he neglects the fact that our selves tend to be defined or constituted by various communal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to a religious tradition) so close to us that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all. This insight led to the view that politics should not be concerned solely with securing the conditions for individuals to exercise their powers of autonomous choice, as we also need to sustain and promote the social attachments crucial to our sense of well-being and respect, many of which have been involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing."

I was reading a book called Justice, by Sandel, and I was torn between my gut instinct to say we are all individuals, not tied to anything with the communitarian idea that we are what we inherited. We love to inherit all the good things from our parents/ancestors (money, high status, connections, etc.) then how can we eschew the bad ones if one's ancestor, let's say, was a slave owner? Are we responsible for what our forefathers did in centuries ago? Are present day Germans responsible for what some of their grandparents may have done to Jews?

Now, I will begin to argue the merits of Rawlsian liberalism versus Communitarianism. Because quite frankly, all I know about these political philosophies comes from a few articles and a couple of books. Might point is to reconcile the two idea and show that they can coexist (in a way).

I could probably say it in a very convoluted matter (which is usually much easier than saying it simply), but in light of an article I read Lucidity, Simplicity, Euphony by Somerset Maugham, I will try to say it as simply as possible.

Communitarianism, that being the assumption of one's 'Personal Narrative' - that you inherit your history, your family and religious tradition, etc. - you are essentially "Storytelling beings" (as MacIntyre puts it) cannot be imposed on a person by some government or other party. The party, in the name of Rawlsian Liberalism, must respect a person's individuality in relation to other parties.

Meaning, when one interacts with another one, one must respect and treat one as an individual, not in a communitarian fashion. But, when that particular person chooses to act, the person must look at him/herself as a communitarian, that you really do inherit certain narratives.

In order to respect people's full rights, as Rawls' argues, people must look at other people as individuals. But when that person reflects upon themselves, they must understand that they are indeed storytelling beings.

Communitarian ideology pervades one's relation to his/herself. Rawls' liberal theory of individuality must govern how we treat each other - as independent and free people.