Habermas’ cosmopolitan project seeks to transform global politics into an emancipatory activity in order to compensate for the disempowering effects of globalization. The project is traced through three vicious circles which stem from Habermas’ commitment to intersubjectivity. Normative politics always raises a vicious circle because politics is only needed to the extent that an issue has become problematized through want of intersubjective agreement. At domestic level Habermas solves this problem by constitutionalizing transcendental presuppositions that political participants cannot avoid making. This (...) fix will not work at the global level because it is pre-political as between human individuals. Habermas therefore premises cosmopolitics on the transformation of nation-states into sites of participatory politics, engagement in which will eventually ignite a global cosmopolitan consciousness. This transformation depends on the constitutionalization of existing UN structures and their enforcement of an undefined and ‘uncontroversial’ core of human rights. Unable to ground this project in social practice, Habermas eventually disregards his own lodestar of intersubjectivity based in social practice by relying on the prediscursive concept of human dignity. This move is not merely philosophically inconsistent; it also opens the door to the moralization of politics and the imposition of human rights down the barrel of a gun. (shrink)

Dans cet essai, je tente de répondre à quelques-unes des objections habituellement adressées au cosmopolitisme, en prenant en considération la perspective de ceux que cette doctrine risque d’affecter, à savoir, les immigrants. J’argue que certaines de ces objections se fondent sur des conceptions simplifiées à l’excès et empiriquement inexactes de ce que sont la communauté et l’identité culturelle. J’examine aussi en détail la controverse entourant les possibles implications autoritaristes — ou impérialistes — des propositions visant à faire d’un système moral-légal (...) un modèle pour le monde. L’objectif général de cet article est d’explorer les conditions permettant l’établissement d’une règle de justice cosmopolitique, dans un contexte mondial marqué par des différences culturelles et une extrême inégalité dans l’accès aux ressources et au pouvoir décisionnel. Certaines questions relatives à la motivation morale sont aussi abordées. (shrink)

Cosmopolitan concern for the whole world is often treated as oppositional to particular collectivities, to corresponding sensibilities and to the obligations that follow from them. Tensions revolve around demands made upon the self (depending on the emphasis on the local or the global) and infuse educational discourse accordingly. Culturalism approaches the self as a culturally or multiculturally shaped identity, monopolises the terrain of cosmopolitan debate and narrows the scope of cosmopolitan education only to encouraging hybridity of selfhood and to cultivating (...) respect and tolerance of global diversity. In this article, I discuss Jeremy Waldron’s conception of cosmopolitan selfhood by drawing on the exemplary status attributed to specific manifestations of hybrid identity. What will gradually emerge from my discussion is, hopefully, a broadening of cosmopolitan demands upon the self and an emphasis on the transforming and reforming rather than the forming or informing significance of cosmopolitan education. This trans/re-forming significance is attached to a critical positioning of the subject regarding the ethico-political responsibilities of one’s home (-land, culture, commitments) that often go unnoticed. Doing one’s homework is shown to be a precondition for a cosmopolitanism understood within the order of treatment of, rather than agreement with, the Other. (shrink)

With recent developments in political globalization, self-identifying “cosmopolitans” have overwhelmed the scholarly discourse. This article examines the moral claims behind the theory of cosmopolitanism—in its political universal form—while being especially cautious of claims of such true universalism, and its likely dangerous applications. This entails a brief analysis into certain justified universalist legal traditions; an example of such is found in the International Criminal Court (ICC). In examining the theory and application of western-originated cosmopolitanism, we not only see how theoretical claims (...) of moral superiority are wrong, but that they are alive and well in western theories. In application, it follows that even (slightly) milder legal traditions, like the ICC, imply this unjustified moral superiority. (shrink)

Dans cet essai, je tente de répondre à quelques-unes des objections habituellement adressées au cosmopolitisme, en prenant en considération la perspective de ceux que cette doctrine risque d’affecter, à savoir, les immigrants. J’argue que certaines de ces objections se fondent sur des conceptions simplifiées à l’excès et empiriquement inexactes de ce que sont la communauté et l’identité culturelle. J’examine aussi en détail la controverse entourant les possibles implications autoritaristes — ou impérialistes — des propositions visant à faire d’un système moral-légal (...) un modèle pour le monde. L’objectif général de cet article est d’explorer les conditions permettant l’établissement d’une règle de justice cosmopolitique, dans un contexte mondial marqué par des différences culturelles et une extrême inégalité dans l’accès aux ressources et au pouvoir décisionnel. Certaines questions relatives à la motivation morale sont aussi abordées. (shrink)

Este ensayo investiga el discurso global a la sombra de la década de 1960. Se basa en los puntos de vista de Nelson Goodman, Marshall McLuhan y Theodor W. Adorno para explorar tres conceptos centrales para la música en la época de la transmisión global: concordancia, corriente y virtualidad.

Is it Eurocentric on the part of western philosophers (Habermas, Derrida) or of researchers in human sciences to set out from a specific locality (Europe) to formulate ethico-political ideals with universal aspirations? In this article, I critique the ‘universalism vs. particularism’ framework within which the charge of Eurocentrism is deployed and I redefine the notion of Eurocentrism outside the drastic choice between universalism and particularism and in light of an ‘ec-centric’ reflection on the entanglement of the ‘We’ and the ‘others’. (...) I illustrate my position by discussing the Habermasian–Derridean plea for the determination of new European political responsibilities beyond any Eurocentrism. I grant that the two philosophers go indeed beyond Eurocentrism as the latter is usually understood, i.e. along the axis ‘universal–particular’. Yet, without minimizing their political contribution, I detect subtler Eurocentrisms that pervade several assumptions of Habermas’s and Derrida’s collaborative efforts. I argue that a hasty enlisting of possibilities for a politically and morally pertinent European intervention in world affairs fails to account for other, more necessary steps in the direction of reforming the western consciousness and of going beyond less easily discernible Eurocentrisms such as those theorized within the proposed, reformulated notion. (shrink)