Cosmopolitanism And Its Discontents

Cosmopolitan Justice and its Discontents pursues a reflection upon the institutional orders designed to ensure respect for the rule of law, human rights, and social justice. The majority of literature on cosmopolitanism tends to be oriented in sociology, political science or philosophy, and is largely positive. This book aims to fill the lacuna with respect to critical and legal perspectives in this field. In particular, it highlights the importance of international economic law and its institutions when evaluating the evolution of cosmopolitan norms. In addition, it provides critical and multidisciplinary perspectives on Cosmopolitan Justice and Sovereignty; Institutions, Civil Society and Accountability; and Social Exclusion, Migration, and Global Markets. This book will be of considerable interest to academics and students concerned with international public and private law, international criminal law, international economic law, human rights, migration, criminology, political science, and philosophy.

This volume examines the cosmopolitanism ideal from ancient to contemporary times. It grapples with the question: Is there still relevance today for the idea of the "citizen of the world" that transcends national borders in the aftermath of the Brexit Referendum result and election of Donald Trump in 2016?

The term cosmopolitan is increasingly used within different social, cultural and political settings, including academia, popular media and national politics. However those who invoke the cosmopolitan project rarely ask whose experience, understanding, or vision of cosmopolitanism is being described and for whose purposes? In response, this volume assembles contributors from different disciplines and theoretical backgrounds to examine cosmopolitanism’s possibilities, aspirations and applications—as well as its tensions, contradictions, and discontents—so as to offer a critical commentary on the vital but often neglected question: whose cosmopolitanism? The book investigates when, where, and how cosmopolitanism emerges as a contemporary social process, global aspiration or emancipatory political project and asks whether it can serve as a political or methodological framework for action in a world of conflict and difference.

This volume examines the cosmopolitanism ideal from ancient to contemporary times. It grapples with the question: Is there still relevance today for the idea of the "citizen of the world" that transcends national borders in the aftermath of the Brexit Referendum result and election of Donald Trump in 2016?

Cosmopolitanism is one of the most venerable intellectual traditions in the history of political philosophy. From the ancient Greek Diogenes’ claim to be “a citizen of the world” through to Kant’s Enlightenment vision of a world government and even into our own time, the idea of cosmopolitanism has stirred the moral imagination of many throughout history. Arguably the Brexit referendum result and the election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked the first major public repudiation of the transnational, globalizing cosmopolitan ideals that have arguably dominated politics in the liberal democratic West since the end of the Cold War. This volume reconsiders cosmopolitanism and its discontents in the age of Brexit and Trump by bringing together the great thinkers in the history of political philosophy and contemporary reflections on the problems and possibilities of international relations, human rights, multiculturalism, and regnant theories of democracy and the state.

This book examines the limits of cosmopolitanism in contemporary literature. In a world in which engagement with strangers is no longer optional, and in which the ubiquitous demands of globalization clash with resurgent localist and nationalist sentiments, cosmopolitanism is no longer merely a horizon-broadening aspiration but a compulsory order of things to which we are all conscripted. Focusing on literary texts from such diverse locales as England, Algeria, Sweden, former Yugoslavia, and the Sudan, the essays in this collection interrogate the tensions and impasses in our prison-house of cosmopolitanism.

Cosmopolitanism and Its Discontents seeks to address the kinds of challenges that cosmopolitan perspectives and practices face in a world organized increasingly in relation to a proliferating series of global absolutisms – religious, political, social, and economic. While these challenges are often used to support the claim that cosmopolitanism is impotent to resist such totalizing ideologies because it is either a Western conceit or a globalist fiction, Gunn argues that cosmopolitanism is neither. Situating his discussion in an emphatically global context, Gunn shows how cosmopolitanism has been effective in resisting such essentialisms and authoritarianisms precisely because it is more pragmatic than prescriptive, more self-critical than self-interested and finds several of its foremost recent expressions in the work of an Indian philosopher, a Palestinian writer, and South African story-tellers. This kind of cosmopolitanism offers a genuine ethical alternative to the politics of dogmatism and extremism because it is grounded on a new delineation of the human and opens toward a new, indeed, an "other," humanism.

Cosmopolitanism is often discussed in a critical and disapproving manner: as a concept complicit with the interests of the powerful, or as a notion related to Western political supremacy, the ills of globalization, inequality, and capitalist economic penetration. Seen as the moral justification for embracing or tolerating cultural difference, ethnically and socially diverse communities unenthusiastic with change, develop an acknowledgement of their common position vis-à-vis a western, “universal” political point of view. By means of exploring the idiosyncratic form of political intimacy generated by anti-cosmopolitanism, and assuming an analytical and critical stance towards the concepts of parochialism and localism, this volume examines the political consciousness of such negatively predisposed actors, and it attempts to explain their reservation towards the sincerity of international politics, their reliance on conspiracy theories or nationalist narratives, their introversion.