Kalogeras Online Thesis Final
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Troubling Cosmopolitanism A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Joanne Kalogeras Gender Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, August 2014 2 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 76,771 words. 3 Abstract This thesis proposes a reconstructed, critical cosmopolitanism that uses the identified core components of the normative branch of cosmopolitanism rooted in (Kantian) moral philosophy and the works of a wide variety of critical theorists that include feminist, postcolonial, and queer perspectives. I pay particular attention to those theorists influenced by poststructuralist deconstructions of the stable subject who focus either on the normative theory directly or on components essential to it. Normative theorists, exemplified by Thomas Pogge, Simon Caney and others, usually focus on global distributive justice, taking as a given, for example, who counts as human. Critical theorists, such as Judith Butler, question that premise. This postmodern turn has implications for what I argue are the three necessary components of cosmopolitanism: autonomy, universality, and its anti-nationalist position. However, the first two have been problematised because of their liberal conceptualisations, which then has implications for cosmopolitanism’s anti-nationalist position as well. I propose a reconfiguration of cosmopolitanism that retains the core normative concepts, but rejects their more liberal interpretations. I argue that the atomistic individual as the basis for liberal autonomy is flawed, and that liberal cosmopolitan conceptualisations of univeralism do not recognise its particularity. I also argue that that the normative theory does not fully take into account nationalism’s dependence on the marginalisations of non-normative populations within the nation state, and how those dependencies might be complicit with nationalism’s othering of those across borders. In addition to a number of normative theorists, the thesis references such multidisciplinary thinkers as Butler, Linda Zerilli and Hannah Arendt. I examine the works of different theorists to develop a reformulation of each of these concepts and integrate an intersubjective approach into these reformulations in order to assemble a feminist, intersubjective, critical cosmopolitan theory. I suggest the adoption of a ‘cosmopolitan intersubjectivity’ in order to show how these concepts can be reconfigured to work together more cohesively and give cosmopolitan theory greater internal consistency. 4 Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest gratitude first to Anne Phillips and Clare Hemmings. Their erudition, supervisory expertise, patience and good humour have made what I thought at times was insurmountable, possible. It has been a true privilege and honour to work with them. I would also like to thank our department manager Hazel Johnstone for making everything easier. My friends and colleagues at LSE’s Gender Institute and Government and Sociology departments have provided me with personal and scholarly support: Amy Hinterberger, Marina Franchi, Carolyn Pedwell, Gwen Beetham, Sadie Wearing, Natasha Marhia, Chinwe Madubuike, Carolyn Williams, Faith Armitage, Christina Scharff, Patrizia Kokot, Amanda Conroy, Alex Leveringhaus, Diane Chilangwa Farmer, Deborah Finding, Suki Ali, Kimberly Hutchings, Astrida Neimanis, Josephine Wilson, Sumi Madhok, Tracey Jensen, Rebecca Lawrence, Monica Wirz, and Muriel Kahane. Natasha, Amy, Alex, Amanda, Marina, and Faith were tireless discussants and readers. Their encouragements made a substantial difference to this thesis. Patrizia’s proofing and Marina’s bibliography checking in the final stages were invaluable. Robert Kulpa was a brilliant resource on nationalism and sexuality, and he continues to be inspiring as a fellow activist. Joel Blum has been a wonderful friend, grammarian and proofreader even when he had no idea what I was talking about. I remain indebted to him for his gracious hospitality. Thanks especially to my friends Diane Monteil, Valerie Leopold, Roshni Rustomji Kerns, Sarah Waters, Peter Kelsch, Jeff Pittelkau, Elizabeth Zitrin, Stephanie Bird, and the Misfit Toys for always being there. Love and gratitude to my mother, Elaine Kalogeras, and to my sister, Georgene Kalogeras Reschke, for supporting me in special ways, both materially and emotionally. This thesis was partially funded by the LSE’s Gender Institute and the Coca Cola Foundation. Without this generous support and the help of Rose Harris, Sean McNally, Ali Weyli, Sue Haines, Nicola Martin, and Dr Rom Naidoo I would not have been able to complete it. Lastly, I would like to thank my father, Peter Kalogeras, for a lifetime of believing in me. He was the cosmopolitan I aspire to be. He instilled his unique brand of ethical idealism and his wonderment at the world in me, for which I am eternally grateful. This thesis is dedicated to his memory. 5 Table of Contents Declaration ........................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... 4 Chapter One: Troubling Cosmopolitanism ...................................................................... 7 Normative and Critical Approaches to Cosmopolitanism .............................................. 11 Liberal foundations .................................................................................................................. 14 Troubling Liberalism, Troubling Cosmopolitanism ................................................................ 16 Autonomy, universalism, and nationalism ...................................................................... 18 Typologies ...................................................................................................................... 20 A note on terminologies ........................................................................................................... 23 Personal interest .............................................................................................................. 27 Chapter outlines .............................................................................................................. 29 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 32 Chapter Two Overview .................................................................................................... 33 Chapter Two: Contemporary Cosmopolitanism ........................................................... 34 Provenance ...................................................................................................................... 34 Cosmopolitan distributive justice ............................................................................................ 34 Moderate and Critical Cosmopolitanism ................................................................................. 37 Perceptions of cosmopolitanism ..................................................................................... 40 Strengths and problems of cosmopolitan theory ............................................................. 46 Strengths and problems of critiques ................................................................................ 50 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 56 Chapter Three Overview .................................................................................................. 58 Chapter Three: Autonomy ............................................................................................... 59 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 59 Rights .............................................................................................................................. 65 Accounts and critiques .................................................................................................... 67 Symbolic .................................................................................................................................. 68 Metaphysical ............................................................................................................................ 70 Care .......................................................................................................................................... 71 Postmodern .............................................................................................................................