Cosmopolitan Disorders: Ignoring Power, Overcoming Diversity, Transcending Borders Everita SILINA* Abstract Globalisation The Cosmopolitan discourse on global The discourse on global governance governance invokes a global, normative ethic. tends to dissociate time and space. Based It presumes a kind of shared civic identity that ignores the burdens of history, obstacles on broadly Cosmopolitan principles, it of geography and diversity of peoples, uniting invokes a global normative ethic, a kind all under a set of identifiable global problems. of shared civic identity, that ignores the Critical scholars have moved away from such burdens of history, obstacles of geography universalism by advancing their own brand of and the diversity of peoples, uniting Cosmopolitan ethic, one anchored in a spatially all under a set of identifiable global limited and bottom-up definition of the good life. Yet critical scholars continue to emphasise problems. Despite the proliferation of individual agency, underplaying the structured Cosmopolitan arguments and models nature of global inequalities. Consequently, of governance, it is not an easy task to they reinforce, rather than challenge, the present a succinct account of current current global order. I consider the implications Cosmopolitan theory. Every single text of these models of Cosmopolitanism for issues of power, identity and agency. Any approach on Cosmopolitanism starts with an to global governance, I argue, must begin by observation or recantation that there is analysing the relationship between identity and nothing resembling a consensus regarding (in)security. “what constitutes Cosmopolitanism, who can be described as Cosmopolitan Key Words or where Cosmopolitanism is to be found”.1 And no less than a dozen Cosmopolitanism, liberalism, critical strands of Cosmopolitanism exist.2 In cosmopolitanism, global governance, what follows, I focus on the dominant identity, power, security. approaches to Cosmopolitanism and their critical alternatives. At its core, Cosmopolitanism believes * Assistant Professor of International Relations, that all people have equal worth and The New School University, New York. dignity as members of a common human 25 PERCEPTIONS, Spring 2014, Volume XIX, Number 1, pp. 25-38. Everita Silina family. This commitment to the bond of under the rule of a Cosmopolitan law”.5 shared humanity leads Cosmopolitans to Kant saw the emergence of such an order call into question the moral significance as a natural progression of history, an of national (or any other) borders expression of “the fundamentally moral and identities attached to them. At nature of humanity”.6 He perceived the best, territorial boundaries have only interactions between states to be driven derivative value.3 The argument is traced by the same “state of nature” logic for back to the Greek Stoics and Cynics which Hobbes had argued the necessity who are credited with coining the term- of a social contract in the domestic Cosmopolitan- to describe their new sphere. All states would strike a global identity that transcends the boundaries social contract, Kant extrapolated, of the polis to embrace the cosmos, the voluntarily entering into a binding only true community. According to agreement to limit their sovereignty David Held, the Stoics believed that and power. A global civil society would “[e]ach person lives in a local community buttress from below and Cosmopolitan and in a wider community of human international law from above. The result ideals, aspirations, and arguments”. would be nothing less than an end to all Of these, humanity is the only moral wars.7 identity and association, the former Kant’s recommendations seem 4 being merely an accident of birth. particularly relevant in an era of rapid globalisation and the perceived decline The exaggerated role assigned to of the state. Eşref Aksu sees Kant’s writings on “perpetual peace” as laying Europe, and now its institutional the conceptual ground for the current progeny, the European Union theorising on various global governance (EU), does not advance arrangements, both in their normative the impartiality claims of and institutional guises.8 Kant’s belief Cosmopolitans. in the principles of reason and his emphasis on global consciousness and understanding appeal to many who seek More recently, Cosmopolitans have “novel” solutions for “inter-cultural” taken inspiration from the writings of problems in a post 9-11 world. Kant the 18th-century German philosopher, understood that a better international Immanuel Kant. He proposed the order could not rely on international idea of a global civil society and an law alone. Its success required the right international order composed of attitudes and dispositions. Reason would republics or democracies “operating be a way to escape from “dogma and 26 Ignoring Power, Overcoming Diversity, Transcending Borders unvindicated authority”.9 According to is a moral perspective that is impartial, Kant, only impartial reasoning could universal, individualist, and egalitarian”.14 foster a productive dialogue and mutual Much like Liberalism, Kantian understanding. Human ability to reason Cosmopolitanism aims to reconcile (and bestows on us a Cosmopolitan right. promote) liberal notions of individualism This means that an individual has “the with multiculturalism and respect capacity to present oneself and be heard for value pluralism. In Ulrich Beck’s within and across political communities; recent interpretation, Cosmopolitanism ... the right to enter dialogue without differs from nationalism and globalism/ artificial constraint and delimitation”.10 universalism in that “[i]t neither orders Presumably, Kant believed that this differences hierarchically nor dissolves open-ended communication would them, but accepts them as such, indeed lead to more worldly attitudes and the invests them with a positive value”.15 identity of a world citizen. Cosmopolitanism perceives “others as differentand at the same time as equal”;16 it dismisses “either/or” conjunctions and When borders seem less permits a “both/and” principle to operate, permanent and technological embracing the “unity in diversity” developments in commu- outlook of liberal pluralism. Quite nications allow millions around simply, nothing in Cosmopolitanism’s the world to connect easily, core tenets or its multiple incarnations distance and separation (or even conflicts with the liberal agenda and its isolation) lose their power to principles. But, as I argue, this means divide and alienate. Cosmopolitanism suffers from all the same dilemmas and criticisms- and more!- that afflict Liberalism. Indeed, Kant’s argument is echoed in John Liberalism’s dilemmas now drive a wedge Rawls’s The Law of Peoples.11 Though among Cosmopolitans. When the clash the book contributes poorly to the between local and global cultures cannot debate and remains woefully out of be avoided, Cosmopolitans divide into touch with a rapidly changing world,12 two separate camps, each privileging what remains important, particularly in one level of association over the other. Rawls’ definition of justice as fairness, While Liberalism has tried to negotiate is the intimate connection between the divergent pulls of individual and Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism, group identities, Cosmopolitanism specifically the American brand.13 has for the most part abandoned any Charles Jones notes: “Cosmopolitanism attempt to understand the nature of 27 Everita Silina identity. Nor are Cosmopolitans able male) influenced by many cultures and to escape the accusation that a common committed to none. He is a child of the human culture of individualised and modern era of mobility and unlimited rights-bearing citizens is just another choice in everything from what one hegemonic attempt to impose the wears to who one is and what identity values of a particular culture and one creates. He is a traveller, a global society onto the rest of the world. The tourist and a connoisseur of all the exaggerated role assigned to Europe, diverse experiences that the world has and now its institutional progeny, to offer. An essential characteristic of a the European Union (EU), does not Cosmopolitan is his open orientation to advance the impartiality claims of the rich cultural tapestry of humanity. Cosmopolitans. Finally, like Liberalism, Along with this liberal attitude comes the Cosmopolitanism suffers from an under- sense that he is equally at home anywhere theorised notion of power, especially in the world. No place or community through economic interest. Therefore, claims special and permanent loyalty Cosmopolitanism responds weakly to the from him. In this sense, a Cosmopolitan rapid integration of global markets and is a figure who is typically associated the spread of a corporate homogenised with “the comfortable culture of middle- culture that poses a threat to any notion class travellers, intellectuals and business of diversity. people”.17 In short, both Liberalism and Many emphasise the virtues of Cosmopolitanism ignore structural Cosmopolitanism in a globalising world inequalities and their effect on societies order. When borders seem less permanent and identities. Consequently, they and technological developments in tend to reinforce rather than challenge communications allow millions around the dominant power imbalance in the the world to connect easily, distance global order. Any approach to global and separation (or even isolation) lose governance, I argue, must begin by their power to divide and alienate.