Thinking Differently About Cosmopolitanism by Marianna Papastephanou

Author:Marianna Papastephanou [Papastephanou, Marianna]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Sociology, General
ISBN: 9781317250524
Google: _F7vCgAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2015-11-17T05:59:52+00:00

Notes

1. Lu (2000) also explains how this approach could even inform anti-Semitic stances.

2. I am indebted to Christopher Norris for drawing my attention to the connection of anti-Semitism and anticosmopolitanism in Eliot.

3. Probably this is so because, just like many other contemporary thinkers, he thinks that the Ought can be, and should be (here one may notice the irony of the inescapability of normativity!) sidestepped in order to avoid the utopianism that is supposedly inherent in it.

4. The phrase is also mentioned by Schlaifer (1936, 169).

5. There Delanty writes that the ancient cosmopolitan tradition “is based on a strong notion of a universal morality, which can be seen too as reflecting the decline of the closed world of polis and the rise of the universal empire of Alexander.” Against such claims, I suggest a more detailed and careful study of Greek antiquity (e.g., from Hesiod, to Herodotus, to Aeschylus, and down to Euripides), one that proves that ancient cosmopolitanism as a whole did not reflect the “universality” of Alexander’s empire (much of it precedes it by centuries) and that the world of the polis was not as closed as many contemporary theorists assume.

6. For a discussion of the educational effects of new ways of dealing with proximity and distance, see Andrew Stables (1998).

7. For more on this term, see Rumford (2006, 166ff.), and on the primacy of spatiality against temporality in current globalist educational discourse, see Usher (2002).

8. Here, many approaches come to mind: either the line now associated with Martha Nussbaum (1997); or that of a common human progress (the neopragmatist line of Richard Rorty [1992]); or that of a universal contract (continental cosmopolitan liberalism up to Habermasian-style [1997] communicative utopias or the American cosmopolitan liberalism of Rawls’s The Law of Peoples [2002]). To avoid a possible misunderstanding, we must keep in mind that many of these theorists (e.g., Habermas, Rorty) have a theory of patriotism too. But what is important here is that, like many others, they see the difference between the two ideals as a matter of inclusiveness rather than of scope and relevance.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.