When does the communication, which originates in imagining the other, start? When does the communication transgresses the individual and reaches out to public sphere? In his Cosmopolitanism and Culture Nikos Papastergiadis tries to answer these questions. For him, we must look for an answer in the field of aesthetics.
Papastergiadis says that when radical changes happen, e.g. “when states break up or new unions are formed” (88), it is cosmopolitanism that provides the perspective for interconnections of cultural differences, it provides the net in which we, like spiders, can catch the chaotically flying flies. In those moments of unrest, cosmopolitanism enters the “public imaginary” (89): it is there, when the elements of the world interact
…show more content…
However, he notices that despite the difficulty of following the cosmopolitan order (laws of war and human rights) “states and emerging powers have demanded inclusion in the multilateral order” (38), and have not abandoned it. This allows Hed to say that “a political space has opened up to re-forge the multilateral order on a more inclusive basis” (38): once again, the ability to imagine a new cosmopolitan project (which would be hard to oppose with, say, “traditional values” project) becomes a key question. Hed thinks that is possible, but he is also afraid that just like the shaping of the modern national state took centuries to happen, the cosmopolitan order will take long time to come into action; time, during which global challenges (e.g. ecological) will “reshape the conditions of human life” forever (39). And because of the danger that cosmopolitanism “as a world-making project will continue to try to encompass [these] alternative words, and their aspirations for the universal, within a single frame, reducing discussion to a debate about principle and pluralism” (Moore 108), the task of every individual to seek for alternatives is getting more urgent. The road to …show more content…
On the one hand, imagination lies in the very basis of cosmopolitan communication: for Nikos Papastergiadis it can “yield an alternative sense of place” (198) in artistic practices; for him, imagining provides space for the realisation of interest that stems in individuals because of the aesthetic differences between peoples and cultures. On the other hand, imagination seems to be lacking in some other dimensions of cosmopolitanism. Thus, for Lilie Chouliaraki we need imagination to work differently in order for it to provide possibility of communication of vulnerability between distanced individuals around the globe. For Rosi Braidotti, visionary power is what helps us to sustain our present: via imagining the future, we construct our contemporary reality, and this process must be intensified: if we want for cosmopolitanism to be able to respond to new problems, imaging the future should become a regular-basis thing to do. Patrick Hanafin calls on us to imagine our freedom, which once can be dissolved in the numerous rights and laws, which we will mistake for the actual freedom itself. From the proper imagining of freedom, its collective defence will take place. Finally, for David Hed and Henrietta Moore, one must, in order to allow cosmopolitanism to break with its Western-oriented essence, be both a critical thinker, who looks into contemporary systems with serenity, and a
Martell, Luke. "Conflicts in Cosmopolitanism and the Global Left." Policy Network. N.p., 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
As defined, cosmopolitanism as a whole is the idea that all cultures and ethnic groups within our world belong to a single community based on a shared morality. Considering this, Anthony Appiah claims that “cosmopolitanism is universality plus difference.” He says this because cosmopolitanism is based upon people accepting the variety of people, but understanding that all the different people of the world belong to one group due to a shared moral standard. But how can this be, when there are wars and conflicts going on throughout the world? Appiah discusses this throughout his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, as well as the commitments that cosmopolitans make, such as the commitment to the respect of differences in humans
Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in’, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. I, (2004) pp. 75-87.
In Orientalism, Edward Said argues the countless aspects of the term “Orientalism”, as well as its roots, the principal philosophies and arguments behind it, and the influence that Orientalism has had on the relationship between the West and the East. Several reasons including political, economic, moral, and cultural justify the necessity for conquest of the Orient. Said’s concept of Orientalism analyzes the concepts that offer the political, economic, and cultural motives for imperialist actions by more powerful nations like the United States and Europe.
Nowadays our world is constructed by globalisation and this aspect is especially depicted by the concept transnationalism in the media industry. Borders are now here to be crossed and to let access to further exchange between different countries or nations. The notion of transnationalism was furthermore developed by Andrew Higson (2000) focusing at the cinema. Indeed, he looked at tensions between the transnational and the national cinema. This led to a certain questioning of national identity and what is exactly a nation or nationalism and how can it be represented in a media text. Moreover, the concept of nation as ‘imagined communities’ developed by Benedict Anderson (2006) will be helpful to look at those tensions. In order to illustrate
This essay will argue the critical point, that Costas Douzinas does recycle, but he also updates Jeremy Bentham’s early approach to rights, by using a modern day approach to his theory. Both Bentham and Douzinas agreed that rights were created by people with power and are told that they are to protect the people without it . Rights are seen to be a tool that is implemented by the government in order to obtain further power over the everyday citizen. This can be seen when there is a protest of human rights, the everyday citizen protests non-violently, but the violence only invariably comes from the police, or the government when trying to stop these protests.
For Appiah, cosmopolitanism goes beyond mere globalization—“a term that once referred to a marketing strategy, and then came to designate a macroeconomic thesis, and now can seem to encompass everything and nothing” (Appiah xiii)—and even multiculturalism—“another shape shifter, which so often designates the disease which it purports to cure” (Appiah xiii)—representing a grudging coexistence and maintained separation between different cultures. Beyond these insufficient terms and concepts, Appiah proposes cosmopolitanism which was coined by the “Cynics of the 4th century BC” and means “citizen of the universe” (Appiah xiv). As cosmopolitanism is mainly an act undertaken by individuals, a cosmopolitan is someone who places their membership to humanity over the loyalty to any particular nation or
Each of these normative models has their strengths and weaknesses, with some favouring inclusivity at the expense of being politically efficacious while others perhaps place a needless amount of importance on obtaining a single consensus. Nevertheless, the more pressing issue is whether they can be adequately applied to a transnational context. These models, as well as their theoretical underpinnings, are grounded in a system of thought centred on states that are generally Westphalian. However, as will be shown in the next section, globalization has fundamentally altered the political landscape in which the public sphere finds itself and whatever flaws inherent to these models that existed before are amplified when strict territorial boundaries are expanded and removed.
Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism differ vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international relations. Cosmopolitanism holds the view that the rights of humanity and the individual should override those of the state (or political community), whereas communitarianism is the opposite. It states that the rights of the community are more important than those of the state. It is because of these fundamental differences that they deal with international relations in significantly different ways. However, both theories have their flaws and it seems that we can have neither a fully cosmopolitan or communitarian world political system.
Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities has definitely provided much food for thought. His arguments are well supported and make sense even now, when attempting to draw parallels between what nationalism meant in the past, what it means now and what it will mean in the future. From the advent of the printing press to the rise of the internet, imagined communities have expanded exponentially and if the past is any indicator of the future, they will continue to do so well into the
One of the issues that I found compelling due to all its contradictions is the so-called "cosmopolitanism" as an identity mark of the advertising men (as it is highlighted by "Apostles of Modernity" and "Sold American", too). How was possible to build up this self-perception in a profession that happened in a desk, from 8 am to 5 pm? How much cosmopolitan was this? To me, this is also part of what McGovern points out on the distinction as a key force that plays a role both in advertising men and advertising as an industry itself. This operation -being cosmopolitan, being distinguished from the mass, being the Opposite to the others- defines the world in which the ad men and the Other (women, children, blacks, immigrants, workers, and so on, they were undistinguishable) lived -and still
“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”
With a world even more connected than ever before we cannot look the other way and forget about what is going on in the rest of the world. Global ethics has become more of a priority when events that are going on in the world can be brought into our living rooms during the evening news. With new social networks, the internet, and advance telephones it becomes so easy to share and communicate with anyone from around the world in a matter of seconds. As global problems such as poverty, war, environmental issues, and human rights arise we all have a role in addressing problems of global governance. “How we resolve (or fail to resolve) the dilemmas of global ethics will determine the framework of future global governance.
For the most part of second half of twentieth century, realist mode of thinking had dominated the discipline of international relations (IR), at least in the United States. Scholars and diplomats such as Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger steered US foreign policy towards a state centric realist ‘highway’. The main signposts on that highway, among many others, were anarchy, national security, sovereignty and power politics. However, in 1960s, realism came under attack for its lack of scientific vigor. In response to their critics, neo-realists attempted to develop their methodology on a truly ‘positivist’ grounds to account for an objective and universal ‘science’ of IR (Tickner, 1992; 11). In the subsequent decades, realist ideology, along with its dominant positivist methodology, was confronted by multiple schools of thought. Notable among these are, liberal institutionalism, Marxism, constructivism and Critical theory of Frankfort School. The particular ‘voices of dissent’ (George & Campbell, 1990; 269) under consideration in this paper, however, are postmodern and feminist responses to mainstream realist and liberal IR theory. In the light of post-structural and feminist insights to social theory and knowledge construction, the paper endeavors to build on the thesis that mainstream IR has been narrowly defined and contested by the dominant players of the field. In carrying out this narrowly defined ‘modernist’ project, it is argued here that mainstream IR has excluded multiplicity of voices and issues. Furthermore, these voices and issues not only have the potential to bring their unique insights to IR, but are also sensitive to changes in international affairs. The second part of argument flows naturally from the first prep...