Edited By Mónica García-Salmones and Pamela Slotte
PART I: THEORISING COSMOPOLITANISMS
PART I THEORISING COSMOPOLITANISMS 21 Cosmopolitanism1 Martti KOSKENNIEMI Cosmopolitanism is a big word. It has especial attraction to academ- ics who like to travel to places and to characterise themselves through words with a pedigree from European antiquity. To think that one in some ways resembles a Stoic sage able to say, “I am a citizen of the world” – an intrinsic aspect of the image of the (European) intellectual. The world is me; I am the world. But this, to borrow another Greek word, is hubris and none the less so for the moral or moralistic radiation of such vocabularies: I am speaking in the name of all. And whoever appointed you to that position? In this paper I would like to examine two environments where that vocabulary is at home. Cosmopolitanism is, first of all, a language of identity. One identifies oneself, or one’s neighbour or perhaps one’s ideal hero as “cosmopolitan”. On the other hand, cosmopolitanism also invokes a project, a vocabulary with which to speak about the world as a whole. It integrates the human universe as a moral or political criterion for thought and action. The cosmopolitan is not neutral but “good”. I want to suggest that in both respects, cosmopolitanism is profoundly ambivalent, however. It opens an admirable, perhaps in some respects even unavoidable, perspective on ourselves and the world. But it may easily end up suicidal or tyrannical: a moral trap or a prologue to op- pression. The cosmopolitan is a hard vocabulary to...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.