Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 111–127 | Cite as

Cosmopolitanism and the De-colonial Option

Article

Abstract

What are the differences between cosmopolitanism and globalization? Are they “natural” historical processes or are they designed for specific purposes? Was Kant cosmopolitanism good for the entire population of the globe or did it respond to a particular Eurocentered view of what a cosmo-polis should be? The article argues that, while the term “globalization” in the most common usage refers and correspond to neo-liberal globalization projects and ambitions (roughly from 1980 to 2008), and the Kantian concept of “cosmopolitanism” responded to the second wave (XVIII and XIX of European global expansion), “de-colonial cosmopolitanism” refers to global processes and conceptualizations delinking from both neo-liberal globalization and liberal cosmopolitan ideals. But it delinks also from theological and Marxist visions of a homogenous world center around religious ideals or state socialist regulations. De-colonial cosmopolitanism is a cosmopolitanism of multiple trajectories aiming at a trans-modern world based on pluriversality rather than on a new and good universal for all.

Keywords

Coloniality Decoloniality Modern/colonial world Modernity/coloniality Our modernity and their modernity Modernity as an Eurocentered and imperial narrative 

References

  1. Anghie, A. (1999). Francisco de Vitoria and the colonial origins of international law. In E. Darian-Smith & P. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Laws of the postcolonial (pp. 89–108). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Boroujerdi, M. (1996). Iranian intellectuals and the West—The tormented triumph of nativism. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chatterjee, P. (2004). The politics of the governed. Reflections on popular politics in most of the world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Ayala, F. G. P. (1985). Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno ([1617], 1985). In J. V. Murra & R. Adorno (Eds.). México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  6. de Vitoria, F. (1532/1989). Relectio de Indis. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas.Google Scholar
  7. Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth (Constance Farrington, Trans.). New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  8. Grosfóguel, R. (2008). Transmodernity, border thinking, and global coloniality. Decolonizing political economy and postcolonial studies. In Eurozine; http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-07-04-grosfoguel-en.html.
  9. Kant, I. (1996). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view (Victor Lyle Dowdell, Trans.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mignolo, W. D. (2000). The many faces of cosmo-polis: Border thinking and critical cosmopolitanism. Public Culture, 12(3), 721–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ortelius, A. (1570). Typus Orbis Terrarum. http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-rm2044.
  12. Steger, M. (2006). Globalism. Market ideology meets terrorism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis. The hidden agenda of modernity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Weik, A. (2007). “The uses, hazards of expatriation”: Richard Wright’s cosmopolitanism in process. African American Review, 41, 459–475.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations