Advertisement

Pragmatism and Democracy in a Global World

  • Roberto Frega
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses the advantages of a pragmatist theory of democracy for understanding the political relevance of new phenomena such as the emergence of forms of private authority and transnational movements in tackling with global issues. The chapter shows in particular that the pragmatist notion of ‘publics’ offers promising insights and proves particularly promising for completing the transition from methodological nationalism to methodological cosmopolitanism that is required to understand the emergence of new normative orders and the unfolding of new normative practices developing at the global level and to inquire into their conditions of validity. The chapter discusses the contribution of political pragmatism to the critique of methodological nationalism and proceeds then to examine and reject the three major alternative approaches to global politics—constitutional cosmopolitanism, transnational public sphere theory, and global representation theory—showing why they fail to overcome methodological nationalism. The last two sections explore private entrepreneurial authority in contexts of global governance and show that pragmatism succeeds in explaining their political role, while the other three approaches fail.

Keywords

Pragmatism International relations Public sphere Nonstate actors Political consumerism Private authority Transnationalism Global democracy 

References

  1. Abraham, J. and Y. Abramson (2015). A pragmatist vocation for international relations: The (global) public and its problems. European Journal of International Relations 23(1), 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (2006). Cosmopolitan vision. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. and E. Grande (2007). Cosmopolitan Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, S. and B. Cashore (2007). Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance 1(4), 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohman, J. (2007). Democracy across Borders. From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohman, J. (2010). Participation through publics: Did Dewey answer Lippmann? Contemporary Pragmatism 7(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray, D. (2011). Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: Representation and Leadership in Transnational Democracy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brighi, E. and H. Bauer (2009). Pragmatism in International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brunkhorst, H. (2002). Globalising democracy without a state: Weak public, strong public, global constitutionalism. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 31(3), 675–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance 15(4), 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cashore, B. W., G. Auld, and D. Newsom (2004). Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chandler, D. (2014). Democracy unbound? Non-linear politics and the politicization of everyday life. European Journal of Social Theory 17(1), 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cochran, M. (2002). A democratic critique of cosmopolitan democracy: Pragmatism from the bottom-up. European Journal of International Relations 8(4), 517–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connolly, W. (1991). Democracy and territoriality. Millennium-Journal of International Studies 20(3), 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cutler, A. C. (2003). Private power and global authority: Transnational merchant law in the global political economy, Volume 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its Problems. The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 2. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (2015). Lectures in social and political philosophy. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser, N. (2007, July). Transnationalizing the Public Sphere: On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post-Westphalian World. Theory, Culture & Society 24(4), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fraser, N. (2014). Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Frega, R. (2015b). John Dewey’s social philosophy: A restatement. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 2(7).Google Scholar
  22. Friedrichs, J. and F. Kratochwil (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization 63(04), 701–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, J. (2011). Order out of chaos: Public and private rules for managing carbon. In APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper.Google Scholar
  24. Green, J. (2014a). Enlightened Provincialism, Open-Ended Communities, and Loyalty-Loving Individuals. In Jason Bell and Kelly Parker, editors. The Relevance of Royce, pp. 190–202. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation: Political essays (1st MIT Press ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, R. B. and T. J. Biersteker (2002). The emergence of private authority in global governance, Volume 85. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Held, D. (2004). Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hellmann, G. (2009). Beliefs as rules for action: Pragmatism as a theory of thought and action. International Studies Review 11(3), 638–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Isacoff, J. (2015). Why IR needs Deweyan pragmatism. Perspectives on Political Science 44(1), 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keck, M. and K. Sikkink (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Koskenniemi, M. (2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond constitutionalism: The pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lamla, J. (2013b). Verbraucherdemokratie: Politische Soziologie der Konsumgesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Mattli, W. and N. Woods (2009). The politics of global regulation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Micheletti, M. and A. McFarland (2015). Creative participation: Responsibility-taking in the political world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Narayan, J. C. (2016). The global public and its problems: A Deweyan examination of global democratic theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ruggie, J. G. (2004). Reconstituting the global public domain—issues, actors, and practices. European Journal of International Relations 10(4), 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schaffer, J. K. (2012). The boundaries of transnational democracy: Alternatives to the all-affected principle. Review of International Studies 38(2), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies 61(1), 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor, P. (1994). The state as container: Territoriality in the modern world-system. Progress in Human Geography 18(2), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tormey, S. (2015). The End of Representative Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vogel, D. (2008). Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct achievements and limitations. Business and Society 49(1), 68–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zürn, M. (1998). Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates: Globalisierung und Denationalisierung als Chance. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  47. Zürn, M. (2016). Survey article: Four models of a global order with cosmopolitan intent: An empirical assessment. Journal of Political Philosophy 24(1), 88–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zürn, M. (2018). A Theory of Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Frega
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre Marc BlochBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations