Advertisement

Cosmopolitanism, the Cognitive Order of Modernity, and Conflicting Models of World Openness: On the Prospects of Collective Learning

  • Piet Strydom
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on contemporary cosmopolitanism from the viewpoint of critical social science. In distinction to the predominant approaches, it adopts a cognitive perspective that operates with a basic distinction between the usually conflated cognitive and normative orders. It argues that cosmopolitanism is a meta-cultural principle that emerged from social practices and the development of society that allows competing collective actors to form different cultural models of world openness. Accordingly, it analyses the competing and conflicting relations between actors that are generating the emerging world society and explores the possibility of learning processes required for the attainment of a global cosmopolitan order.

References

  1. Aeschbach, Catherine, et al. 2001. Genève: Un Lieu Pour la Paix. Geneva: Henry Dunant Society.Google Scholar
  2. Apel, Karl-Otto. 1997. Kant’s “Toward Perpetual Peace” as Historical Prognosis from the Point of View of Moral Duty. In Perpetual Peace, ed. J. Bohman and M. Lutz-Bachmann, 79–112. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Archibugi, Daniele. 1992. Models of International Organization in Perpetual Peace Projects. Review of International Studies 18: 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnason, Johann, ed. 2010. Civilizational Analysis: Themes and Problems. Special Issue, European Journal of Social Theory 13 (1).Google Scholar
  5. Bacon, Francis. 1965 [1605]. The Advancement of Learning. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  6. Bayle, Pierre. 1995 [1682]. On Superstition and Tolerance. In The Portable Enlightenment Reader, ed. I. Kramnick, 75–81. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. 2005. Power in the Global Age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2006. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2011. We Do Not Live in an Age of Cosmopolitanism but an Age of Cosmopolitisation: The “Global Other” is in Our Midst. Irish Journal of Sociology 19(1): 16–34, Special Issue on ‘Key Issues in Contemporary Social Theory’, guest editor Piet Strydom.Google Scholar
  10. Bodin, Jean. 1993 [1576]. The True Attributes of Sovereignty. In Culture and Belief in Europe 1450–1600: An Anthology of Sources, ed. D. Englander, D. Norman, R. O’Day, and W.R. Owens, 425–432. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Bohman, James. 1991. New Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  12. Boltanski, Luc, and Axel Honneth. 2009. Soziologie der Kritik oder Kritische Theorie? Ein Gespräch mit Robin Celikates. In Was ist Kritik? ed. R. Jaeggi and T. Wesche, 81–114. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  13. Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 1991. De la Justification. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. Distinction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Calhoun, Craig. 2003. The Class Consciousness of Frequent Travellers: Towards a Critique of Actually Existing Cosmopolitanism. In Debating Cosmopolitics, ed. D. Archibugi. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  16. Capellanus, Andreas. 1959 [c. 1185]. The Art of Courtly Love. New York: Unger.Google Scholar
  17. Cicourel, Aaron V. 1973. Cognitive Sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. Delanty, Gerard. 2000. Citizenship in a Global Age. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2006. The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social Theory. The British Journal of Sociology 57 (1): 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2009. The Cosmopolitan Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dreier, Ralf. 1981. Recht, Moral, Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  22. Eder, Klaus. 1999. Integration durch Kultur? In Kultur, Identität, Europe, ed. R. Viehoff and R.T. Segers, 147–179. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  23. Farer, Tom J., and Felice Carr. 2000. The UN and Human Rights: At the End of the Beginning. In United Nations, Divided World, ed. A. Roberts and B. Kingsbury, 240–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Featherstone, Mike. 2002. Cosmopolis: An Introduction. Theory, Culture and Society 19 (1/2): 1–16.Google Scholar
  25. Ferguson, Adam. 1966 [1767]. An Essay on the History of Civil Society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Freitag, Michael. 2007. Five Answers. European Journal of Social Theory 10 (2): 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Goffman, Erving. 1983. The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review 48: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 1986 [1974]. Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Günther, Klaus. 2001. Rechtspluralismus und universaler Code der Legalität. In Die Öffentlichkeit der Vernunft und die Vernunft der Öffentlichkeit: Festschrift für Jürgen Habermas, ed. L. Wingert and K. Günther, 539–567. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight. In Perpetual Peace, ed. J. Bohman and M. Lutz-Bachmann, 113–154. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2001. The Postnational Constellation. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2005. Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  34. Heidegger, Martin. 1975. Die Frage nach dem Ding. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  35. Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999. Global Transformations. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  36. Hobbes, Thomas. 1973 [1651]. Leviathan. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  37. Honneth, Axel. 1992. Kampf um Anerkennung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2009. Stationen auf dem Weg zu einer Kritischen Theorie der Anerkennung. In Erneuerung der Kritik: Axel Honneth im Gespräch, ed. M. Basaure, J.P. Reemstma, and R. Willig, 175–184. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  39. International Law Commission. 1997. International Law on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  40. Kant, Immanuel. 1956 [1788]. Critique of Practical Reason. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 1957 [1795]. Perpetual Peace. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 1963 [1798]. An Old Question Raised Again: It the Human Race Constantly Progressing? In On History, I. Kant, 137–154. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 1968 [1781]. Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 1972 [1791]. Critique of Judgement. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 1996 [1797]. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Locke, John. 1970 [1690]. Two Treatises of Civil Government. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  47. Machiavelli, Nicolo. 1975 [1513]. The Prince. New York: Barron.Google Scholar
  48. McCarthy, Thomas. 1994. Philosophy and Critical Theory: A Reprise. In Critical Theory, ed. D.C. Hoy and T. McCarthy, 5–100. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Mead, George Herbert. 1974 [1934]. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Miller, Max. 1986. Kollektive Lernprozesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 1992. Rationaler Dissens. In Kommunikation und Konsens in modernen Gesellschaften, ed. H.J. Giegel, 31–58. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2010. Discourse Learning and Social Evolution. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Montesquieu. 1989 [1748]. The Spirit of the Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Neederveen Pieterse, Jan. 2004. Globalization and Culture. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  55. Paine, Tom. 1954 [1791]. The Rights of Man. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  56. Piaget, Jean. 1968 [1932]. The Moral Judgement of the Child. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  57. Restivo, Sal. 1991. The Sociological Worldview. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1966 [1762]. The Social Contract and Discourses. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  59. Sieyès, Abbé Joseph. 1970 [1789]. Qu’est-ce que le Tiers Ètat, ed. R. Zapperi. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, Adam. 1976 [1976]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vols. 1–2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  61. Strydom, Piet. 1999. Triple Contingency: The Theoretical Problem of the Public in Communication Societies. Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. ———. 2000. Discourse and Knowledge. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ———. 2009. New Horizons of Critical Theory: Collective Learning and Triple Contingency. New Delhi: Shipra.Google Scholar
  64. ———. 2011a. Contemporary Critical Theory and Methodology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. ———. 2011b. The Communicative Turn and Cosmopolitan Ecological Consciousness in the Global Risk Society: An Assessment of the Discourse. In Irish Environmental Politics after the Communicative Turn, ed. P. O’Mahony and K. Keohane, 12–30. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  66. ———. 2011c. Cosmopolitanism and the Triple Contingency Effect. Paper presented at the ‘Workshop on Cosmopolitanism, Transnationalism and Territoriality’, University College Cork, Ireland, 28–30 March.Google Scholar
  67. Teubner, Gunter, ed. 1997. Global Law Without a State. Dartmouth: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  68. Therborn, Göran. 2000. Globalizations. International Sociology 15 (1): 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thévenot, Laurent. 2011. Power and Oppression from the Perspective of the Sociology of Engagements: A Comparison with Bourdieu’s and Dewey’s Critical Approaches to Practical Activities. Irish Journal of Sociology 19(1): 35–67. Special Issue on ‘Key Issues in Contemporary Social Theory’, guest editor Piet Strydom.Google Scholar
  70. Touraine, Alain. 1988. Return of the Actor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  71. Trenz, Hans-Jørg, and Klaus Eder. 2004. The Democratizing Dynamics of a European Public Sphere. European Journal of Social Theory 7 (1): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vasari, Giorgio. 1971 [1568]. Life of Filippo Brunelleschi. In Lives of the Artists, G. Vasari, 133–173. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  73. Wiener, Antje. 2007. Demokratischer Konstitutionalismus jenseits des Staates? Perspektiven auf die Umstrittenheit von Normen. In Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit: Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik, ed. P. Niesen and B. Herborth, 173–198. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  74. Zolo, Danilo. 1997. Cosmopolis: Prospects for World Government. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piet Strydom
    • 1
  1. 1.University College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations