CALL FOR PAPERS
Cosmopolitanism and the Legacies of Dissent
THEORETICAL MOTIVATION
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in theories of cosmopolitanism, with a number
of authors attempting to identify, explore and understand the “cosmopolitan condition”, in
terms of the most common points of view, topics of research, lived experiences and visions.
The core idea shared by all cosmopolitan views is that all human beings belong to a single
community and the ultimate units of moral concern are individual human beings, not states or
particular forms of human associations.
Nevertheless, the challenges and tensions that a theory of cosmopolitanism has to
tackle are considerable. Most of the approaches have to confront at least two main
challenges: the first one regards the possibility of a theory of cosmopolitanism within a
pluralist framework, and the second concerns the tension between universal values/human
rights and state sovereignty.
The first challenge comes from the intent to ground a political theory on overarching
universal principles, which seems inevitable in constructing a cosmopolitan theory, in spite
of a plurality of social, cultural, political, religious interpretative standpoints in the
contemporary world. Because of the universality of cosmopolitan principles, a shadow of
totalizing thinking affects any cosmopolitan theory. Each new proposal of a cosmopolitan
approach risks formulating a new legitimating narrative that will take the vacant place of
previous “grand narratives”(Lyotard). Therefore, a cosmopolitan theory seems to require a
permanent meta-theoretical vigilance: how should a cosmopolitan project look like in the
alleged post-metaphysical and post-universalistic theoretical framework? Is cosmopolitanism
possible without universalism? How should we conceive cosmopolitanism after the onset of
skepticism towards the grand narratives of modernity? How can one justify cosmopolitan
values without falling back on some conceptions of a fixed human nature or a shared system
of beliefs?
The second challenge comes from the attempt of the authors to accommodate in their
approaches of cosmopolitanism both the universality of human rights and the sovereignty of
states. Kant’s warning regarding a global state as a global Leviathan still seems valid for
authors writing on cosmopolitanism and assuming that sovereignty of states, as well as the
self-determination of peoples, has a value in itself. In light of this, authors argue that the
universality of human rights should be re-actualized and legitimized in the current politics of
states through “democratic iterations” (S. Benhabib), “constitutional patriotism” (J.
Habermas), “rooted cosmopolitanism” (A. Appiah) etc. In addition, the sovereignty of the
state has a clear place in the approaches of global/cosmopolitan democracy as a
multiperspectival democracy (J. Bohman, D. Held, D. Archibugi and others).
OBJECTIVES
Given these tensions, inevitable for a cosmopolitan theory, we find it important and
interesting to investigate whether concrete historical episodes of dissent may provide any
lessons for the contemporary debates on cosmopolitanism. Firstly, in aiming at a nontotalizing theory of cosmopolitanism it would be relevant to analyze different trajectories of
resistance that led to theoretical and practical responses to a totalizing overarching ideology.
Cosmopolitan theorists might learn from historical episodes of dissent how practical
resistance to hegemonic claims is generated, and how dissident thinking might contribute to
new, enriched ways of conceiving the non-totalizing foundations of cosmopolitanism.
Secondly, it might be relevant to explore from a cosmopolitan perspective how
concrete/specific episodes of dissent appropriated universal cosmopolitan values in a
particular community: was dissidence a democratic iteration of universal values, was it a
cosmopolitan expansion of the respective society etc?
We invite interested scholars worldwide to contribute with texts written in English
language to a book with the working title Cosmopolitanism and Legacies of Dissidence that
will be published by an internationally renowned and academically authoritative
publishing house.
QUESTIONS
Here are several clusters of questions to be addressed and analyzed in the envisaged volume:
i.
What legitimates the dissidents’ permanent questioning and contestation of the
given/imposed meanings in a political regime? In the name of what values were
the dissents’ claims formulated? Are these values local, national, international or
universal? Are these universal values related to the international legal framework
or are there unwritten universal values as well, values derived from different ways
of thinking about universalism?
ii.
Are non-violent actions of dissident movements/thinking an important way in
approaching cosmopolitan universal values? Are the universal cosmopolitan
values more adequate for non-violent actions than for violent ones?
iii.
Is there a dialectics between the universal and the particular in a concrete case of
dissidence/civil disobedience? How is the dialectics between universal and
particular played in an episode of dissent in a given community? What happens
after a dissidence episode: do we have a “cosmopolitan recalibration of the polis”
or, on the contrary, an “un-cosmopolitan contraction of the society”?
iv.
How do dissidents and dissidence movements relate to the world at large? Do
dissident movements from different contexts manifest a transnational solidarity, a
solidarity with other dissidents? Does this qualify as cosmopolitan solidarity? (for
example, Charta 08 initiated by the Chinese dissident/human right activist, Liu
Xiaobo, inspired from Charta 77 and written in the style of Charta 77).
v.
Is dissidence, indeed, “the highest form of patriotism”? Are dissidents regarded
by their communities as “rooted cosmopolitans”(Appiah) or rootless
cosmopolitans? Are dissidents perceived in the first stages of their dissent as a
threat to their national local communities, or are dissidents “heroes” from the very
beginning of their dissidence action?
vi.
What lessons can a scholar of cosmopolitanism learn from dissent/dissident
movements? Does dissent qualify as a cosmopolitan practice? Are normative
approaches of dissidence possible from a cosmopolitan point of view? Could
dissent be a necessary/inevitable part of a cosmopolitan democracy?
METHODOLOGY
We assume that possible answers to these questions may come from a reading (preferably
from the perspective of cosmopolitan political theory and/or from perspective of the history
of ideas) of discourses/texts of dissident thinkers and dissident movements: manifestos,
declarations, other texts explaining the necessity of dissent (for example, autobiographies,
memories etc). A minimal historical background of in each case would be necessary that
would describe the context generating the dissidence and the main outcomes of this form of
action.
Contributors to the foreseen volume are encouraged to select and adapt the suggested
questions and methodologies that are pertinent to the particular case/subject at hand, which
may include, but need not necessarily be restricted to, the following: the Indian independence
struggle of 1947; the US civil rights movement in the 1960s; the Iranian resistance in 1979;
opposition activity in South Africa contributing to the end of the apartheid regime; dissident
movements from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; the dissent leading to the
Tiananmen Square events in 1989 in China and the contemporary dissidence in China,
protests and oppositions in former Yugoslavia, the protests called “the Arab Spring” and
others.
TIMETABLE
30 April 2012: Proposals submission (500 words abstracts and contact details)
30 July 2012: First drafts of papers to be submitted
1 August - 30 October 2012: Peer-review
1 November 2012: Papers with comments to be sent to the authors
1 February 2013: Final drafts to be submitted
April 2013: Manuscript to be sent to the publisher
CONTACT:
Proposals should be sent to: [email protected] or/and [email protected]
New Europe College, str. Plantelor 21, sector 2, 023971 Bucharest, Romania
Website: http://www.nec.ro/fundatia/proiecte/p98_call_for_articles.htm
This activity is part of the project
CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY COSMOPOLITANISM
supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research,
CNCS-UEFISCDI (code: PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0218, contract nr. 98/05.10.2011)
Research team: Tamara Caraus, Camil Alexandru Parvu,
Dan Dorin Lazea, Aron Szolt Telegdi-Csetri