Wim Vandekerckhove and Stan van Hooft The philosopher, Diogenes the Cynic, in the fourth century BCE, was asked where he came from and where he felt he belonged. He answered that he was a “citi- 1 zen of the world” (kosmopolitês) . This made him the rst person known to have described himself as a cosmopolitan. A century later, the Stoics had developed that concept further, stating that the whole cosmos was but one polis, of which the order was logos or right reason. Living according to that right reason implied showing goodness to all of human kind. Through early Christianity, cosmopolitanism was given various interpretations, sometimes quite contrary to the inclusive notion of the Stoics. Augustine’s interpretation, for example, suggested that only those who love God can live in the universal and borderless “City of God”. Later, the red- covery of Stoic writings during the European Renaissance inspired thinkers like Erasmus, Grotius and Pufendorf to draw on cosmopolitanism to advocate world peace through religious tolerance and a society of states. That same inspiration can be noted in the American and French revolutions. In the eighteenth century, enlig- enment philosophers such as Bentham (through utilitarianism) and Kant (through universal reason) developed new and very different versions of cosmopolitanism that serve today as key sources of cosmopolitan philosophy. The nineteenth century saw the development of new forms of transnational ideals, including that of Marx’s critique of capitalism on behalf of an international working class.
Cosmopolitanism is an emerging theme in studies of global justice and provides a meeting point between theorists of international law, political science, political philosophy, applied ethics, economics, development studies, and international relations. It insists that each individual in the world has the same moral value irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, language or religion. But cosmopolitanism is not just about a new and expanded set of norms that apply to the global community. It is also about new ways of being: being a citizen of the world, being concerned for others who are distant strangers, and being committed to pursuing human rights and social justice anywhere in the world. These emerging forms of "cosmopolitan subjectivity" are explored in this volume along with significant proposals for institutional changes that are ethically required in our globalized world. Stemming from the Second International Conference of the International Global Ethics Association held in Melbourne, Australia in June 2008, the essays in this book open new pathways in the growing literature on cosmopolitanism.
"What does it mean to be a citizen in the context of globalization? How is globalization shaping our relationship to our country and to the world? This book offers insight into the claims of loyalty and allegiance that come along with patriotic sentiments and claims of universal human rights. Global politics has now entered a new era of identity politics, and cosmopolitanism is at its core."
Joel H. Rosenthal, President, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, New York, U.S.A.
Questioning Cosmopolitanism makes interesting contributions to such ongoing debates in the current Global Justice literature as those concerning (a) the different versions of so-called "Cosmopolitan" theses, (b) the tension between the "universalist" moral commitments of cosmopolitans and the"particularist" loyalties of political theorists for whom principles of distributive justice apply only (or principally) within the nation-state, (c) the defensibility, across diverse cultures, of the various versions of the ("universalist") cosmopolitan ideal, (d) the disagreement about whether cosmopolitan ideals are grounded in principles of justice or in a principle of humanity, (e) the prospects for the establishment of global democratic institutions of the kind advocated by David Held, and so on.
Alistair M. Macleod, Department of Philosophy, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada
