The core idea of cosmopolitanism 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. Universal overarching universal principles are \;inevitable in constructing a cosmopolitan theory and every new \;proposal of a cosmopolitan approach risks formulating a new \;legitimating &ldquo\;grand narrative&rdquo\; in the alleged post-metaphysical and \;post-universalistic theoretical framework. Given this main tension of \;cosmopolitan theories\, the challenge would be to think \;cosmopolitanism in non-totalizing and post-universalist terms. \;Nevertheless\, is cosmopolitanism possible without universalism? \;Should we resist all universalizing thinking? How can one justify \;cosmopolitan values without relying on some conceptions of a common \;human nature? Should we look for foundations of the cosmopolitan \;rights\, norms and values? Alternatively\, should we aim towards a \;cosmopolitanism without foundations or towards a cosmopolitanism with \;&lsquo\;contingent foundations&rsquo\;?
In the recent normative political theories with an incontestable \;cosmopolitan potential\, - Rawls\, Habermas and their followers - the \;metaphysical objectivity of the alleged universal values has been \;replaced by the intersubjective validity attainable through \;&ldquo\;reasoning from the point of view of others&rdquo\;\, consensus and \;agreement. Nevertheless\, with their accents on &ldquo\;anticipated \;agreement&rdquo\;\, &ldquo\;overlapping consensus&rdquo\; &ldquo\;reasons that all can accept&rdquo\;\, \;the discursive justifications of the universality of cosmopolitanism \;risk either to postulate a global consensus or to re-affirm the \;importance of the nation-state. On the other hand\, some of the \;authors who accept a permanent place of conflict and disagreement in \;thinking the political (Ch. Mouffe\, E. Laclau\, J. Ranciere\, C. \;Lefort\, A. Badiou\, etc.) also tie the practice of disagreement to the \;level of nation-state\, claming that it is inoperative at the global \;level.
In this context\, the challenge is to elaborate a post-foundational \;concept of cosmopolitanism\, without relying on the assumptions of \;global consensus\, but at the same time without giving up the dynamics \;of disagreement and contestation at the global level. Nevertheless\, \;do disagreement and contestation have a cosmopolitan potential both \;as practice and as foundation? If cosmopolitanism as disagreement and \;contestation is a reaction against democratic deficit\, inequalities \;and injustices produced by the existing institutional schemas that \;are mainly nation-state based\, then are disagreement and critique the \;only cosmopolitan possibilities? Is cosmopolitanism identical with \;contestation\, indeterminacy and negativity?
We cannot aim to ground cosmopolitanism on principles that are \;undeniable and located outside society and politics\, but\, then\, \;should the cosmopolitan thinking emerge out of particular empirical\, \;historical conjuncture\, like globalization or a certain hegemony? Can \;we move towards cosmopolitanism through a plurality of acts of \;grounding (would this still be a cosmopolitanism?) or only through a \;hegemony? Are empire and hegemony the effects of the attempt to \;ground cosmopolitanism? Is there an autoimmune logic of \;cosmopolitanism to start as a philosophical and moral universalism \;and to fall into imperialism in every attempt to institutionalize it? \;Can and should cosmopolitanism be institutionalized according to an \;ultimate foundation or according to &lsquo\;contingent foundations&rsquo\;?
Alternatively\, is cosmopolitanism the very attempt to come to terms \;with the failure of ultimate grounds? If we cannot give up the \;universalizing impetus that disturbs and contests given particular \;meanings\, filiations\, identities\, sovereignties\, nevertheless\, we \;have to avoid our universalizing impetus to become a supplement to \;empire or hegemony. In this case\, is cosmopolitanism identical with a \;permanent vigilance or\, on the contrary\, cosmopolitanism is never \;present\, having only the structure of the promise? Should \;cosmopolitanism be conceived always as a cosmopolitanism &lsquo\;to \;come&rsquo\; (Derrida) - a cosmopolitanism of an impossible future that will \;never be present\, but which intervenes in our present\, like a \;promise\, changing the actual state of affairs?
Themes:
\nWe invite contributions that address the questions of foundations of \;cosmopolitanism from perspectives such as: post-foundational \;political thought\, deliberative theories\, global public reason\, \;radical/agonistic democracy\, cosmopolitan potential of critique\, \;contestatory cosmopolitanism\, critical human rights\, cosmopolitanism \;versus empire and hegemony\, &lsquo\;cosmopolitanism to come&rsquo\;.
Organizational details
Please submit an abstract of 500 words no later than May 1\, 2013 to \;tcaraus@nec.ro \;or/and \;tamara_caraus@yahoo.com. Please also include a \;separate cover sheet indicating your name\, professional status and \;institutional affiliation. Decision notices will be emailed by May \;10\, 2013. The deadline for submission of the full paper is September \;2\, 2013. Selected papers will be published in the proceedings of the \;conference at an international publishing house. The organizers \;provide accommodation and meals. In exceptional cases\, travel \;expenses may be reimbursed.
\n
For further details or questions\, please contact:
tcaraus@nec.ro \;or/and \;tamara_caraus@yahoo.com