 |
Cosmopolitanism, Institutions, and Responsibility: Comments on the Recent Work of David Miller
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Cosmopolitanism with (and against) David Miller
International Studies Association Annual Conference
San Diego, CA, March 2006
David J Watkins
University of Washington and Cornish College of the Arts
Comments welcome and appreciated (
## email not listed ##
)
Political theory has, in recent years, taken a cosmopolitan turn.
1
The global
dimensions of the perennial questions and concepts of political theorists have taken up a
great deal of space in the top journals in the field, and the many of the leading political
theorists of our time, a group of political theorists as prominent and diverse as John
Rawls (2001), Jacques Derrida (2001), Iris Marion Young (2000; 236-276) Brian Barry
(1999), Jurgen Habermas (2001), Nancy Fraser (2003), Seyla Benhabib (2002), Thomas
McCarthy (2002), William Connolly (2000), Peter Singer (2002), Thomas Nagel (2005)
Joshua Cohen (2004), Fred Dallmyar (2001) and Jeremy Waldron (1995, 2000) have
turned their attention to issues related to globalization, cosmopolitanism, global justice,
1
The same phenomenon I note here is identified and discussed in Bleiker 2004. Bleiker identifies a
globalizing of political theory, rather than a cosmopolitan turn, and there are reasons to prefer his nomenclature. For one, it doesn’t presume a particular normative view as cosmopolitanism might. I call this a cosmopolitan turn in part because I have a more expansive notion of what constitutes a “cosmopolitanism” than many internal debates amongst different variants of cosmopolitanism that don’t reference or discuss substantively different positions. For example, in an exchange between David Miller and Simon Caney on cosmopolitanism, it is taken as a given that cosmopolitanism is explicitly a theory of distributive justice (See Caney 2001, 2002, Miller 2002d). On the other hand, few of the contributors to Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins’ Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation (1998) give much consideration to the kinds of distributive justice considerations that fully occupy Caney and Miller and in general treat cosmopolitanism as a far broader phenomenon. To my mind, this is evidence of a general cosmopolitan turn—a diverse array of approaches and schools of political theorists semi-independently approaching the same general set of concerns, in the way they best know how.
1
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cosmopolitanism with (and against) David Miller
International Studies Association Annual Conference
San Diego, CA, March 2006
David J Watkins
University of Washington and Cornish College of the Arts
Comments welcome and appreciated (
)
Political theory has, in recent years, taken a cosmopolitan turn.
dimensions of the perennial questions and concepts of political theorists have taken up a
great deal of space in the top journals in the field, and the many of the leading political
theorists of our time, a group of political theorists as prominent and diverse as John
Rawls (2001), Jacques Derrida (2001), Iris Marion Young (2000; 236-276) Brian Barry
(1999), Jurgen Habermas (2001), Nancy Fraser (2003), Seyla Benhabib (2002), Thomas
McCarthy (2002), William Connolly (2000), Peter Singer (2002), Thomas Nagel (2005)
Joshua Cohen (2004), Fred Dallmyar (2001) and Jeremy Waldron (1995, 2000) have
turned their attention to issues related to globalization, cosmopolitanism, global justice,
1
The same phenomenon I note here is identified and discussed in Bleiker 2004. Bleiker identifies a
globalizing of political theory, rather than a cosmopolitan turn, and there are reasons to prefer his
nomenclature. For one, it doesn’t presume a particular normative view as cosmopolitanism might. I call this
a cosmopolitan turn in part because I have a more expansive notion of what constitutes a
“cosmopolitanism” than many internal debates amongst different variants of cosmopolitanism that don’t
reference or discuss substantively different positions. For example, in an exchange between David Miller
and Simon Caney on cosmopolitanism, it is taken as a given that cosmopolitanism is explicitly a theory of
distributive justice (See Caney 2001, 2002, Miller 2002d). On the other hand, few of the contributors to
Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins’ Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation (1998) give
much consideration to the kinds of distributive justice considerations that fully occupy Caney and Miller
and in general treat cosmopolitanism as a far broader phenomenon. To my mind, this is evidence of a
general cosmopolitan turn—a diverse array of approaches and schools of political theorists semi-
independently approaching the same general set of concerns, in the way they best know how.
1
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 32 
