DIALOGUES-Second Critical Studies Conference-Transnational

Abstract

The ending of the Cold war seemed to have realized the dream of unrestricted mobility, at least within the European continent, where inequalities used to be expressed in spatial terms. Nevertheless, field observations conducted by various scholars show that citizenship standards are in fact lowered in the course of migration, as political, social and even cultural rights are traditionally linked to territory and by consequence are made problematic by migration. Is there a legitimate way of imposing upon the ‘flexible” worker spatial restrictions against their will for his/her own good? I will argue that this not possible and that we should, instead, rethink the concept of citizenship in mobile terms in order to make it possible to judge about justice of routes, of transits, of cultural metamorphosis.

Bionote

PhD of philosophy (Sofia) and history of ideas (Paris), habilitation in sociology. Works in the field of political anthropology with a special interest in European culture and urban fieldwork. Has taught in Sofia and Paris, various research grants to the US, Holland, Spain. Also active as a columnist in Bulgaria and Germany. Professor of cultural anthropology, has taught in Sofia and Paris. Current research project: “New borders, new identities” on the new division lines EU enlargement creates. More by/about Ditchev at: www.ivayloditchev.cult.bg

Abstract

Cosmopolitanism is universalist, individualist and equalitarian. It maintains that all human beings must be treated as equal and that, if this is not the case, we are in need of a special justification. Such a thesis fits very well the post-rawlsian liberal vision based on the criticism of everything is arbitrary from a moral point of view. If such a vision is alright for a polity, why –a post-rawlsian liberal could say- should it not be alright for a global community?
Cosmopolitanism is usually contrasted by statism. According to the statists, the universalist and individualist egalitarianism of cosmopolitans is consequence of an extreme and inopportune abstraction. It could go well for a religious or moral doctrine, but surely not so for international politics. That’s why, beyond the state -statism claims- there is no justice. Rawlsian statists, in particular, are anti-monist and defend different ethical-political principle according to the level they must be applied. They are in favour of local, national and global principles of justice.
My presentation aims to show a different thesis from cosmopolitanism and statism. Beginning from the very notion of human rights, I propose a mixed theory. From cosmopolitanism, I take the idea according to which global justice could exist in principle. From statism, I take the thesis according to which historical diversities between states and culture are not theoretically irrelevant.
I present my own account of global justice –a liberal account, as I will call it- starting from cosmopolitanism and its limits. These limits of cosmopolitanism are of political, economic and cultural nature. Cosmopolitanism can be dangerous politically, because it ignores state sovereignty; it can be wrongly utopian from an economic point of view; and blind toward cultural diversity. I then present my constructive hypothesis. Dwelling on an interpretation of human rights –based on an original distinction between legitimation and justification- I try to construe a liberal conception of global justice, neither too utopian (like cosmopolitanism) nor too realist (like statism).

Bionote

Dr. Maffettone is a Professore Ordinario di Filosofia Politica (Full Professor in Political Philosophy), at Luiss University, Rome. He is also the Director of the Centro di Studi e Ricerche sui Diritti Umani (CERSDU), Roma. He is also Professore a contratto in Storia della Filosofia e in Etica Sociale (Adjunct Full Professor in History of Philosophy and in Social Ethics), at Istituto Universitario Suor Orsola Benincasa and Professore supplente di Filosofia delle Scienze Sociali (Adjunct Full Professor in Philosophy of Social Sciences), at Facoltà di Scienze Politiche, Università di Palermo. He is also a member of a national project of Ministero dell’Università (MURST) about “Individual Ethics and Justice” (Universities of Cagliari, Parma, Luiss and Napoli).