This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Google Scholar Articles by Brassett, J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Cosmopolitanism vs. Terrorism? Discourses of Ethical Possibility Before and After 7/7

Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (CSGR), University of Warwick

The article provides a critical analysis of the relationship between cosmopolitanism and terrorism, via the question of response. Using 9/11 and 7/7 as key moments in the evolution of this relationship, the article asks: how does cosmopolitanism respond to terrorism? What limits does this response contain? How might we go beyond such limits? It is argued that cosmopolitan responses to terrorism provide an important, but limited (and sometimes limiting), alternative to mainstream discourses on terror. After 9/11 the possibility for cosmopolitan thinking `beyond' the mainstream view was articulated by a range of authors, including Archibugi, Habermas, Held and Linklater. A brief survey suggests that defending international law, constructing international institutions and alleviating global poverty were seen as good responses, in the context of divisive mainstream politics. However, by engaging a case study of the Make Poverty History campaign, the article argues that when cosmopolitan ideas were cemented in practice, the distinctiveness of a cosmopolitan response faded. This point was brought into sharp relief by a number of moralising responses to 7/7. Straightforward dichotomies between `barbaric terrorists' and `civilised cosmopolitans' served to construct cosmopolitanism as a coherent, and united, global community. Available tactics, for this `community', were reduced to more-of-the-same — more aid, more global democracy — and assertions of a moral equivalence between Bush and `Terror', such that `you are either with cosmopolitans, or, you are with the War on Terror'. In light of these ethical closures, and drawing from the arguments of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler, the article identifies some cursory ways in which cosmopolitans might think beyond such limits, to articulate an imaginative and engaged approach to global ethics.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?