Υπέρ Πατρίδος : Πατριωτισμός ή Κοσμοπολιτισμός;

by Joshua Cohen (Editor), Martha C. Nussbaum, Kwame Anthony Appiah

"Το «Υπέρ Πατρίδος» αποτελεί μια ερεθιστική συζήτηση, μεταξύ μερικών από τους πιο εξέχοντες διανοούμενους, σχετικά με το που θα έπρεπε να στηρίζονται οι βασικές αρχές μας ως προς αυτό το ζήτημα.
Στο επίκεντρο αυτού του ζωντανού, ενδιαφέροντος διαλόγου, βρίσκεται το παθιασμένο επιχείρημα της Martha Nussbaum υπέρ του «κοσμοπολιτισμού». Καθώς οι δεσμοί μας με τον υπόλοιπο κόσμο δυναμώνουν, υποστηρίζει, θα πρέπει να αμφισβητήσουμε τον συμβατικό πατριωτισμό, ως τοπικιστικό ιδεώδες, και αντ’ αυτού να δούμε τον εαυτό μας ως «πολίτη του κόσμου».
Δεκαέξι συγγραφείς και στοχαστές απαντούν στο κείμενο της Nussbaum με σύντομα επιθετικά δοκίμια, αναγνωρίζοντας την δύναμη του επιχειρήματος της, αλλά υπερασπίζοντας ! συχνά τον πατριωτισμό και άλλες δεσμεύσεις τοπικού χαρακτήρα. Απόψεις προερχόμενες από μια εκπληκτική ποικιλία συγγραφέων, φιλοσόφων, ποιητών, φιλολόγων και ιστορικών συνθέτουν αυτόν τον τόμο, ενώ η Nussbaum επιβεβαιώνει για άλλη μια φορά την πίστη της στο κοσμοπολίτικο ιδεώδες με ένα συγκινητικό επιλογικό δοκίμιο.
[...] Μια θαυμάσια συλλογή στοχασμών για τον πατριωτισμό και τον κοσμοπολιτισμό. Σε μια εποχή που στις πιο επίμαχες πολιτικές συζητήσεις εγείρονται ερωτήματα περί ταυτότητας, συμμετοχής και ιθαγένειας, αυτό το βιβλίο απευθύνεται σ' ένα ευρύ αναγνωστικό κοινό. Πρέπει να διαβαστεί από τον καθένα που ενδιαφέρεται για την ηθική πολυπλοκότητα της σύγχρονης δημόσιας ζωής, είτε αυτός είναι φοιτητής, είτε πνευματικός άνθρωπος, είτε απλός πολίτης." Michael J. Sandel, συγγραφέας του Democracy's Discontent (Από την παρουσίαση στο οπισθόφυλλο του βιβλίου)

Joshua Cohen
ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ
Ι
Martha C. Nussbaum
ΠΑΤΡΙΩΤΙΣΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΣΜΟΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ
II
Kwame Anthony Appiah
ΚΟΣΜΟΠΟΛΙΤΕΣ ΠΑΤΡΙΩΤΕΣ
Benjamin R. Barber
Η ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΠΙΣΤΗ
Sissela Bok
ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΟΛΟΝ
Judith Bulter
Η ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ ΣΤΟΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟ
Richard Falk
ΑΝΑΘΕΩΡΩΝΤΑΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟ
Nathan Glazer
ΤΑ ΟΡΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΑΦΟΣΙΩΣΗΣ
Amy Gutmann
Η ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΚΗ ΥΠΗΚΟΟΤΗΤΑ
Gertrude Himmelfarb
ΟΙ ΨΕΥΔΑΙΣΘΗΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ
Michael W, McConnell
ΜΗ ΞΕΧΝΑΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣ "ΜΙΚΡΕΣ ΔΙΜΟΙΡΙΕΣ"
Robert Pinsky
ΕΡΩΣ ΕΝΑΝΤΙΟΝ ΕΣΠΕΡΑΝΤΟ
Hilary Putnam
ΕΙΜΑΣΤΕ ΥΠΟΧΡΕΩΜΕΝΟΙ ΝΑ ΔΙΑΛΕΞΟΥΜΕ ΑΝΑΜΕΣΑ ΣΤΟΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΩΤΙΣΜΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΗ ΛΟΓΙΚΗ;
Elaine Scarry
Η ΔΥΣΚΟΛΙΑ ΝΑ ΦΑΝΤΑΖΕΣΑΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΑΛΛΟΥΣ
Amartya Sen
ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΤΗΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΗΚΟΟΤΗΤΑ
Charles Taylor
ΓΙΑΤΙ Η ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ ΧΡΕΙΑΖΕΤΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΩΤΙΣΜΟ
Immanuel Wallerstein
ΟΥΤΕ ΠΑΤΡΙΩΤΙΣΜΟΣ ΟΥΤΕ ΚΟΣΜΟΠΟΛΙΤΙΣΜΟΣ
Michael Walzer
ΣΦΑΙΡΕΣ ΣΤΟΡΓΗΣ
III
Martha Nussbaum
ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΗ
Σημειώσεις
Συνεργάτες

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Humanities

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Joshua Cohen is a political theorist, trained in philosophy, with a special interest in issues that lie at the intersection of democratic norms and institutions. He has written extensively on issues of democratic theory, particularly deliberative democracy and its implications for personal liberty, freedom of expression, religious freedom, and political equality. He has also written on issues of global justice, including the foundations of human rights, distributive fairness, supranational democratic governance, and labor standards in supply chains. Cohen serves as co-editor of Boston Review, a bimonthly magazine of political, cultural, and literary ideas. He has published Philosophy, Politics, Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2009); Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals (Oxford University Press, 2010); The Arc of the Moral Universe and Other Essays (Harvard University Press, 2011); and edited (with Alex Byrne, Gideon Rosen, and Seana Shiffrin) The Norton Introduction to Philosophy (forthcoming 2015). Cohen is a member of the faculty of Apple University.

Reviews

[Phillip · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have had a hard time warming up to Nussbaum because the first thing I read by her was her rejection of Judith Butler's theories about gender performativity, and I dearly love Butler. But I am actually a big fan of Nussbaum's argument in favor of cosmopolitan educations. Essentially, Nussbaum argues that education (particularly in the context of the US, and I think this is more true post-9/11 than it was in 1994) should help form a moral commitment to humanity as a whole, rather than delimiting one's moral allegiance to the nation-state. I remember that when I was in high school, shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, it occurred to me that I should not stand for the pledge of allegiance. I didn't feel that the actions my country was taking represented my ethical values. Now, I look back with a more fully developed cosmopolitan ethical sense, and it strikes me that to begin everyday with the pledge of allegiance--which in many instances children are required through various disciplinary and social pressures to repeat--is perhaps the most striking example of the interpolation of children as principally citizens of the US, rather than owing a primary ethical loyalty to humanity.

This collection of essays includes a variety of responses to Nussbaum's essay, including overt rejections, overt agreement, and many caveats, nuances, and contestations. I do think some of the critiques misunderstand Nussbaum, sometimes in very understandable ways. But as a whole, this collection is a really good discussion of the difficult terrain of cosmopolitan education.

[Burcu]

Turkce bir degerlendirmesi icin: https://wanderlustpress.net/2018/08/2...

To be honest, I'm not impressed by this book. Though there are some good points here and there, the essays read just a little too flimsy to my liking.

[Ishaan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eerily relevant for today.

[Vincent Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

Similar to the format of a Matter of Interpretation, the book starts with a long essay by Nussbaum, several responses and critiques to the essay, concluded with a reply by Nussbaum answering the critiques. The essays are all thoughtful and well reasoned, even essays that I disagreed with were eloquent summaries of their broader points.

Nussbaum's essay is in response to some public intellectuals calling for Americans to put aside their divisive identity politics to focus on the broader identity of being American. Those intellectuals argue that the traditional lines dividing Americans from each are actually arbitrary and indefensible as a philosophical matter. Nussbaum builds on that, arguing that nationality itself is an arbitrary and indefensible line, and that the true community that all people should have allegiance to is humanity. Drawing on Stoic principles, Nussbaum argues that it is wrong to give anyone less moral worth because they happen to be born across a national boundary, in her memorable words, while she loves her daughter, Nussbaum denies that the fact of their relations should make make her daughter more morally important to her than a stranger. Nussbaum goes on to argue that while cosmopolitanism may seem colorless and "boring" compared to the more sentimental patriotism, and that to be a cosmopolitain is to be somewhat an exile from any allegiance, since a cosmopolitan does not have the comfort of simply believing their country, right or wrong, cosmopolitan is the only defensible line. Nussbaum concedes that in practice, people may need to care about those closest to them, in order to effectuate caring for all. She also argues along the lines of Aristotle that one starts loving their family, and grows that love concentrically, until it covers all of mankind.

What follows in the book are a series of responses, some supporting, some strongly disagreeing while most qualify in their different ways. I think they're all worth reading, and at least for me I learned a lot from them. The strongest arguments in my opinion were that the state (and citizenship) is actually a morally coherent source of allegiance, because it's the instrument that people govern themselves through, and that cosmopolitanism fails in practice because it cannot sufficiently excite any real allegiance since it is so abstract. In this vein, the advocacy of cosmopolitanism may lead people to love people abstractly without actually loving anyone, a love of mankind but not of man. One particular essay discussed the difficulty of imagining others ina true sense, and how this difficulty would extend the demands of cosmopolitanism. A related argument is that identities are not chosen by individuals, to be put on and taken off at will but constitutive. Other essays discuss the challenge of so-called universal principles, and that of world citizenship without a world state. None of the essays were outrageous or unreasonable but they all made me think.

The reply essay by Nussbaum to all these critiques is really an illustration of the value of deliberation. Her reply is focused and passionate (wonderfully opening and ending the reply with a reference to the Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations, a memorial to non-Jews who risked their lives to rescue Jews during the holocaust, a powerful illustration of people looking beyond their local attachments for the needs of our fellow humans), and re-iterates her view on cosmopolitanism and expanding our circle of concern to humanity. The reply argues that one does not need a world state to be a good world citizen and to be concerned about our fellow humans. Nussbaum argues that cosmopolitanism is not a homogenizing force that ignores the traditions and the local. While the local has an important role in flourishing, we should not feel that our local attachments are superior to that of the broader cause of humanity. The reply (in my mind) brilliantly responds to the difficulty of loving humanity by arguing that a child loves their parents first, and then learns to love others in a broad sense because a child sees with the pain of others is similar to their own. Children do not start out loving their identities. Nussbaum argues that to be a cosmopolitan is not to aim for a superhuman characteristic, but to simply retain that child-like nature.

Regardless of personal positions on the controversial subject, a worthwhile read for anyone looking to see the problem from multiple angles, all in conversation with one another. Reading the book might not help one make up their mind, but it will help them think the problem through.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good well-rounded discussion on a particular perspective on cosmopolitanism. Although, the discussion is a tad overly semantic at times. Sometimes responses are toward the particular method of articulation instead of the idea conveyed.

[Reichnekov · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a wonderful, if not at times frustrating, romp into discourse surrounding patriotism.

I thought that I rated this when I read it, but I guess maybe the edition, along with my review, was removed sadly.

[Maddox O'Rourke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent collection of responses, quick read with diverse perspectives on "global citizenship" and its perks/pitfalls/plausibility

[Jessica Zu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Again, I only read the chapter required by my professor. From this snippits of info I can tell that Nussbaum is an extreme idealist, just like Tagore. The cosmopolitan university established by Tagore--Visvabharati--emphasizes on communication and sharing of ideas instead of disciplinary training. This logic is fundamental at odds with the capitalist logic of specialization and expertism ... and provides a different model of what the would could be. And I'm totally excited about it.
In this sense, I am an idealist, too.
4/6/2012, read a few more articles pertinent to my research. Overall, it's a good entry point for my article

[Maura · Rating 4 out of 5]

My introduction to "cosmopolitan" ethics. I don't know whether the essays in this book actually changed the way I thought about the world or articulated principles that I'd suspected all along, but in any event it certainly gave me new frames through which to talk about my ideas about political identities and how we conceptualize them. It sounds like a simple enough idea--think of yourself as a citizen of the world--but it raises all kinds of questions, and one of the nice things about this book is that a number of different writers weigh in on the idea.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite enjoyable. Personally, I thought it seemed a bit simple at first ("well, obviously patriotism is X, Y and Z...") but then I'd watch the news and remember why it's not obvious.

There wasn't a very intense, partisan debate in the book. Some major differences of opinion, but all in all I felt most of the authors had similar concepts but different ideas in how they should be articulated, which is really where I think the patriotism issue does lie.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nussbaum's initial essay raises an important question: cosmopolitanism or patriotism. She frames the choice in starter terms than needed. Responses by Elaine Scarry, Charles Taylor, Sissela Bok and Robert Pinsky were quite fine. The animating metaphor in Nussbaum's reply at the end gives a fine response to the claim that cosmopolitanism by nature will always be bloodless and wan. Intriguing book...Sen and Appiah's essays also good.

[Nancy · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is not that I have finished reading every word but I am finished reading such drivel. So much of it is smoke without substance. It is very hard to find the meat of any of their arguments among so much deflection tactic. It would have been better if the responses to her essay had been as concise and to the point as her essay had been.

[Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thought-provoking attempt to defend cosmopolitanism by Nussbaum together with critical responses by luminaries such as H. Putnam, E. Scarry K. Appiah and A. Sen.

[Anas Theo · Rating 3 out of 5]

The controversial opinion of Martha C. Nussbaum about Cosmopolitanism, and how could be achieved against the stances of nationalism or patriotism, and the reflections among scholars.