ELztFUITkX

components. The modern leader of the Frankfurt School schematically represents this construction as a triangle with vertices NF (negative freedom (T. Hobbes)) – RF (reflexive freedom (J. G. Herder, I. Kant)) – SF (social freedom (G.W.F. Hegel)). Neglect of one of the components of freedom does not even lead to injustice but to the pathologies of the individual and society. These components with proper reflection don’t contradict but harmoniously complement each other. So from the point of view of Honneth full individual freedom (from something and for something) is possible not in spite of, but only on condition of solidarity (social freedom). To achieve this aim it is necessary that of all social freedoms interact in accordance with their functions: “Only if every member of society can satisfy with every other shared need for physical and emotional intimacy, for economic independence and for political selfdetermination, that he/she would be able to rely on the sympathy and help of its interaction partners, our society would have become social in the full sense of the word”1.

The state, therefore, is seen as the guarantor of human freedom in the service of self-determination and self-realization of its citizens.

Since this report is timed to the seminar, which is dedicated to the work of I. Kant, the authors of the report will refer to his work "Toward Perpetual Peace". This work is chosen because it raises the problems not only of morality but also of the transcendental justification of law and citizenship (external freedom), that today is more important than ever, because we live not just in the era of globalization, but in the era of mass migration of some peoples, which is caused by wars in their states. And, this is not a temporary evacuation, and for many - a conscious choice to emigrate in the search for prospects, a better life, integrate into a new society. According to modern scientists, “the world will never be the same as it was ten years ago, the world will change, and people will change (from appearance to culture), climate change in the future can cause new migrations”2. This Kant could not even imagine (otherwise he would express himself on this subject in his works), although he foresaw globalization, but imagined it differently: “… a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all, the idea of a cosmopolitan right is … a supplement to the unwritten code of

1Honneth, Axel: Die Idee des Sozialismus. Versuch einer Aktualisierung. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2015. – S. 166. (In German: „Nur wenn jedes Gesellschaftsmitglied sein mit jedem anderen geteiltes Bedürfnis nach körperlicher und emotionaler Intimität, nach ökonomischer Unabhängigkeit und nach politischer Selbstbestimmung derart befriedigen kann, dass es sich dabei auf die Anteilnahme und Mithilfe seiner Interaktionspartner zu verlassen vermag, wäre unsere Gesellschaft im vollen Sinne des Wortes sozial geworden“.)

2Blom, Philipp: Die Flüchtlingsströme markieren eine Zeitenwende (Sternstunde Philosophie,

6.12.15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8_bGCvkE-Q

151

the right of a state and the right of nations necessary for the sake of any public rights of human beings”.1

Migrants have no illusions about the future (after the end of hostilities in their country) unification of their country with the host country, they are often ready to accept another citizenship (of the host country). Kant also understood this, and history confirmed: people resolutely don’t want to form a state of nations (civitas gentium), “thus rejecting in hypothesi what is correct in thesi"2, but realize, that in order to achieve peace, it is necessary not only to stop hostilities and wars, but a union of peoples is desirable, so Kant: “This would be a league of nations, which, however, need not be a state of nations”3.

Coming to a permanent residence in a state, according to Kant, it is reasonable to accept the citizenship of a given state (if the authorities, of course, do not mind). Otherwise, we should expect a relation to ourselves or as a guest (hospitality in the representation of Kant goes back to the ancient tradition) or as a visitor (speaking in the modern language, as a tourist). For a long time to be only a guest and be only a visitor (and, according to Kant's conviction, everyone has the right not to automatically become a guest, that would impose certain obligations on the receiving side, but only the right to visit another state: “originally no one had more right than another to be on a place on the earth”4), means to occupy a passive life position and deny yourself the right to freedom. Thus, real migrants remain either to remain guests or integrate into a new society.

Of course, migrants are not tourists, and they claim the right not to visit, but to hospitality and help in integrating into a new culture for them. At the same time, Europeans are trying to remain faithful to the ideals of the Enlightenment. According to this, assistance in integration means not making migrants conform to certain patterns of behavior or uncritically join the existing opinions and attitudes, this would be contrary to their right to self-determination, the right of freedom (according to Kant, the right innate to man): and “The right of human beings must be held sacred, however great a sacrifice this may cost the ruling power”5.

Help should consist in the development of their ability to judge, of their ability to dialogue, that’s because the development of the ability to judge is carried out in the process of exchanging empirical arguments and in trying to find philosophical grounds. The latter is much more difficult, but more effective, if we take into account the prospect for the future, taking into account the con-

1Kant, Immanuel: Toward perpetual peace. In: Kant, Immanuel: Practical Philosophy. / The Cambridge edition of works of Immanuel Kant. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. P. 330 – 331.

2Ibidem: p. 328.

3Ibidem: p. 326.

4Ibidem: p. 329.

5Ibidem: p. 347.

152

struction of joint civil society, because "by principles of freedom a state constitution that can continue valid is first possible”1.

The problem, of course, is the isolation of migrants from the main population that threatens with the fact, that they would prefer to live in isolation, guided by their values, and can not fully integrate. A few years earlier, the idea of building a multicultural society was proclaimed, but this idea did not justify itself, moreover, led to a greater stratification of Western European society. Therefore, today it is necessary to recognize, that if people want to belong together to some society, state, then they must agree on the norms and rights with which they all could agree (the common will of the people, since the time of Rousseau, is the principle of all rights), and Kant anticipates the communicative ethics of Jurgen Habermas: “My external (rightful) freedom is, instead, to be defined as follows: it is the warrant to obey no other external laws than those to which I could have given my consent”2.

Today, European countries, for example, Germany, for their part, are interested in increasing the young population of their country, politicians make calculations about the arriving young people who are to build the future of Germany, and which should multiply, rather than squander the wealth of this country3. Fears and worries are clear, and thinkers, whose task now lies in clarity of thought, can again find encouragement in Kant's philosophy in his demand: "It can, therefore, be said, ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of pure practical reason and its justice, and your end (the blessing of perpetual peace) will come to you of itself'. This happens because it is just the general will given a priori that alone determines what is laid down as a right among human beings. … Thus it is, … a principle of moral politics that a people are to unite itself into a state in accordance with freedom and equality (below the right) as the sole concepts of right and this principle is not based upon prudence but upon duty". 4

To come to this understanding of the rights and freedoms of citizens and potential citizens is possible only through dialogue. Dialogue implies openness, that is, the ability to decenter and to hear the arguments of the counterpart, willingness to change their point of view, that implies knowledge of unknowledge of the result of dialogue, otherwise, the dialogue degenerates to manipulation practices.

Kant understands the importance of dialogue for the development of norms of a joint hostel, he writes about publicity and proposes the formula of the transcendental principle of public law: “All maxims which need publicity (in or-

1Ibidem: p. 342.

2Ibidem: p. 323.

3Blom, Philipp: Die Flüchtlingsströme markieren eine Zeitenwende (Sternstunde Philosophie,

6.12.15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8_bGCvkE-Q

4Kant, Immanuel: Toward perpetual peace. In: Kant Immanuel: Practical Philosophy. / The Cambridge edition of works of Immanuel Kant. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. P. 345.

153

der not to fail in their end) harmonize with right and politics combined”1. And further: “For if they can attain their end only through publicity, they must conform with the universal end of the public (happiness), and to be in accord with this (to make the public satisfied with its condition) is the proper task of politics.

… In right only “is the union of the ends of all possible”. Furthermore: “Without publicity would be no justice (which can be thought only as publicly known) and so too no right, which is conferred only by justice”2.

Of course, when accepting migrants, the state, in the person of the government and citizens, should be aware of all the risks and responsibilities. Today, we are not just talking about the openness of the dialogue, but also (even in spite of the cosmopolitan worldview) on the closure and inviolability of state borders3. The government of the host state must clearly understand: who it is ready to accept and in what quantity without prejudice to those citizens, which live there because of ethnicity or have long lived. And if the states hosting refugees, including many young people, with whom the future prosperity of these states is linked, don’t want to be disappointed, then we must proceed from the fact that, in Kant’s words: “… for it is not a case that a good state constitution is to be expected from inner morality; on the contrary, the good moral education of people is to be expected from a good state constitution”4 (335 – 336), For “in a wrong life there cannot be a right life”5, how after almost 200 years will be based on personal experience in Nazi Germany and its sociological research in America, the famous philosopher of the Frankfurt School Theodor de Adorno.

Thus, philosophical and sociological research leads to the justification of the pedagogy of recognition (which arose, based on the ideas from A. Honneth’s book “The Struggle for Recognition”) and politic of recognition (which proceed from recognition as a basic human need), and consider tolerance only as fact, but not the goal. At the same time, one must not forget that the non-tolerant is subject to eradication and all kinds of condemnation6.

References

1. Adorno de Theodor: Problems of moral philosophy. Moscow: Republic, 2000. – 240 p. (In Russian)

1Ibidem: p. 351.

2Ibidem: p. 347.

3Nida-Rümelin, Julian: Über Grenzen denken. Aufzeichnung vom 16. Mai 2017 im KörberForum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VbfcVPKmTg&t=2758s

4Kant, Immanuel: Toward perpetual peace. P. 335 – 336.

5Adorno, Theodor: Problems of moral philosophy. – Moscow: Republic, 2000. P. 5. The book is devoted to the interpretation of the practical philosophy of I. Kant.

6Kühler, Michael: Zwei Begriffe der Toleranz. In: Materialien des XXIII. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Philosophie 2014 Münster: Geschichte – Gesellschaft – Geltung. URL: http://www.repositorium.uni-muenster.de/document/miami/e47d13d7-9cde-463e-8c00- 65daa9c0ab52/artikel_kuehler_2014.pdf

154

2.Kant Immanuel Toward perpetual peace. In: Kant Immanuel: Practical Philosophy. The Cambridge edition of works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. – P. 311 – 352.

3.Forst, Rainer: Toleranz im Konflikt. Geschichte, Gehalt und Gegenwart eines umstrittenen Begriffs. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2003. 816 S.

4.Honneth, Axel: Das Recht der Freiheit: Grundriss einer demokratischen Sittlichkeit. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2011. 628 S.

5.Honneth, Axel: Die Idee des Sozialismus. Versuch einer Aktualisierung. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2015. 168 S.

6.Blom, Philipp: Die Flüchtlingsströme markieren eine Zeitenwende

(Sternstunde Philosophie, 6.12.15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8_bGCvkE-Q

7.Kühler, Michael: Zwei Begriffe der Toleranz. In: Materialien des XXIII. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Philosophie 2014 Münster:

Geschichte – Gesellschaft – Geltung. [Электронный ресурс] Режим доступа: http://www.repositorium.uni-muenster.de/document/miami/e47d13d7-9cde- 463e-8c00-65daa9c0ab52/artikel_kuehler_2014.pdf

8.Nida-Rümelin, Julian: Über Grenzen denken. Aufzeichnung

155

УДК 172.4 ББК 87.6

J. Barszczewski

University of Białystok Białystok, Poland

INSURGENT COSMOPOLITANISM AND HOPE FOR GLOBAL

SOCIAL JUSTICE

Abstract. In recent decades, in the face of the growing importance of global processes and growing mobility, the relevance of the concept of cosmopolitanism has come back to life. The usefulness of this term to describe the current reality is not limited to the issue of tolerance towards other cultures or easier movement around the world. It acquires a new meaning in the face of neoliberal globalization as its main ideological tool and at the same time a source of emancipatory possibilities. Neoliberal globalization is based on the idea of a cosmopolitan individual that maximizes its profit acting within the global economy and that benefits from a multicultural consumer offer. On the other hand, neoliberal globalization deepened existing social inequalities, creating a new system of global divides. The growing global interdependence and inability of single states to reduce risk require an entity that will operate globally and will act in the interest of the global community as a whole. Contemporary theorists of cosmopolitanism transform that idea into a tool for criticizing the existing social order. In this case, the concept of cosmopolitanism refers to subaltern classes as an entity capable of political self-organization. The cosmopolitanism of the subaltern classes is aimed at the development of the bonds of solidarity, cooperation and mutual assistance of citizens both in the countries of the Global North and the Global South. This approach strives for a deep political transformation on a global scale and, at the same time, for criticism of the assumptions of Western modernity.

Keywords: insurgent cosmopolitanism, neo-liberal globalization, counter-hegemonic globalization, social justice.

Я. Барщевский

Белостокский университет Белосток, Польша

ВОССТАЮЩИЙ КОСМОПОЛИТИЗМ И НАДЕЖДА НА ГЛОБАЛЬНУЮ СОЦИАЛЬНУЮ СПРАВЕДЛИВОСТЬ

Аннотация. В последние десятилетия перед лицом растущей важности глобальных процессов и растущей мобильности актуальность концепции космополитизма вновь ожила. Полезность этого термина для описания текущей реальности не ограничивается вопросом толерантности по отношению к другим культурам или более легкого движения по всему миру. Он приобретает новый смысл перед лицом неолиберальной глобализации как основного идеологического инструмента и в то же время источника освободительных возможностей. Неолиберальная глобализация основана на идее космополитического индивида, который максимизирует свою прибыль, действуя в рамках глобальной экономики, и получает выгоду от мультикультурного потребительского предложения. С другой стороны, неолиберальная глобализация усугубила существующее социальное неравенство, создав новую систему глобальных различий. Растущая глобальная взаимозависимость и неспособность отдельных государств снижать риски требуют организации, которая будет действовать на глобальном

156

уровне и действовать в интересах мирового сообщества в целом. Современные теоретики космополитизма превращают эту идею в инструмент для критики существующего общественного строя. В этом случае понятие космополитизма относится к низшим классам как к сущности, способной к политической самоорганизации. Космополитизм низших классов направлен на развитие связей солидарности, сотрудничества и взаимопомощи граждан как в странах Глобального Севера, так и Глобального Юга. Этот подход стремится к глубоким политическим преобразованиям в глобальном масштабе и, в то же время, к критике предположений западного модерна.

Ключевые слова: космополитизм, неолиберальная глобализация, контргегемонистская глобализация, социальная справедливость

The dynamic development of globalization, taking place in recent decades, has made cosmopolitanism an extremely current problem. On the one hand, there are growing global interdependencies among societies. On the other hand, the polarization among the poor and rich societies and the internal polarization of societies is intensifying. The key element of these changes is neoliberal globalization which, through economic deregulation, deprives individuals of their sense of economic security and intensifies various forms of discrimination. In the globalized world, there are more and more opportunities for cosmopolitanism as a certain lifestyle – the possibility of the unhampered crossing of state borders and living in a permanent state of transition (as is the case with tourists or employees of transnational corporations). On the other hand, the globalized world has led to the impoverishment of huge populations depriving them of this kind of opportunities.

Santos’ concept of insurgent cosmopolitanism draws attention to the fact that we must break with the neoliberal idea of cosmopolitanism as unhampered mobility because it is available only to a small part of the world’s population.

He also disagrees with this notion of cosmopolitanism, because it is actually limited to the proclamation of abstract values (such as tolerance or world citizenship) that concern only those who can afford it (to be citizens of the world and members of an abstract global community)1.

Opponents of neoliberal globalization argue that it is not an inevitable process and its criticism cannot be limited only to better management of the negative consequences resulting from it. Globalization cannot be treated as a spontaneous process due to the fact that powerful entities are involved in its course (states, transnational corporations, international organizations, etc.). They have much greater resources than other groups that try to shape global processes. Their advantage stems from the fact that entities that could oppose them and push through an alternative model, still do not have sufficient potential, allowing them to effectively undermine the dominant narrative of globalization. The demands of radical critics of globalization were made by the Global Justice

1 B. de S. Santos, Para descolonizar el occidente. Más allá del pensamiento abismal, Buenos Aires 2010, pp. 29-30.

157

movement, which since the 1990s has been fighting specific forms of neoliberal globalization and demanded a more just course of global relations.

In the 1990s, in the face of the negative consequences of economic globalization, the idea of “bottom-up globalization” appeared. It was aimed against top-down globalization, carried out by supranational institutions and corporations without public control. The idea emphasized the need to counteract the growing role of neoliberal politics, which led to market liberalization, weakening of the social function of the state and economic growth regardless of the costs borne by society and the environment. In opposition to these top-down mechanisms, the idea of bottom-up globalization has called for social selforganization in order to create conditions for social well-being and social justice, actions to protect the environment and to limit military conflicts on a global scale. In a broader perspective, bottom-up globalization tended to formulate an economic alternative to neoliberalism, which required the empowerment of excluded groups within the existing social order. Due to the multifaceted nature of the consequences of economic globalization, a social movement against neoliberalism could not be merely an industrial working class. It required taking into account the demands of other groups affected by neoliberal globalization. Extending the network of global resistance was also associated with the need for cooperation between Western societies and Third World societies, without which any more radical resistance would be reduced to a local context and neutralized. Only transnational social movement would provide the conditions for a more democratic policy from a global perspective and would be able to efficiently oppose the processes pushed through by supranational institutions1.

Besides the idea of bottom-up globalization, the concept of global civil society emerged and it was aimed at overcoming the negative consequences of economic globalization. The concept referred to a network of various local movements (including ecological, feminist, for human rights or for social justice), which have been disadvantaged by neoliberal globalization. Globalization of activism of local movements was to allow effective prevention of specific examples of anti-social and anti-ecological policies whose sources exceeded the local context. The long-term goal of those actions was a more sustainable global order that would provide conditions for social justice and sustainable environmental policy2.

Discussion on the issue of global civil society gained new meaning as a result of the mass protests in Seattle in 1999. The protest was organized in opposition to the implementation of solutions that were intended to strengthen the neoliberal policy. The manifestation distinguished itself from many other antiglobalization demonstrations with two key issues. First, it was organized

1R. Falk, Resisting ‘globalisation from above’ through ‘globalisation from below’, “New Political Economy” 1997, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 20-23.

2Ibidem, Global civil society: Perspectives, initiatives, movements, “Oxford Development Studies” 1998, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 100-105.

158

through a truly transnational network of solidarity among various social movements in the global North and the global South, combining groups with conflicting interests (eg. workers of the industry sector and ecologists). Secondly, it led to a successful stoppage of the work of the World Trade Organization aimed at creating solutions that would deep neoliberal globalization. In relation to these events, a vision of social movements emerged as a “postmodern prince” that was a redefinition of the Antonio Gramsci’s concept of “modern prince” (which described how to bring together subaltern classes). It pointed out that social movements around the world have the potential to oppose neoliberal politics by formulating their own program. However, they would have to act not as separate organizations, but as one organism based on internal diversity. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the opponents of neoliberal globalization, alterglobalist activists were not limited to representatives of political parties (aimed at taking power and implementation of a specific political program), but included a range of institutions that were an area of struggle for hegemony in the context of civil society described by Antonio Gramsci (churches, media, associations, nongovernmental organizations). The internal diversification of the alterglobalist movement would require reconciling various values, worldviews or political goals expressed by activists acting against a specific aspect of neoliberal policy (eg. regarding economics, racial relations, gender, ecology, democracy) 1. This debate pointed to the possibility of coordinated actions to transform the institutional structure that underlies neoliberal globalization.

The hegemony of neoliberal globalization is the result of a historically and institutionally defined set of forces and interests that can be questioned. Antonio Gramsci formulated the concept of hegemony to show that the power of the ruling classes is not only a result of economic domination but is anchored in the structures of civil society, shaping the social consciousness of the subaltern classes. This hegemony is the result of a certain consensus established in the everyday life of individuals, corresponding to their system of values and constituting a credible interpretation of reality. Overcoming the cultural hegemony of the dominant classes requires counter-hegemonic struggles led by subaltern classes. In the face of the strong consolidation of dominant classes in the existing institutional system, which penetrate the everyday life of individuals and their common experience, the purpose of the subaltern classes is to challenge the obviousness of this hegemony and to construct a counter-narrative:

“What resources can an innovative class set against this formidable complex of trenches and fortifications of the dominant class? The spirit of scission, in other words, the progressive acquisition of the consciousness of its own his-

1 S. Gill, Toward a Postmodern Prince. The Battle in Seattle as a Moment in the New Politics of Globalisation, “Millennium: Journal of International Studies” 2000, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.

137-140.

159

torical personality, a spirit of scission that must aim to spread itself from the protagonist class to the classes that are its potential allies”1.

Various subaltern classes constitute a historical block to overcome the ideological framework of the existing order. The purpose of the historic block is to influence the consciousness of the civil society using the institutional infrastructure that will transform their conformity the dominant classes into revolutionary attitude2.

One of the most important theorists of the radical critique of neoliberal globalization is Peter Evans, who formulated the concept of counter-hegemonic globalization, based on the classical interpretation of Gramsci’s conception of subaltern classes. As he argues, neoliberal globalization divides society into winners and losers. It has benefited a narrow group of entrepreneurs, but on the other hand has contributed to halting the current capacity of the South, slowing down the development of society and privatizing and hindering access to basic goods and public services. As a result, three groups bear the highest costs of the process: workers, women and the environment. Social movements that defend the interests of these groups, take the form of global social movements3. Economic globalization has undermined the position of workers, depriving them of social security and reducing employment security. The deterioration in working conditions on a global scale has intensified the rivalry between workers from the North and the South. Due to the fact that the deterioration in working conditions is global, it could be a platform of resistance and a basis for the emergence of transnational solidarity. The most important task for employees would be the struggle to introduce and respect basic labor rights and labor standards. This would prevent arbitrary deterioration of working conditions that currently fuel conflict between workers from the North and the South (force them to fight for better working conditions at the expense of workers in other countries). Neoliberal globalization has also deepened gender inequalities, and as a result, women are mostly burdened by unpaid work. Women are a predominant group in the informal sector of work, which, according to market logic, is considered to be a private sphere rather than professional activity requiring appropriate employee benefits. Overcoming the exploitation of women, who perform invisible work in the domestic sphere, requires a global feminist movement that would become a powerful force to enforce women’s rights and to protect them from exploitation.

A similar situation occurs in the case of counteracting environmental degradation. The global ecological movement should strive to formulate a vision of the fight for environmental protection, which would be rooted in daily practices of

1The Antonio Gramsci reader: Selected writings 1916–1935, (ed.) D. Forgacs, New York 2000, p. 381.

2Ibidem, pp. 193-199.

3P. Evans, Counterhegemonic globalization: transnational social movements in the contemporary global political economy, In: The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization, (eds.) T. Janoski et al., Cambridge 2005, p. 656-657.

160