Congratulations to our own Jon Mandle on the publication of his new book Global Justice
The book reinforces the impression I got at a conference Jon and I recently attended together that part (but only part) of the explanation of the contemporary interest in global justice and cosmopolitianism is that almost all the interesting issues in political theory come together in this topic. The book covers questions of obligation and legitimacy, identity, distributive justice, the subject of justice, rights, and the foundations of political principles, as well as addressing some essential questions in meta-ethics. Buy it now
One thing might surprise some readers, though probably not the political philosophers/theorists. In his final chapter Jon offers a qualifiedly positive evaluation of the economic globalisation we have been experiencing over the past couple of decades, and many of his qualifications are anti-protectionist rather than anti-trade. My impression is that Jon’s judgments are part of something not far from being a consensus left-liberal political theorists working on global justice; a consensus which departs from the views of free-market ideologues, but is very far from the anti-globalisation position that I think some of our more conservative and libertarian readers sometimes assume that strongly egalitarian theorists hold.
{ 8 comments }
Russell Arben Fox 05.02.06 at 10:21 am
“Part…of the explanation of the contemporary interest in global justice and cosmopolitianism is that almost all the interesting issues in political theory come together in this topic.”
I think this is absolutely true, Harry. The possibility of a cosmopolitan order forces all sorts of disparate issues–sovereignty, individual and community rights, the meaning of “culture,” transnational justice, and all the rest that you mention–into the same pot. I think this is also the reason why comparative (non-Western) political theory is slowly but surely gaining prominence in the discipline; intellectual struggles over the meaning of and justification for globalization have exploded the Eurocentric political philosophical canon in a way that, in my view at least, previous waves of deconstruction and cultural critique never did.
“Jon’s judgments are part of something not far from being a consensus for left-liberal political theorists working on global justice; a consensus which departs from the views of free-market ideologues, but is very far from the anti-globalisation position that I think some of our more conservative and libertarian readers sometimes assume that strongly egalitarian theorists hold.”
Well, that’s an additional reason for me to read it then. There remains a basic divide between those egalitarians who approach the problems of globalization from within a fundamentally liberal paradigm (e.g. Rawls), and those who approach it from within a socialist or communitarian one (e.g. Kai Nielsen). Given that the former are always certainly going to win, I suppose it behooves the rest of us to familiarize ourselves with as good a presentation of that left-liberal position as Jon apparently provides.
Matt 05.02.06 at 11:28 am
Congratulations, Jon. Now, you, Harry, Chris, and others should hurry and assign it for your classes, preferably to very large classes, so that a used book market for it will spring up soon and I can aford to buy it too! Actually, I think that’s a good argument for assigning one’s own books to large classes- you help a used book market develop.
Jacob T. Levy 05.02.06 at 11:55 am
There remains a basic divide between those egalitarians who approach the problems of globalization from within a fundamentally liberal paradigm (e.g. Rawls), and those who approach it from within a socialist or communitarian one (e.g. Kai Nielsen). Given that the former are always certainly going to win,
Russell, please say more. Whence that “always certainly,” and what does “win” mean in this context? Win in the world? (Seems unlikely; there’s rather more redistribution and social democracy within state boundaries than across them; the desire to protect rich-country workers and farmers isn’t fading anytime soon, and Doha looks likely to fail partly as a result; nor do I know who the Rawlsian-globalizers sitting around the WTO table might be.) Win intellectually by being right? (If you thought that, would you still be one of “the rest of us”?) Or win by being more widely-accepted in philosophy circles without necessarily being right? (If so, why? I could tell a story about this, but I’m curious to hear yours.)
Russell Arben Fox 05.02.06 at 1:35 pm
Jacob,
1) I meant “almost certainly,” not “always.” I wish CT had an editing function.
2a) I did mean “win” in the world, at least insofar as the economic structures assumed and put in place by globalization policies are concerned. I’m sure you’re much more informed on this than I, but from what I can see, despite the possible collapse of the Doha round, despite American and French farmers digging in their heels, no serious policy person seems to see the present moment as anything other than another delay in an inevitable process. The WTO may not be dominated by thoughtful cosmopolitans, but it is dominated by people who believe in letting global markets go where they will, and I don’t see many of them thinking in terms of a globalization which might operate otherwise.
2b) As for the other possible readings of “win,” I do see the left-liberal argument for global egalitarianism as “being more widely accepted in philosophy circles,” at least in part because it will be the one most relevant to the world which we actually inhabit, following 2a). As Walzer argued some 15 years ago or more, the communitarian/socialist critique of liberalism, at the present time, is fated to be a recurring, critical one, probably not one that will inspire many affirmative, normative proposals and prescriptions, simply because the technology and mobility available in today’s world makes the argument for enclosures (whether economic or ideological) seem inherently dubious to most thinkers, especially on a wide scale.
Regarding that last point, Harry essentially said the same thing: that Jon’s qualified defense of global markets is becoming a “consensus” view. Does your perspective on these debates amongst political theorists suggest otherwise?
djw 05.02.06 at 3:27 pm
I don’t have time to comment extensively at the moment, but I think the position of someone like Pogge, whom I would take as representative of this emerging consensus, holds a “more not less free trade” position, and is in fact a far more radical critic of the status quo than simply advocating for the end of a few farm subsidies and other vestigial bits of western protectionism.
Baal_Shem_Ra 05.02.06 at 4:59 pm
Russell,
What does someone who approaches globalisation from your perspective think of it? Concerning protectionism, particularly.
Jacob T. Levy 05.02.06 at 5:44 pm
Regarding that last point, Harry essentially said the same thing: that Jon’s qualified defense of global markets is becoming a “consensus†view. Does your perspective on these debates amongst political theorists suggest otherwise?
Well, what Harry called it was “not far from being a consensus for left-liberal political theorists working on global justice”. That a left-liberal position which differs from left-communitarianism might be a consensus among left-liberals isn’t all that surprising!
And, tongue slightly less in cheek, the kind of consensus that soemtimes emerges among the producers of a given literature isn’t by itself evidence that the consensus is shared any more widely– because of selection effects into the pool of people studying a given question. We don’t yet know whether the consensus view Harry describes would be widely persuasive even among the general pool of left-liberal political philosophers, to say nothing of any wider set. It could be that more of them are persuaded by a David Millerian line of the sort I suspect you sympathize more with. (I doubt it. But it could be.)
Russell Arben Fox 05.02.06 at 10:07 pm
baal shem ra,
“What does someone who approaches globalisation from your perspective think of it? Concerning protectionism, particularly.”
I think globalization as a material and media process isn’t anything new and is probably impossible and silly to resist; I think globalism (a distinction several scholars have made; Manfred Steger’s book is a good introduction) as an ideology is undemocratic, elitist, and confused about the kind of cultural attachments we need in order to form decent and legitimate governments. To the extent that cosmopolitanism looks and acts like globalism (which it often does) I don’t care for it. Protectionist policies are crude instruments of resistance, easily manipulated to serve the status quo and massively inefficient to boot, but I think they have their place in the toolkit of anyone trying to preserve economic communities while working through the globalization onslaught.
Jacob,
“We don’t yet know whether the consensus view Harry describes would be widely persuasive even among the general pool of left-liberal political philosophers, to say nothing of any wider set. It could be that more of them are persuaded by a David Millerian line of the sort I suspect you sympathize more with. (I doubt it. But it could be.)”
I doubt it too. But you could be right, and I’d be delighted if you were.
Comments on this entry are closed.