Suchergebnisse

Criticizing methodological nationalism first amounts to attacking a myth of political interiority which would suggest that the state exists in itself and by itself, independently from foreign countries and foreigners. Highlighting the transnational phenomena of globalization, as the methodological cosmopolitanism does, helps to counter such solipsistic illusions. However, the critique of methodological nationalism is insufficient when it duplicates such a myth by ignorance or neglect of norms of international law. This is obvious in research on population migration. Cutting through methodological nationalism and cosmopolitanism, this paper proposes a methodological internationalism, that, against the myth of interiority, takes into account the immanence of the international in the national. This methodological proposal, here limited to its critical dimension against methodological nationalism, is then developed into a thought experiment showing how the national can be coextensive with the international and foreign relations. The critique of methodological nationalism is all the more relevant and effective that it takes into account the international constitution of state phenomena. Adapted from the source document.

Résumé La tradition cosmopolite est ancrée dans l'histoire du football. À la fin du xix e siècle, l'attrait du jeu découlait directement de sa simplicité et de son universalité, le football devenait un symbole de modernité et se trouvait lié à l'idéologie du libre-échange. Mais, à côté de cette tendance internationaliste, le football devint aussi rapidement, dans de nombreux pays, l'expression idéale d'un sentiment national. En distinguant les intérêts économiques des clubs de l'autonomie des équipes nationales, il est possible de faire coexister deux modèles antithétiques : les grandes multinationales régies par les lois du marché et un modèle d'équipes nationales relativement indépendant des contingences économiques. C'est grâce à cette dualité que perdure la passion pour les matches de football, mélange de l'essentiel et du dérisoire, aux quatre coins du globe.

Par son étymologie, citoyen du monde, le cosmopolitisme prétend à un certain déracinement par rapport à l'appartenance à une cité particulière. En s'appuyant sur le constat de certains milieux libéraux américains selon lesquels les États-Unis seraient, depuis leur fondation, un microcosme du cosmopolitisme — le multiculturalisme apparaissant une sorte de parenthèse dans ce cheminement historique —, le présent texte se propose de démontrer comment un tel cosmopolitisme est essentiellement nationaliste. Tout cela tend à confirmer l'hypothèse que le cosmopolitisme comme les concepts qui visent à rendre lisibles ces phénomènes ont besoin, de manière paradoxale, d'un lieu pour se réaliser.

Mykhailo Drahomanov was the major figure representing cosmopolitism in the ideological sphere of Ukraine. Drahomanov's interest not only was social and political, it also encompassed the cultural aspects of cosmopolitism in their internal unity. The idea of the rights of individuals and communities to self-administration, land providing their autonomy, and federal unity are at the core of Drahomanov's social and political cosmopolitism. Not a national state, but a world confederation of free unities – communities or, at least an "EU–wide confederation", where national principles will disappear, is the model for the sophist.Drahomanov emphasized the virtues of the cosmopolitan position, contrasting it with nationalism in the persona of Ukrainocentrism. In his opinion, the main disadvantages of the latter are, first of all, conservatism and a focus on the past, whereas his cosmopolitism was based on progressivism; secondly, the absolutization of national signs, which he considered as merely relative; and finally, compulsion, ascribed by Drahomanov to nationalism in opposition to the liberating mission of cosmopolitism. The disadvantages of nationalism can be overcome or weakened, in his opinion, only when "patriotism is placed under the control of cosmopolitism".For Drahomanov, a cosmopolitan, national culture cannot be interpreted as a cultural cosmos as it is not a self-sufficient part of the real whole, the world of panhuman culture. For him, initially a person of Russian culture, the immediate, existentially essential embodiment of European culture was "All-Russian" culture. Ukrainian culture, in his opinion, being part of it. Namely, the "All-Russian" for him was the supranational culture cosmos.Thus, Drahomanov, belonging to the Russian whole and adhering to Russian culture, was the sequential opponent of Ukrainocentric views, to which he contrasted the cosmopolitan explanation of the world, deployed on Russian cultural ground. ; Сутністю драгоманівського соціально-політичного космополітизму є ідея прав особи і самоуправи громад і країв, що передбачає їхню автономію і федеральну злуку.Чесноти космополітичної позиції Драгоманов акцентував, протиставляючи її націоналізмові, точніше – україноцентризмові. Для Драгоманова-космополіта національна культура, оскільки вона є несамодостатньою частиною справжнього цілого – світової вселюдської культури, не може мислитися як культурний космос. Цим статусом він потрапляючи часові наділяв Європу. Але безпосереднім, екзистенційно сущим втіленням європейської культури для нього як від початку російськокультурної людини була російська (точніше, кажучи його ж мовою, «всеросійська», або «общеруська») культура, складником якої він вважав українську. Саме «общеруське» було для нього наднаціональним культурним космосом. Тому Драгоманов був послідовним опонентом україноцентричних поглядів, яким протиставляв космополітичне світотлумачення, розгорнуте на російськокультурному ґрунті.

Сутністю драгоманівського соціально-політичного космополітизму є ідея прав особи і самоуправи громад і країв, що передбачає їхню автономію і федеральну злуку.Чесноти космополітичної позиції Драгоманов акцентував, протиставляючи її націоналізмові, точніше – україноцентризмові. Для Драгоманова-космополіта національна культура, оскільки вона є несамодостатньою частиною справжнього цілого – світової вселюдської культури, не може мислитися як культурний космос. Цим статусом він потрапляючи часові наділяв Європу. Але безпосереднім, екзистенційно сущим втіленням європейської культури для нього як від початку російськокультурної людини була російська (точніше, кажучи його ж мовою, «всеросійська», або «общеруська») культура, складником якої він вважав українську. Саме «общеруське» було для нього наднаціональним культурним космосом. Тому Драгоманов був послідовним опонентом україноцентричних поглядів, яким протиставляв космополітичне світотлумачення, розгорнуте на російськокультурному ґрунті. ; Mykhailo Drahomanov was the major figure representing cosmopolitism in the ideological sphere of Ukraine. Drahomanov's interest not only was social and political, it also encompassed the cultural aspects of cosmopolitism in their internal unity. The idea of the rights of individuals and communities to self-administration, land providing their autonomy, and federal unity are at the core of Drahomanov's social and political cosmopolitism. Not a national state, but a world confederation of free unities – communities or, at least an "EU–wide confederation", where national principles will disappear, is the model for the sophist.Drahomanov emphasized the virtues of the cosmopolitan position, contrasting it with nationalism in the persona of Ukrainocentrism. In his opinion, the main disadvantages of the latter are, first of all, conservatism and a focus on the past, whereas his cosmopolitism was based on progressivism; secondly, the absolutization of national signs, which he considered as merely relative; and finally, compulsion, ascribed by Drahomanov to nationalism in opposition to the liberating mission of cosmopolitism. The disadvantages of nationalism can be overcome or weakened, in his opinion, only when "patriotism is placed under the control of cosmopolitism".For Drahomanov, a cosmopolitan, national culture cannot be interpreted as a cultural cosmos as it is not a self-sufficient part of the real whole, the world of panhuman culture. For him, initially a person of Russian culture, the immediate, existentially essential embodiment of European culture was "All-Russian" culture. Ukrainian culture, in his opinion, being part of it. Namely, the "All-Russian" for him was the supranational culture cosmos.Thus, Drahomanov, belonging to the Russian whole and adhering to Russian culture, was the sequential opponent of Ukrainocentric views, to which he contrasted the cosmopolitan explanation of the world, deployed on Russian cultural ground.

In the present social and political context, there is an urgent need to reexamine attentively the theories that have founded the modern conception of citizenship and, in particular, to scrutinize the relation they have established between otherness and modern national identity. I intend to do this by resorting to Kant's writings on the philosophy of history, and particularly his political Project for a Perpetual Peace, in which he attempts to come to grips with the consequences of the breakdown of the ancien régime and of the pre-modern conception of the nation in order to outline the modern principles governing the three levels of right: of the Rechtsstaat (a state based on the rule of law); of the Völkerrecht (the people's right); and of the so-called Weltbürgerrecht (the "cosmopolitical right"). The decisive and perhaps disturbing idea that has to be demonstrated is that, in Kant's modern political thought, there is no contradiction between nationalism and cosmopolitism. Any interpretation of his thought that neglects this point would lead to a misunderstanding of Kant's philosophical revolution and fall back into the political as well as the metaphysical ancien régime. We have to show: (1) that Kant's critique of Reason aims to establish a legislation in the sphere of knowledge itself and that it must therefore accomplish in this sphere a "revolution" that distinguishes - in opposition to metaphysical universalism - different territories with their own constitution and legislation; (2) that the relation between this theoretical "revolution" and the political one is not only a metaphor, and that Kant's rejection of the political ancien régime cannot be correctly understood if it is not related to the theoretical model of the legitimacy of the different territories of Reason.