💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › carl-levy-anarchism-and-cosmopolitanism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:37:35. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and cosmopolitanism Author: Carl Levy Date: 2011 Language: en Topics: cosmopolitanism, international relations Source: *Journal of Political Ideologies*, Volume 16, 2011 — Issue 3: The libertarian impulse. DOI:10.1080/13569317.2011.607293
Until recently, the relationship between theories of international
anarchy and anarchism has been ignored. Very recent work has started to
bridge the gap between International Relations theory and the usefulness
of anarchism and anarchist theory for the understanding of global
politics. This article takes this discussion one step further by
examining the relationship between classical anarchism (1860s–1940s),
cosmopolitanism, post-anarchism and the global justice movement. It then
investigates the linkages between the works of the 19^(th)- and
20^(th)-century anarchists, Rudolf Rocker and Gustav Landauer, and
contemporary examinations of the linkages between cultural nationalism,
cosmopolitanism and the classical and post-anarchist projects.
Recent interest in cosmopolitanism has overlooked its anarchist roots.
Although consensual and libertarian currents can be found in all human
societies, the specific ideology anarchism, is a product of a
conjunction of forces (scientism, statism/anti-statism, perfectionism,
modern capitalism/anti-capitalism) in Europe in the 18^(th) and early
19^(th) centuries.[1] Another influence, I would argue, is
cosmopolitanism. Here I will examine the works of the 19^(th)- and
20^(th)-century anarchists, Rudolf Rocker and Gustav Landauer, who wrote
about the linkages between cultural nationalism, cosmopolitanism and the
anarchist project. But I will also place these strands of thought within
the recent post-modernist reading of anarchism known as post-anarchism.
First, my argument must be situated amongst a variety of
cosmopolitanisms that have flourished in political theory, sociology and
history since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the paradigms
of globalization, diasporas, hybridity and post-modernism.[2] These
include the discussion influenced by a pronounced revival of the Kantian
project. At first blush the varieties of Kantian cosmopolitanisms have
little in common with the anarchist project, be they the full-blown
federalist project of Daniele Archibugi,[3] the more restrained version
promoted by David Held[4] or the (on the face of it) oxymoronic versions
of communitarian Kantianism promoted by David Miller[5] or Richard
Bellamy and Dario Castiglione.[6] Of course, it is well known that
Immanuel Kant warned that a cosmopolitanism that led to a world state
would be a cosmopolitanism gone wrong. The political theorist Mervyn
Frost, addressing this problem, has proposed a conceptual framework of
‘two anarchies’ embodied in a system of counterbalancing sovereign
states and global civil society, thus freedom and diversity would be
assured as the dictatorship of state-centric international society would
be lessened.[7] Anarchists should appreciate the pluralism of Frost’s
suggested remedy. Indeed, one of the few classical anarchists who wrote
extensively on international relations, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, endorsed
the balance of power, upon which, paradoxically, most forms of Kantian
cosmopolitanism implicitly rely. And, as argued by Alex Prichard,
Proudhon anticipated the logic of federalism and supranationality, which
underlies the European project of the 20^(th) and 21^(st) centuries
(indeed functionalist pluralists such as Harold Laski and David Mitrany
read Proudhon with interest), albeit his projected agro-industrial
federalism is rather different than the Single European Market.[8]
A methodological anarchism could be employed in the ongoing debate about
the nature of the international system under the Westphalian and
post-Westphalian orders and the degree to which 1648 marked a break
between a world of multi-level medievalism and the modern world of
sovereign states, or to what extent modern globalization and
cosmopolitan politics are forms of neo-medievalism. However, until very
recently, most historical and International Relations debates have not
drawn consciously on the canon of classical anarchist thought, but the
politics of alter-globalization is another matter, for as we will
shortly see, it draws upon the same sources as post-anarchism. Frost’s
elegant formulations reference neither classical nor post-modern
anarchist sources, while Rob Walker dances around the subject even if
his injunction to move from the discipline of International Relations to
the ‘politics of the world’ and thus ‘the potentialities of more
universally conceived humanity’ are closer still to the utopian vision
of the classical anarchists. Certainly, the anti-statist federal
pluralism of Proudhon would have been a useful reference when Walker
warned his readers of the dangers of a super global sovereignty or a
consortium of superpowers who might exercise a shared global
sovereignty.[9]
But recently a series of pioneering articles examine in detail how the
thought of Kropotkin, Proudhon and other classical anarchists can
address key issues in the field of International Relations.[10] With
reference to cosmopolitanism and anarchism, the interventions by Richard
Falk[11] and Alex Prichard[12] are the most relevant. Falk anticipated
connections in earlier work, but he reminds us now that philosophical
anarchism’s traditions of cooperation, non-violence, community,
small-scale social organization and local solutions can be applied to
practices in cosmopolitics. While for Prichard, David Held’s middle way
between Marxism and anarchism and the centrality Held attaches to
multi-level and federal solutions makes him a candidate for anarchist
conversion, despite his lack of interest in the canon.[13]
But perhaps a more direct connection between anarchism and recent forms
of cosmopolitanism are the discussions that Saul Newman has pursued in a
series of recent works, most notably in his Unstable Universalities.[14]
In this work and the even more recent The Politics of Post-Anarchism,
Newman draws connections between classical anarchism and post-modern
thought by placing it within the related fields of cosmopolitan and
globalization studies.[15] Post-anarchism, Newman argues, is a
post-modernist take on the classical variety of anarchism; indeed, the
first principles of post-modernism itself can be found in a certain
reading of Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin and other works of the classical
anarchist canon. Stirner perhaps does not need a reworking, but Newman
has argued that Bakunin and Kropotkin can be purged of their positivism
and scientism and be more easily adaptable to the radical critique of
power and sovereignty one finds in the works of Jacques Derrida and
Giorgio Agamben, for example. The radical form of post-modernist
cosmopolitanism present in Derrida’s final works can easily be
assimilated into, or placed near to, post-anarchism.[16] Also, the
critique of the camp and the state of exception found in Agamben, or
similar discussions pursued by Costas Douzinas, come close to a critique
of state power found in the anarchist canon.[17] The libertarian
cosmopolitanism promoted by Derrida’s New International is closer still
to the anarchist tradition, one which melds the uniqueness of the
individual with the necessity of collective action, closer indeed than
the rather vaporous and muddled acrobatics of Michael Hardt and Antonio
Negri, which involve a recycling of the automaticity of Marx’s much more
thrilling telling of 19^(th)-century globalization and the pairing of
Empire and Multitude (and perhaps, with some exaggeration, celebrating
the strange marriage of Baruch Spinoza and Rosa Luxemburg or Georges
Sorel).[18]
Newman and others also see the global movements of the 21^(st) century
(the movement of movements after Seattle 1999, the Zapatistas, the
movement in support of the sans-papiers, the cities of refuge projects
and the no-borders activists) as practical manifestations of this
post-modern, indeed post-anarchist, form of cosmopolitanism.[19] Paul
Gilroy’s vision of post-race thinking—planetary humanism, which
transcends the racist and imperial assumptions of Kant and radical
identity politics of today—is another stimulating example. Gilroy’s
formulation is rather similar to Walter Mignolo’s ‘worldly culture,’
which seeks to avoid the trap of a ‘universal reason’ predicated on the
‘West versus the rest,’ by embracing a liminal ‘border thinking.’[20]
Although Hannah Arendt may be classed as a republican thinker who
stressed the importance of national citizenship over putative world
citizenship, she also had a strong libertarian streak and therefore a
latent critique of the international order of nation-states,[21]
especially shown in her praise of non-party council movements from the
Russian Soviets of 1917 to the workers’ councils of the crushed Budapest
revolt of 1956. Moreover, her pleas for the universality of ‘the right
to have rights’ have been adopted by a wide spectrum of alter-globalizer
thinkers and global justice activists.[22] However, it is probably true
that Arendt would feel some uneasiness with many of her current ardent
supporters. She would have been closer to April Carter’s discussions of
global citizenship:
In contemporary terms a rigorous interpretation of being a world citizen
within an international sphere dominated by realpolitik would imply
living as independently as possible, and an ‘inner emigration’; or else
it would require a more active anarchist resistance, such as the
non-payment of taxes and refusal of military service. Alternatively it
might mean the kind of adventurous challenging of borders and state
regulations undertaken by Gary Davis (a One World activist of the 1950s,
[CL]). The true home of a committed world citizen would be a national
prison. There have been periods, and there are certainly countries,
where this bleak interpretation seems the only one possible, but it is
not universally convincing.[23]
Even closer to Arendt’s heart might have been Bonnie Honig’s form of
libertarian social democratic cosmopolitanism, which sees the virtues of
not dispensing with the thick social goods of physical and social
security promoted by internationalist national communities and the
national state.[24] Thus, Honig prizes the affective relationships which
neighbourliness may foster, but she holds out for a conditional
relationship between a nationally grounded communitarian position and
the virtues of global civil society, which she calls agonistic
cosmopolitics.[25] A mere reinforcement of national ties will not
protect the very qualities communitarians wish to protect. ‘In other
words, rather than renationalize the state, democratic cosmopolitans
seek to denationalize the state, not because they do not value affective
ties and memberships but precisely because they do.’[26] Thus, Honig’s
position takes us some distance from the anti-statist
governmentality-centred Foucaultianism, in which category Seyla Benhabib
has mistakenly placed her.[27] Thus, a libertarian social democratic
sensibility, agonistic cosmopolitics, Honig argues, should embrace
Arendt’s motto of the right to have rights, ‘as long as we understand
rights to imply a world-building that is not incompatible with the
project of building juridical institutions and safeguards but also
reaches beyond the project because it is wary of how power and
discretion accrete in such institutional contexts.’[28] Thus, from her
‘doubly gestured diagnoses’ of ‘in/formal law and politics’ she promotes
an agonistic cosmopolitics that would also advance the Derridean project
of the cities of refuge, but still recognize the importance of a
politics of engagement with the democratic state.[29]
It is also important to look at how cosmopolitanism shaped the classical
anarchist movement (1860s–1940s) and indeed how the
cosmopolitan/global/diasporic turn in modern thought and sensibility can
inform a contextual historical account of classical anarchism itself. A
notable example is Benedict Anderson’s study of José Rizal, the novelist
and Filipino revolutionary executed by the Spanish in 1896. In this
biographical study, the historian of nationalism and South-East Asia
traces the cosmopolitan worlds of Cuban and Filipino nationalism,
anarchism and modernism during the era of the first bout of modern
globalization.[30] Elsewhere, I have traced a series of interlocking
networks, which encircled the world in the same historical period as
Anderson’s study.[31] Thus, the anarchist movement of the pre-1914
period manifested itself through exile networks that were found in safe
cosmopolitan ‘cities of refuge’ such as Paris and London, in the
Americas and in the circuits of imperial power (formal and informal),
especially in port cities.
Recent studies have examined these phenomena in ante bellum Buenos Aires
(perhaps the city with the largest anarchist movement in the world in
1910),[32] Havana (as a hub for the circulation of anarchism on
Caribbean shores)[33] or Alexandria and Beirut (in the heyday of
colonial cosmopolitanism in the Middle East),[34] while José Moya has
promised a book entitled The Anarchist Atlantic (with the obvious
influence of Paul Gilroy’s famous work on the Black Atlantic).[35]
Anderson’s book supplies us with an Anarchist Pacific (Hong Kong, Tokyo,
etc.) and an Anarchist Mediterranean (Barcelona, Marseille, etc.).
Similar approaches include the study of the spread of syndicalism within
the British Empire or the spread of the Industrial Workers of the World
from the USA to Mexico, Peru and other Latin American localities.[36]
Davide Turcato re-imagined the history of Italian anarchism not as a
national movement but as a movement of migrants from the Italian
peninsula.[37] Indeed, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was part
of a discussion group in a pub in 1890s London’s Covent Garden, which
called itself the Cosmopolitans (a group of British and exile radicals),
and was organized by the globe-trotting syndicalist, Tom Mann.[38]
There were other cosmopolitan circuits besides the exilic and
syndicalist, such as the anarchist bohemias—artistic spaces in major
cosmopolitan cities central to post-impressionist art and modernist
poetry (London’s Fitzrovia, Paris’s Montmartre, Munich’s Schwabing,
etc.).[39] A recent interest in the circuits of the anarchist terrorism
in the 1890s has attracted the attention of ‘terrorologists’ and
‘securocrats’ because of obvious, if rather superficial, comparisons
with the globally structured, but anti-cosmopolitan, fundamentalism of
Al-Qaeda.[40] Besides the 14^(th)-century historian and ‘political
sociologist,’ Ibn Khaldun, the cities of al Andalus (Andalusia) under
the Cordoban Umayyads, ‘or the long-distance interchanges between
multi-ethnic Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires in the 17^(th) and
18^(th) centuries,’ provide another genealogy of cosmopolitanism, which
counters Al-Qaeda’s restricted vision of the umma and is a refutation of
the widespread association in the Muslim world of cosmopolitanism, in
general, with Western imperialism.[41]
Employing a modified version of Ulrich Beck’s concept of a
methodological cosmopolitanism can highlight an alternative history of
modernity in which the state form is not the endpoint of all narratives,
thus a counter-history, which can be traced from the transnational
Christian charitable orders, confraternities and guilds of the medieval
period (Kropotkin noted them with interest) to the Republic of Letters
of the early modern period. But methodological cosmopolitanism can also
be used to uncover the intellectual origins of classical anarchism
itself.[42] There is the cosmopolitanism (in spirit and modus operandi)
of the Radical Enlightenment, first discussed by Margaret Jacob, and now
superseded by the path-breaking study of the international pathways of
Spinozism by Jonathan Israel, from whom some classical anarchists drew
their militant rationalism, secularism or atheism.[43] There is also the
marriage of radical international thought and the commercial
cosmopolitanism of the early 19^(th) century (discussed by Gregory
Claeys), central to explaining the origins of classical anarchism and
indeed Marxism.[44] And there is the radical cosmopolitan politics of
Tom Paine, William Godwin and Anarcharsis Cloots (‘the orator for the
human race’), who countered the militant chauvinism of the Jacobins,
with the unfortunate Cloots losing his head to the guillotine and Paine
nearly so.[45]
A cosmopolitan sensibility also informs the three waves of social
radicalism, which crested and fell in the period from 1848 to the early
1920s. Thus, anarchist and syndicalist internationalism are present in
the two eras of transnational labour solidarity and first propelled the
First International into the limelight in the 1860s, while in a second
phase the rapid rise of internationalist syndicalism in the immediate
pre-1914 years threatened the more nationally focussed and bureaucratic
social democratic parties of Europe and elsewhere. A third iteration of
these waves arose in 1917 and fell with the concurrent stabilization of
bourgeois Europe by 1924 and the predominance of authoritarian Soviet
Russian communism over competing radical ideologies, thus depriving the
cosmopolitan libertarian left of geographical, social and political
space.[46] By the 1930s, libertarian cosmopolitanism was an anomalous
survivor: what nation-state or empire would supply Spanish anarchists
and syndicalists weaponry during the Spanish Civil War? The
international anarchy of nation-states and empires from Popular Front
France to the Stalinist Soviet Union did not look kindly upon Spanish
anarchism.
A cosmopolitan take on the waves of social radicalism and radical
mobilization, radical ideologies, and the emergence of the
welfare/warfare and totalitarian state complexes in the 20^(th) century
is a route which few global historians have travelled. This secret
history is yet to be written, albeit Jeremi Suri’s account of the rise
of Great Power détente in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as a reaction
to the global social radicalism of the 1960s and ‘1968,’ is a laudable
exception.[47] The social radicalism of global civil society threatened
to disturb the international sphere of nation-state ‘anarchy,’ and thus
nation-state power elites of all ideological stripes, East and West,
sought an end to this dangerous spiral of unpredictable events by
restoring order on the international plane through clamping down
ideological conflict in global civil society. In other words, the
globalized and partially cosmopolitan forces of the ‘1968’ movements
threatened and disturbed the ordered world of nation-state ‘anarchy’ in
much the same way as the victorious anarchists in Barcelona did in the
summer of 1936.
Of course, George Orwell (a veteran of Barcelona’s 1937 May Days)[48] in
Nineteen Eighty-Four, gave us an imaginative portrayal of a dystopian
mirror image international society in which three world blocs fought
endless, inconclusive phoney wars to mobilize their populations in blind
obedience to ruling elites.[49] This was adopted by C. Wright Mills,
Herbert Marcuse and other radical critics in the 1950s and 1960s and was
superimposed on to the logic of the Cold War, and thus influenced the
radicalism of those 1968ers who had not yet fallen in love with any
geographically specific social and political model, namely those
middle-class radicals who rediscovered the historical legacy of
classical anarchist and syndicalist cosmopolitanism discussed earlier in
this section.[50]
Mitteleuropa and Yiddishland
The surges of internationalist and cosmopolitan radicalism described
earlier were undermined by both the ‘anarchy’ of a system of
nation-states and power blocs, on the one hand, and the conundrum,
state–nation–culture, on the other. From 1848 to 1989, cosmopolitan
social radicals were always blindsided by the impact of both.[51] Here I
will look at two thinkers who tackle the themes surrounding
state–nation–culture. But my argument turns full circle: just as
post-modernist anarchist theorists, such as Newman, claim that Stirner
and other anarchist thinkers anticipate the theories of the
post-modernists of the late 20^(th) century, so too did Gustav Landauer
and Rudolf Rocker’s interventions anticipate Paul Gilroy’s speculations
about planetary humanism[52] and foreshadow the disputes between
primordialists and modernists in today’s field of nationalism
studies.[53]
Landauer was a German Jewish anarchist, murdered by the Freikorps after
the suppression of the Munich Soviet in 1919, while Rocker was a German
gentile anarchist who, during his exile in pre-1914 London, learned
Yiddish and became the charismatic leader of the thriving community of
London’s East End Jewish anarchists. He died in 1958 during another
extended exile in the USA, but lived to see the destruction of his
adopted culture of cosmopolitan and diasporic Yiddish-land by his fellow
Germans.[54] The ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ of Nazi and Stalinist
imagination, the Jewish people of MittelEuropa, the Pale of Settlement
and the diasporic ghettoes in the Atlantic world were the native or, in
Rocker’s case, the adopted homeland of radical and anarchist theorists
who tackled the triadic problem of nation–state–culture.[55]
Landauer combined a Stirnerite and Nietzchean sensibility (fight your
inner statist, might have been his slogan; the source of real power was
micro-power, this proto ‘Foucaultian’ argued) and manifested a
spiritually based politics of community, with Sorelian overtones. Thus,
the folk was both a real historically developing organism and a mythical
illusion, but unlike the illusion of the state, which bred slave-like
behaviour, the myth of the folk brought life and hope. Landauer called
himself South German, German, Jew and an indefinable I. He promoted the
idea of multiple, indeed hybridic (to use a worthwhile anachronism),
identities. He married a Marburg neo-Kantianism with anarchism and, most
importantly, a reading of Herder, in which the concept of the Volk was
not predicated on racial hierarchies, but was harnessed to a quest to
preserve the uniqueness of each culture within an enveloping,
libertarian anti-statist cosmopolitanism.[56] He also embraced a form of
spiritual Zionism and inspired the kibbutz, but he did not embrace the
settling of the land of Palestine by the denizens of Yiddishland (as did
the assimilated French Jewish anarchist Bernard Lazare after he turned
to Zionism in the wake of the Dreyfus affair).[57] He argued that since
the Jewish people were least smitten by the cult of the state, they
could take the lead in constructing communities independent of the
state. His most famous follower was Martin Buber, whose early attempts
to promote a bi-national solution to the question of Israel/Palestine,
as well as his existentialist spiritual studies of Judaism, owed a great
deal to Landauer.[58]
Rocker’s position is better understood as an anarchist version of
contemporaneous Austro-Marxism, although a direct comparison of Landauer
and Rocker can be confusing because they use the terms folk and nation
to mean different and contrasting things. Rocker was not a Stirnerite
but a rationalist, and he was very taken by Wilhelm von Humboldt (as is
Noam Chomsky, whose linguistic theories and anarchist politics are
influenced by the German thinker).[59] In Rocker’s major work,
Nationalism and Culture (first published in 1937),[60] anticipating the
modernist scholar of nationalism, John Breuilly,[61] he argued that the
nation was a product of state elite power plays, not some pure
primordial fact or some ineffable spirit (geist): the nation was
invented, to paraphrase Benedict Anderson,[62] and brought together
artificially a number of folk groups who shared common cultural traits
individually and separately. Albeit Rocker did not display Anderson’s
appreciation for the interplay of language, print culture and shared
experience (and this is odd because Rocker was a printer, publisher,
indeed a translator of world culture into Yiddish for his fellow East
End anarchists).[63]
This leads us to the anarchist attraction to Esperanto,[64] a language
invented in the multi-cultural and polyglot city of Bialystok, in the
heart of Yiddishland. There are interesting connections with modern
cosmopolitics, since Archibugi discusses the need for an Esperanto-like
solution to the problem of political discourse in his projected federal
world parliament.[65] Early in his political career, Antonio Gramsci had
debated with the anarchists over the usefulness of Esperanto.[66] But
Gramsci had been a very promising student of linguistics and he
dismissed Esperanto as stuff and nonsense. For him, an attachment to
Esperanto by Italian anarchists and socialists represented an artificial
form of cosmopolitanism and prevented Italian socialism from developing
a realistic form of internationalism. Artificial languages reflected the
worse type of artificial cosmopolitanism: Gramsci was a language
pluralist; he wanted his Sardinian nephew to speak Sardinian at home; he
was fascinated before and during incarceration with the vocabulary of
Sardinian. But he was also a melting-pot socialist and proclaimed the
glories of the Italian language and the power which it had invested in
the humanist educated elite: he wanted the subaltern and working classes
to master these codes to achieve hegemony.[67] He was a rooted
cosmopolitan, and that other rooted cosmopolitan, Landauer, was also
critical of Esperanto because it lacked a passionate attachment to real
life. Indeed, at different times and without their mutual knowledge,
Gramsci and Landauer both criticized the chief Italian anarchist
advocate of Esperanto, Luigi Molinari.[68]
The Sardinian’s notion of hegemony is derived, in part, from the concept
of the prestige and the soft/hard power of dominant languages.[69] Peter
Ives, who has earlier written on Gramsci, linguistics and Marxist
theory,[70] has addressed Archibugi in light of Gramsci’s intellectual
biography.[71] Thus, the emergence of global English as today’s lingua
franca, as Ives argues, can be likened to the disputes over Esperanto
between the anarchists and Gramsci. Can global cosmopolitics be
expressed in a language that is not intimate to the speaker?
Gramsci criticized the arid and abstract positivism of the Free Thinker
followers of Esperanto because they did not understand how culture and
power interacted in the real world, and thus from this perspective,
Gramsci claimed that his historicist Marxism was more libertarian than
the anarchists’ anarchism because it was more realistic. Perhaps, he
would have agreed with Hannah Arendt (even if the analogy grates on our
contemporary ears), who wrote in response to Karl Jaspers’ enthusiasm
for cosmopolitan world government, ‘A world citizen, living under the
tyranny of world empire, and speaking a kind of glorified Esperanto,
would be no less a monster than a hermaphrodite.’[72]
Rocker, too, was sensitive to the liberating potential of local
experience and, anticipating Benedict Anderson, he argued that national
cultures arrive from a shared sense of history or memory (curiously he
did not think the Jews possessed these attributes), not inherent racial
attributes or state-based official scripts, and therefore were malleable
and changed across time and space. For Rocker, folk-group culture was
protected by the right of each individual to carry and practice such a
culture within a cosmopolitan world federation: in this regard he was a
keen admirer of Proudhon’s promotion of federation, of ‘voluntary
socialism,’ as he put it, and for a form of individually chosen
culture.[73] At heart Rocker was a rationalist cosmopolitan, who bowed
reluctantly to the need to accommodate cultural differences but longed
for a world of global citizens. This is rather close to Gilroy’s
planetary humanism, but Rocker also anticipated the ugly sounding but
useful neologism glocalization (‘the inter-penetration of the global and
the local and its ambivalence’).[74]
Post-Modern)
From its origins, the concept of cosmopolitanism was Janus-faced. The
Cynics and the Stoics coined and brought into practice cosmopolitanism.
But as Douzinas notes there were always two traditions of
cosmopolitanism.[75] The better-known varieties were the Alexandrine,
Roman and later British imperial usages.[76] Thus, a variety of cultures
could flourish under the benevolent rule of imperial law, in which all
citizens were equals. Universal morality derived from rational human
conduct would restrain local national rivalries of the citizens of the
empire by teaching them to retrain their human passions through Stoical
principles. Chomsky and Dounzinas argue that the modern-day inheritors
of this tradition have used this as a fig leaf to promote the selfish
interests of the hegemon[77]: thus human rights are American rights;
humanitarian intervention is American intervention; cosmopolitanism is
the ideology of frequent travellers.[78]
But Douzinas also reminds us that there is another lesser known
antinomian tradition which can be found in the cosmopolitanism of
Diogenes of Sinopi, the homeless and city-less philosopher (an apt
exemplar, in our modern era, of the liminal, border-crosser) who told
the visiting Alexander to move, as he was blocking the sun or in Zeno’s
Republic, a treatise written by a metic, an outcast, a Cypriote of
Phoenician or Semitic background, whose ‘city in the sky’ enveloped the
entire world, not the bounded polis, and did away with laws and
compulsion, with temples, court houses and gymnasia, and which has found
a new iteration in the discourses and practices of post-anarchist
cosmopolitanism in the early 21^(st) century.[79] Cosmopolitanism can be
freed from the dubious joys of imperial shock and awe and returned
rightfully to utopia, even freed from modern-day cosmopolitical ‘Free
Thinkers,’ ‘from its contemporary champions, who have turned into a
rather dull institutional blueprint.’[80] And in Zeno’s injunction to
‘make your own city, with your own friends, now, wherever you happen to
live,’[81] we see an early anticipation of Landauer’s existential
communitarian anarchism.
[1]
G. Crowder, Classical Anarchism: The Political Thought of Godwin,
Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin (Oxford: Oxford University
Press/Clarendon Press, 1991); C. Levy, ‘Social histories of
anarchism,’ Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 4(3) (2010), pp.
4–10.
[2]
M. B. Steger, Globalization. A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003); S. Dufoix, Diasporas (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2003). For cosmopolitan studies,
see S. Vertovec and R. Cohen (Eds), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); S. Caney, Justice
Beyond Borders (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); R. Fine,
Cosmopolitanism (London: Routledge, 2007); R. J. Holton,
Cosmopolitanisms: New Thinking and New Directions (Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2009).
[3]
D. Archibugi, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan
Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008).
[4]
D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1995); D. Held, Global Covenant (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005).
Also see G. W. Brown, Grounding Cosmopolitanism: From Kant to the
Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2009).
[5]
D. Miller, National Responsibility and Global Justice (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007); D. Miller, Special Issue, ‘Nationalism and
global justice—David Miller and his critics,’ Critical Review of
International Social and Political Philosophy, 11(4) (2008), pp.
369–570.
[6]
R. Bellamy and D. Castiglione, ‘Between cosmopolis and community: three
models of rights and democracy in the European Union,’ in D.
Archibugi, D. Held and M. Kohler (Eds) Re-Imagining Political
Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1998), pp. 152–178.
[7]
M. Frost, Global Ethics: Anarchy, Freedom and International Relations
(London: Routledge, 2009).
[8]
A. Prichard, ‘Justice, order and anarchy: the international political
theory of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865),’ Millennium, 35(3)
(2007), pp. 623–645; A. Prichard, ‘Deepening anarchism:
international relations and the anarchist ideal,’ Anarchist Studies,
18(2) (2010), pp. 29–57.
[9]
H. Spruyt, The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of
Systems Change (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); T.
Eertman, Birth of Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval
and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997); L. Benton, A Search for Sovereignty. Law and Geography in
European Empires, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2010); S. Sassen, Territory Authority Rights. From Medieval to
Global Assemblages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2006). For R. B. J. Walker, see After the Globe, Before the World
(London: Routledge, 2010), p. 59. And for the concept of a
consortium of superpowers, see C. Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in
the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum [1950/1974],
trans. G. L. Ulmen (New York: Telos, 2003). Chantal Mouffe has
advocated the pluralization of hegemony, a sort of social democratic
or post-Marxist version of Schmitt’s proposals, see On the Political
(London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 113–114 and P. Tambakaki,
‘Cosmopolitanism or agonism? Alternative visions of world order,’
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy,
12(1) (2009), pp. 101–116.
[10]
E. Cudworth and S. Hobden, ‘Anarchy and anarchism: towards a theory of
complex international systems,’ Millennium, 39(2) (2010), pp.
399–416; A. Goodwin, ‘Evolution and anarchism in international
relations: the challenge of Kropotkin’s biological ontology,’
Millennium, 39(2) (2010), pp. 417–437.
[11]
R. Falk, ‘Anarchism without “anarchism”: searching for progressive
politics in the early 21^(st) century,’ Millennium, 39(2) (2010),
pp. 381–398; R. Falk, ‘Anarchism and world order,’ in J. R. Pennock
and J. W. Chapman (Eds) Anarchism (New York: New York University
Press, 1978), pp. 63–87. And also see T. G. Weiss, ‘The tradition of
philosophical anarchism and future directions in world policy,’
Journal of Peace Research, 12(1) (1975), pp. 1–17.
[12]
A. Prichard, ‘Introduction: anarchism and world politics,’ Millennium,
39(2) (2010), pp. 373–380; A. Prichard, ‘What can the absence of
anarchism tell us about the history and purpose of international
relations,’ Review of International Relations (forthcoming) and
Prichard, op. cit., Ref. 8.
[13]
A. Prichard, ‘David Held is an anarchist. Discuss,’ Millennium, 39(2)
(2010), pp. 439–459.
[14]
S. Newman, Unstable Universalities. Poststructuralism and Radical
Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007).
[15]
S. Newman, The Politics of Post-Anarchism (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2010), pp. 63–64.
[16] See J. Derrida, Spectres de Marx (Paris: Editions Galilée, 1993);
J. Derrida, Cosmopolites de tous les pays, encore un effort (Paris:
Galilee, 1997a); J. Derrida, L’hospitalité (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1997b).
[17] For G. Agamben, see Homo Sacer (Turin: Einaudi, 1995); G. Agamben,
Stato di eccezione (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 2003). For Douzinas, see
Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism
(London: Routledge, 2007). Also see S. Newman, ‘Connolly’s democratic
pluralism and the question of state sovereignty,’ British Journal of
Politics & International Relations, 10(2) (2008), pp. 227–240.
[18]
M. Hardt and A. Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2000); M. Hardt and A. Negri, Multitude: War and Democracy in the
Age of Empire (New York: Penguin Press, 2004). Also see G.
Balakrishnan, ‘Hardt and Negri’s Empire,’ New Left Review, 5
(September–October 2000), pp. 142–148; R. Munck, ‘Review,’ Cultural
Logic, 3(2) (2001); T. H. Hale and A.-M. Slaughter, ‘Hardt and
Negri’s “Multitude”: the worst of both worlds,’ Open Democracy,
available at http://opendemocracy.net (accessed 25 May 2005). For an
anarchist critique of Hardt and Negri, see A. Flood, ‘Is the emperor
wearing clothes?,’ March 2002, available at www.struggle.ws. Slavoj
Žižek criticizes Hardt and Negri’s naïve embrace of the assumptions
of globalization theory in ‘The ideology of empire and its traps,’
in P. A. Passavant and J. Dean (Eds) Empire’s New Clothes: Reading
Hardt and Negri (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 253–264. Whereas
Georges Sorel’s myth of the proletarian general strike was based on
the Sorel’s empirical knowledge of the French proletariat of the
early 20^(th) century, Hardt and Negri’s ‘multitude has no direct
source or referent’: see K. Shapiro, ‘The myth of the multitude,’
in P. A. Passavant and J. Dean (Eds) Empire’s New Clothes: Reading
Hardt and Negri (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 308, 289–314.
[19] References in Notes 14 and 15; D. Graeber, ‘The new anarchists,’
New Left Review, 13 (2002), pp. 61–73; G. Chesters, ‘Shape shifting,’
Anarchist Studies, 11(1) (2003), pp. 42–65; M. Rupert, ‘Anti-capitalist
convergence? Anarchism, socialism and the Global Justice Movement,’ in
M. Steger (Ed.) Rethinking Globalism (Lanhan, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,
2003), pp. 121–135; R. J. F. Day, Gramsci is Dead. Anarchist Currents in
the Newest Social Movements (London: Pluto Press, 2005); J. Adams,
‘Redrawing the “imaginary lines”: exceptional space in an exceptional
time,’ Borderlands, 5(3) (2006), available at
http://borderlands.net.au.; C. Gabay, ‘Anarcho-cosmopolitanism: the
universalisation of equal exchange,’ Global Society, 22(2) (2008), pp.
197–216; T. May, ‘Equality among the refugees: a Rancièrean view of
Montréal’s sans-status Algerians,’ Anarchist Studies, 16(2) (2008), pp.
121–134; U. Gordon, Anarchy Alive!: Anti-Authoritarian Politics from
Practice to Theory (London: Pluto Press, 2008); M. Maeckelbergh, The
Will of the Many. How the Alterglobalisation Movement is Changing the
Face of Democracy (London: Pluto, 2009), pp. 8, 85–88; D. Graeber,
Direct Action: An Ethnography (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2009); A. Carrière,
‘Social movements and the Bolivian state: anarchistic trends in practice
and theory,’ Global Discourse, 1(2) (2010), available at
http://global-discourse.com/contents; R. Krøvel, ‘Anarchism, the
Zapatistas and the global solidarity movement,’ Global Discourse, 1(2)
(2010), available at http://global-discourse.com/contents; D. Murray,
‘Democratic insurrection: constructing the common in global resistance,’
Millennium, 39(2) (2010), pp. 461–482.
[20]
P. Gilroy, Between Camps (London: Allen Lane, 2000), p. 17; W. Mignolo,
Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges,
and Border Thinking (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2000), pp. 39–40.
[21]
A. Herzog, ‘Political itineraries and anarchic cosmopolitanism and the
thought of Hannah Arendt,’ Inquiry, 47(1) (2004), pp. 20–41.
[22]
P. Owens, Between War and Politics: International Relations and the
Thought of Hannah Arendt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p.
16; P. Hayden, Political Evil in a Global Age: Hannah Arendt and
International Theory (London: Routledge, 2009), p. 91; D. Baum, S.
Bygrave and S. Morton (Eds), ‘Hannah Arendt: After Modernity,’ New
Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics, 71 (2011), pp.
5–124.
[23]
A. Carter, The Political Theory of Global Citizenship (London:
Routledge, 2001), p. 181.
[24]
B. Honig, Democracy and the Foreigner (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2001).
[25]
B. Honig, Emergency Powers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2009), pp. 129–134. Andrew Dobson has proposed a ‘thick
cosmopolitanism,’ which is rather similar to Honig’s agonistic
cosmopolitics, see A. Dobson, ‘Thick cosmopolitanism,’ Political
Studies, 54(1) (2006), pp. 165–184.
[26] Honig, op. cit., Ref. 24, p. 105.
[27] Honig, op. cit., Ref. 25, p. 134. And for S. Benhabib, see Another
Cosmopolitanism (with Jeremy Waldron, Bonnie Honig and Will Kymlicka),
ed. R. Post (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
[28] Honig, op. cit., Ref. 25, p. 130.
[29] Honig, ibid., pp. 130–132.
[30]
B. Anderson, Under Three Flags. Anarchism and the Anti-Colonial
Imagination (London: Verso, 2005).
[31] Levy, op. cit., Ref. 1.
[32]
J. Moya, ‘The positive side of stereotypes: Jewish anarchists in early
twentieth-century Buenos Aires,’ Jewish History, 18(1) (2004), pp.
19–48.
[33]
K. Shaffer, ‘Havana hub: Cuban anarchism, radical media and the
trans-Carribbean anarchism network, 1902–1915,’ Caribbean Studies,
37(2) (2009), pp. 45–81.
[34] See I. Khuri-Makdisi, The Eastern Mediterranean and the Making of
Global Radicalism, 1860–1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2010); S. Zubaida, ‘Middle Eastern experiences of cosmopolitanism,’ in
Vertovec and Cohen, op. cit., Ref. 2.
[35]
J. C. Moya, ‘Modernization, modernity and the trans/formation of the
Atlantic World in the nineteenth century,’ in J.
Cañizares-Esquerra and E. Seeman (Eds) The Atlantic in Global
History: 1500–2000 (New York: Prentice-Hall, 2006). For Gilroy,
see The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
[36]
C. Levy, ‘Anarchism, internationalism and nationalism in Europe,
1860–1939,’ Australian Journal of Politics and History, 50(3)
(2004), pp. 330–342; L. van der Walt and M. Schmidt, Black Flame:
The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, Vol.
1 (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2009); S. Hirsch and L. van der Walt (Eds),
Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World,
1880–1940 (Leiden: Brill, 2011).
[37]
D. Turcato, ‘Italian anarchism as a transnational movement, 1885–1915,’
International Review of Social History, 52(3) (2007), pp.
407–444; K. Zimmer, ‘“The whole world is our country”: immigration
and anarchism in the United States, 1885–1940,’ PhD thesis,
University of Pittsburgh, 2010.
[38]
C. Levy, ‘The rooted cosmopolitan: Errico Malatesta, syndicalism,
transnationalism and the international labour movement,’ in D. Berry
and C. Bantman (Eds) New Perspectives on Anarchism, Labour and
Syndicalism: The Individual, the National and the Transnational
(Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), p. 76.
[39] Levy, op. cit., Ref. 1, pp. 16–19.
[40]
D. C. Rapaport, ‘Then and now: the significance of historical
parallels,’ and the other papers in a seminar (‘What Can and
Cannot be Learned from the History about Terrorism: A Dialogue
between Historians and Social Scientist’) hosted by the
Department of Homeland Security, Arlington, Virginia, 15–16
June 2007. The conference debates are rehashed in a series of
published exchanges, in Terrorism and Political Violence, 20
(2008), pp. 563–611. Also see P. Stott, ‘Anarchism, terrorism
studies and Islamism,’ Global Discourse, 1(2), available at
http://global-discourse.com/contents. For focussed historical
and political science studies, see M. Collyer, ‘Secret agents:
anarchists, Islamists and responses to politically active
refugees in London,’ Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(2) (2005),
pp. 278–303; P. Di Paola, ‘The spies who came in from the heat:
the international surveillance of anarchists in London,’
European History Quarterly, 37(2) (2007), pp. 189–215; B. Gage,
The Day Wall Street Exploded: A Story of America in the First
Era of Terror (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); A.
Butterworth, The World that Never Was: A True Story of Dreamers,
Schemers, Anarchists and Secret Agents (London: Bodley Head,
2010).
[41] Holton, op. cit., Ref. 2, pp. 67–68.
[42]
U. Beck, ‘The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology in the second age of
modernity,’ in Vertovec and Cohen, op. cit., Ref. 2, pp. 61–85; U.
Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004).
[43]
M. C. Jacob, Strangers Nowhere in the World: The Rise of
Cosmopolitanism in Early Modern Europe (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 2006); J. I. Israel, Radical
Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); J. I. Israel,
Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the
Emancipation of Man 1670–1752 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006); J. I. Israel, A Revolution of the Mind. Radical
Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010). Spinoza was
sometimes called the new Stoic and compared with the antinomian
cosmopolitan Zeno, see Israel, Enlightenment Contested, 2006,
pp. 456–470.
[44]
G. Claeys, ‘Reciprocal dependence, virtue and progress: some sources of
early socialist cosmopolitanism and internationalism in Britain,
1750–1850,’ in F. van Holthoon and M. van der Linden (Eds)
Internationalism and the Labour Movement, 1830–1940, vol. 1 (Leiden:
Brill, 1988); M. R. García, ‘Early views on internationalism:
Marxist socialists vs. liberals,’ Revue Belge de Philologie et
D’Histoire, 84(4) (2006), pp. 1049–1073.
[45] Carter, op. cit., Ref. 23, p. 50.
[46] Levy, op. cit., Ref. 1; Turcato, op. cit., Ref. 37; van der Walt
and Schmidt, op. cit., Ref. 36; Hirsch and van der Walt, op. cit., Ref.
36; M. R. García (Ed.), ‘Labour internationalism: different times,
different faces,’ Revue Belge de Philologie et D’Histoire, 84(4) (2006),
pp. 961–1023; R. Darlington, Syndicalism and the Transition to
Communism: An International Comparative Analysis (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2008).
[47]
J. Suri, Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Détente
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003).
[48]
G. Orwell, Homage to Catalonia (London: Secker & Warburg, 1938).
[49]
G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (London: Secker & Warburg, 1949).
Orwell knew of the discussions between anarchists, Trotskyites
(James Burnham, Max Shachtman, etc.) and the sui generis, Bruno
Rizzi in the wake of the Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939: see B. Rizzi,
The Bureaucratization of the World, translated and with an
introduction by A. Westoby (New York: Free Press, 1985).
[50]
C. Wright Mills, The Causes of World War Three (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1958); H. Marcuse, One Dimensional Man (London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1964); A. Jamison and R. Eyerman, Seeds of the Sixties
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp. 36–46.
[51]
A. Körner (Ed.), 1848: A European Revolution? International Ideas and
National Memories of 1848 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000). For 1968,
see A. Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France,
Italy and the United States, c.1958–c.1974 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998); G.-R. Horn, The Spirit of ’68: Rebellion in
Western Europe and North America, 1956–1976 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007). For 1989, see K. Kumar, 1989: Revolutionary
Ideas and Ideals (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2001); A.
Weiner and J. Connelly (Eds), ‘Revisiting 1989: causes, course and
consequences,’ Contemporary European History, 18(3) (2009).
[52] See Ref. 20.
[53]
M. Guibernau, The Identity of Nations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).
[54] For Landauer, see C. B. Mauer, Call to Revolution: The Mystical
Anarchism of Gustav Landauer (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1971); E. Lunn, Prophet of Community: The Romantic Socialism of Gustav
Landauer (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974); H.
Link-Salinger, Gustav Landauer, Philosopher of Utopia (Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett, 1977); G. Landauer, Revolution and Other Writings: A Political
Reader, ed. and trans. G. Kuhn and preface by R. J. F. Day (Oakland, CA:
PM Press, 2010). For Rocker, see M. Vallance, ‘Rudolf Rocker—a
biographical sketch,’ Journal of Contemporary History, 8(3) (1973), pp.
75–95; M. Graur, An Anarchist ‘Rabbi’: The Life and Teachings of Rudolf
Rocker (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997). For London’s East End and
within the globalized cosmopolitan anarchist milieu of pre-1914, see B.
P. Gidley, ‘Citizenship and belonging: East London Jewish radicals
1903–1918,’ PhD thesis, Goldsmiths, University of London, 2003, and the
older study by Bill Fishman, W. J. Fishman, Jewish Radicals: From
Czarist Stetl to London Ghetto (London: Duckworth, 1974). For the global
Yiddish anarchist subculture before 1914, see F. Biagini, Nati altrove:
il movimento ebraico tra Mosca e New York (Pisa: Bibliotecs F.
Serantini, 1998); A. Bertolo (Ed.), L’anarchico e l’ebreo. Storia di un
incontro (Milan: Elèuthera, 2001); N. Sznaider, Jewish Memory and the
Cosmopolitan Memory (Cambridge: Polity, 2011).
[55]
P. Wirtén, ‘Free the Nation-Cosmopolitanism Now!,’ Eurozine, 22
November 2002, available at www.eurozine.com; M. Löwy, Rédemption et
Utopie: Le judaïsme libertaire en Europe centrale (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1988).
[56] Lunn, op. cit., Ref. 54, pp. 101–104, 243–244; C. Levy, ‘Max Weber,
anarchism and libertarian culture: personality and power politics,’ in
S. Whimster (Ed.) Max Weber and the Culture of Anarchy (Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1999), pp. 83–109.
[57]
P. Oriol, Bernard Lazare (Paris: Stock, 2003).
[58]
M. Graur, ‘Anarchy-nationalism: attitudes towards Jewish nationalism
and Zionism,’ Modern Judaism, 14(1) (1994), pp. 1–19; P.
Mendes-Flohr, ‘Nationalism as a spiritual sensibility: the
philosophical suppositions of Buber’s Hebrew humanism,’ Journal of
Religion, 69(2) (1989), pp. 155–168. Landauer’s approach also
influenced one of the founders of modern nationalism studies, Hans
Kohn, see K. Wolf, ‘Hans Kohn’s liberal nationalism: the historian
as prophet,’ Journal of the History of Ideas, 37(4) (1976), pp.
651–672. For the role of anarchism in the Kibbutz movement, see J.
Horrox, Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement
(Edinburgh: AK Press, 2009). For Israeli anarchists today and the
Israeli-Palestinian question, see U. Gordon, ‘Israeli anarchism:
statist dilemmas and the dynamics of joint struggle,’ Anarchist
Studies, 15(1) (2007), pp. 7–30.
[59] Chomsky discusses von Humboldt in American Power and The New
Mandarins (New York: Vintage, 1969).
[60]
R. Rocker, Nationalism and Culture (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1998
[1937]).
[61]
J. Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, 2^(nd) edn (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1993).
[62]
B. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and
Spread of Nationalism, rev. edn (London: Verso, 2006).
[63] Graur, op. cit., Ref. 54, pp. 190–191.
[64]
L. L. Zamenhof, An Attempt Toward an International Language (New York:
Henry Holt, 1889).
[65] Archibugi, op. cit., Ref. 3, pp. 260–262, 271–272.
[66]
C. Levy, Gramsci and the Anarchists (Oxford: Berg, 1999), pp. 99–102.
[67]
A. Carlucci, ‘The political implications of Antonio Gramsci’s journey
through languages, language issues and linguistic disciplines,’
Journal of Romance Studies, 9(1) (2009), pp. 27–46.
[68] Landauer, op. cit., Ref. 54, pp. 276–279 (‘Do Not Learn Esperanto!’
[1907]).
[69]
F. Lo Piparo, Lingua, intellettuali, egemonia in Gramsci (Bari:
Laterza, 1979).
[70]
P. Ives, Language and Hegemony in Gramsci (London: Pluto, 2004); P.
Ives, Gramsci’s Politics of Language: Engaging the Bakhtin Circle
and The Frankfurt School (Toronto: University of Toronto, 2004).
[71]
P. Ives, ‘Cosmopolitanism and global English: language politics in
globalisation debates,’ Political Studies, 58(3) (2010), pp.
516–535.
[72] From a quotation in Carter, op. cit., Ref. 23, p. 168.
[73] Graur, op. cit., Ref. 54, pp. 204–205.
[74] Holton, op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 210.
[75] Douzinas, op. cit., Ref. 17, pp. 133–176.
[76]
D. Inglis and R. Robertson, ‘Beyond the gates of the polis:
reconfiguring sociology’s ancient inheritance,’ Journal of Classical
Sociology, 4(2) (2004), pp. 165–189; D. Inglis and R. Robertson,
‘The ecumenical analytic: “globalization”, reflexivity and the
revolution in Greek historiography,’ European Journal of Social
Theory, 8(2) (2005), pp. 99–122.
[77]
N. Chomsky, The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo (London:
Pluto, 1999). In a different manner, Mark Mazower deconstructs the
imperial assumptions of the post-1945 human rights regime. See M.
Mazower, ‘The strange triumph of human rights, 1933–1950,’
Historical Journal, 47(2) (2004), pp. 377–393; M. Mazower, No
Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of
the United Nations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2009).
[78]
C. Calhoun, ‘The class consciousness of frequent travellers: towards a
critique of actually existing cosmopolitanism,’ in Vertovec and
Cohen, op. cit., Ref. 2, pp. 86–109.
[79]
R. Fine and R. Cohen, ‘Four cosmopolitan moments,’ in Vertovec and
Cohen, op. cit., Ref. 2, pp. 138–139; Douzinas, op. cit., Ref.
17, p. 153.
[80] Douzinas, ibid., p. 248.
[81] Quoted in Douzinas, ibid., p. 298.