ABSTRACT
In view of the many pressing problems facing humanity in the new century, the idea of cosmopolitanism seems to have a higher relevance and greater urgency than ever before. In reality however, present-day world society is far removed from a cosmopolis. Both on the level of individual orientations and on the level of worldwide institutional structures, global developments point as much to the dominance of disrupting economic forces and to the increasing political significance of national, religious, and ethnic conflicts, as to a political framework and economic practices which are oriented toward a cosmopolitan ethos and more just world-society. As Jürgen Habermas, one of the staunch defenders of the project of a cosmopolitan world society, says: “It is an open question whether we will succeed in overcoming the atavistic condition of the social-Darwinist ‘catch as catch can,’ still dominant today in international relations, to the point at which capitalism, globally unleashed and run wild, can be tamed and channeled in socially acceptable ways” (Habermas and Mendieta 2007). The urgency to address this question is enhanced by the fact that in our times the development of a cosmo-political world-society not only asks for “socially acceptable” but also for “ecologically acceptable,” sustainable relations. In view of this tension between the great relevance and urgency of a cosmopolitan ethos on the one hand and the worrisome practical situation of our planet and its inhabitants on the other hand, it seems that the cosmopolitan project is in need of new horizons of inspiration. In search for such a horizon, we will focus on the relation between humanism and cosmopolitanism, more in particular on the consequences for the cosmopolitan project of what we have termed the “humanist myopia.” This nearsightedness springs from the belief that “deep down” all human beings are oriented primarily toward benevolent, empathic, and dialogical forms of bonding with others. This leads to a systematic neglect of the propensities and capabilities of human beings for indifferent, malevolent, and violent forms of relating to others. Moreover this myopia is connected with a view on politics as a dialogical and deliberative endeavor and with a perspective on science and
technology as neutral and objective resources, thus neglecting the crucial function fulfilled by political institutions and technological practices in organizing and legitimating networks of economic exploitation and political subjugation.
