Tambakaki, Paulina (2009) Cosmopolitanism or agonism? Alternative visions of world order. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 12 (1). pp. 101-116. ISSN 1369-8230
Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698230902738619
In The divided west and in On the political Jrgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe transpose their political philosophies into the realm of contemporary international politics and put forward two different models for a more equitable order. Habermas defends a legal cosmopolitanism, while Mouffe supports a multipolar order which acknowledges the ever present possibility of conflicts and antagonisms. The paper examines the arguments which Habermas and Mouffe make in support of their models, identifies their differences and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. It argues that although Mouffe's idea of pluralising hegemony by constructing counter hegemonic projects is certainly, critically, more powerful than Habermas's legal cosmopolitanism, it stresses that Habermas's model is by no means without its merits. For it builds reconstructively on what is at hand, global institutions and international law. The problem, however, with Habermas' reconstructive project, argues the paper, is that it is heavily dependent upon philosophical presuppositions, which are convincingly exposed by Mouffe's understanding of the political.
|Research Community:||University of Westminster > Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages, School of|
|Deposited On:||05 May 2009 12:15|
|Last Modified:||05 May 2009 12:15|
Repository Staff Only: item control page