Suchergebnisse

One is of the opinion that the concept cosmopolitanism, in order to be meaningful, has to be understood dialectically, that is, neither as a universal claim of normativity, nor as a particular collection of culturally destined norms & alternatives of action-- but rather as a field of tension between the universal & the particular. This dialectic cosmopolitanism is dealt with in this article in the same manner as Ulrich Beck & Edgar Grande used it in their works critiquing the so-called "methodological nationalism". The concept of cosmopolitanism has a number of references. It refers to the nature of human society its values & political & societal institutions. On the one hand man is independent of the moral, political & religious characteristics of a fundamental society, which gives him an identity. On the other hand to make this moral & cultural society concrete it needs to be institutionalized into a political form. Today the social & political conditions have changed so that one can either belong or not belong, can be included or not included. Therefore dialectic cosmopolitanism must be understood in this light of basically having a choice. References. S. Block