Philosophies

Architecture + Philosophy research seminar, ResArc, Sweden

Conceptual Cluster: Cosmopolitanism and Cosmopolitics (own choice)

by idasandstrom

(http://philosophiesresarc.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/the-arrival.jpg)Illustration Arrival, by Shaun Tan

from

The

The concept of cosmopolitanism includes everyone who defines themselves as a citizen of the cosmos rather than of one particular state, religion, family or profession. The concept goes back to Kants idea of a cosmopolitan law (introduced in Perpetual Peace, 1795) based on the principle of universal hospitality. The cosmopolitical proposal , as presented by Isabelle Stengers denies any relationship with the Kantian notion of cosmopolitanism. She does not address a good common world, but seeks on the contrary to slow down the construction of the common, by creating a space for hesitation an interstice where concepts such as good and common can be examined and redefined. Stengers explains: The cosmos, as I hope to explain it, bears little relation to the world in which citizens of antiquity asserted themselves everywhere on their home ground or to an Earth finally united, in which everyone is a citizen. On the other hand, the cosmopolitical proposal may well have affinities with a conceptual character that philosopher Gilles Deleuze allowed to exist with a force that struck me: the idiot (Stengers 2005 p. 994). The idiot is a conceptual character borrowed by Deleuze from Dostoyevsky, describing someone who slows others down by resisting the consensual way in which a situation is presented and action is mobilized. He does so not because he believes the presentation to be false, but because he senses that there is something more important (Stengers 2005 p. 994). The idiot, who cannot discuss the situation, as he does not know himself what is more important, becomes in his inability to contribute to the solution a producer of interstice. The cosmopolitical proposal is

idiotic in so far as it addresses those who reject the consensual, without presenting an alternative. Where as advocates for a good common world take cosmopolitanism as a vehicle of tolerance, Stengers referes to cosmopolitics as the cure for what she calls the malady of tolerance (Stengers 1997 citied in Latour 2004 p. 454). Stengers constructs the concept of cosmopolitics by combining what Latour refers to as the strongest meaning of cosmos and the strongest meaning of politics (Latour 2004 p.454). Stengers refers to cosmos as the unknown constituted by these multiple divergent worlds and to the articulation of which they could eventually be capable (Stengers 2005 p. 995). The presence of cosmos in cosmopolitics resists the reduction of politics to mean only the transactions between humans. The presence of politics in cosmopolitics resists the tendency of cosmos to stop at a limited list of entities that must be taken into account, or in Latours words: Cosmos protects against the premature closure of politics , and politics against the premature closure of cosmos (Latour 2004 p. 454). Latour and Stengers both reject the idea of a common world already in existence. The question we must address is one of composition what world do we want to compose, and with what entities? The world is not naturally one, a common world if there will ever be one is something we will have to build, tooth and nail together. (Latour 2004 p. 455). Latours choice of words is an invitation to return to the realm of architecture. To what extent will an all-embracing design such as Superkilen (se previous post) contribute to construction of the common? If it is true, as declared by Latour, that we have to choose between cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitics, the spatial consequences cannot be ignored when advocating one over the other. Therefor the closing question becomes one of matter and intention; What spaces does the cosmopolitic proposal produce, and how do they differ from those produced by the cosmopolitan idea of one good common world? Readings: Hellstrm Reimer Maria, Incomplete geographies and Cosmopolitical Drifts Mobility and Migration in Tania Ruiz Gutierrez Elsewhere / Annorstders / Ailleurs (Draft 2013) Latour Bruno, Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck, in Common Knowledge 10:3 (2004) Latour Bruno, From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik, or How to Make Thing Public in Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour, Peter Weibel (2005) Stengers Isabelle, The Cosmopolitical Proposal in Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour, Peter Weibel (2005) PUBLISHED: March 11, 2013 (2013-03-11T14:49:52+0000) FILED UNDER: CONCEPTUAL CLUSTERS: relationality

4 Responses to Conceptual Cluster: Cosmopolitanism and Cosmopolitics (own choice)

What is Cosmopolitanism? | GeoFoodie says: March 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm [...] Conceptual Cluster: Cosmopolitanism

and

Cosmopolitics

(own

choice)

(philosophiesresarc.net) [...] Log in to Reply idasandstrom says: March 25, 2013 at 9:05 am Interesting! Thank you so much Megan Blake for addressing me to your article. I think it is a crucial point you make referring to Brenda Yeohs cosmopolitanism from below and the privilege of being located. I hope to follow your work on on Cosmopolitanism. LOG IN TO REPLY helenefrichot says: March 23, 2013 at 5:30 pm Ida, thanks for this really clear discussion of Stengers use of the term cosmopolitics. Her resistance toward consensual politics seems to suggest a difference approach to the other thinkers this group has touched upon, such as Mouffe and Rancire. She also draws attention to the etymology of the word idiot explaining that it can be linked to idiom that is, a circumscribed and situated language group. This makes me wonder whether a language group can also be described in terms of its shared set of practices, which are distinct from the other idioms surrounding themand Im assuming here we can as such speak of collective idiots in a non-derogatory way. I have to admit to a perverse fascination in the figure of the idiot, and also stupidity (which is a different, yet somehow related thing). It would be super if you could give the full reference to the Latour essay from 2004 (and watch out, its Isabelle, not Isabella). LOG IN TO REPLY idasandstrom says: March 25, 2013 at 9:16 am Thank you Hlne! In Stockholm you mention an article of yours touching upon stupidity (if I remember it right). If you want to share your work I would be interested to read it. LOG IN TO REPLY

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Customized Manifest by Jim Barraud. Follow

Follow Philosophies
Powered by WordPress.com