United in Discontent

Local Responses to Cosmopolitanism and Globalization

Dimitrios Theodossopoulos, Elisabeth Kirtsoglou, Dimitrios Theodossopoulos, Elisabeth Kirtsoglou

• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781845459659
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Globalización

Cosmopolitanism is often discussed in a critical and disapproving manner: as a concept complicit with the interests of the powerful, or as a notion related to Western political supremacy, the ills of globalization, inequality, and capitalist economic penetration. Seen as the moral justification for embracing or tolerating cultural difference, ethnically and socially diverse communities unenthusiastic with change, develop an acknowledgement of their common position vis-à-vis a western, "universal" political point of view. By means of exploring the idiosyncratic form of political intimacy generated by anti-cosmopolitanism, and assuming an analytical and critical stance towards the concepts of parochialism and localism, this volume examines the political consciousness of such negatively predisposed actors, and it attempts to explain their reservation towards the sincerity of international politics, their reliance on conspiracy theories or nationalist narratives, their introversion.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: UNITED IN DISCONTENT

Dimitrios Theodossopoulos

In the minds of most people who do not profess to be specialists in academic epistemology, globalization – like the concept ‘society’ – has been broadly discussed as a reified entity: as a super-organic creature that grows and expands (often in an insatiable manner); one that is hungry and very much alive; and, more conveniently, one that can be addressed in local conversation, criticized, condemned and convicted as the guilty party responsible for global disparity and injustice. This lay ‘organic analogy’ – the conceptualization of globalization as a living thing – allows us to confront the monster face to face,¹ to give it an identity, treat it in metaphorical terms and thus ‘move it about affectively by adornment and disparagement’ (Fernandez 1986: 39). The scary creature we call globalization is out there, as many among us can testify; it is real and it is substantial. We can follow in its footsteps with caution, take advantage of it or prepare ourselves (and our arguments) for the inevitable confrontation. In daily life, the popular metaphor of a living, organic globalization facilitates a tangible conceptualization of the term and, simultaneously, its own critique.

And so everyday discourse tackles large-scale political experiences in concrete terms: the super-organism called globalization has been growing very quickly, taking up too much space, penetrating too many domains of everyday life. Such an unprecedented growth of this phenomenon has brought about an explosion of complaints. It has also facilitated the emergence of a new global awareness, which in many cases has given birth to discontent with the world order and inspired a new ideological orientation, often referred to as anti-globalization. What is very interesting to note here is that those feeling discontented often use the very technologies of globalization to pursue their critique. Inspired by new global possibilities, they imagine themselves as part of a much broader community in discontent. And, as anti-globalization becomes global, a number of related processes, such as westernisation, commoditisation, and the predominance of a neoliberal cosmopolitan ethos, are debated in everyday contexts, and are subsequently tolerated, resisted or rejected.

These observations bring us closer to the very subject matter of this volume: that of growing discontent with homogenizing global processes, and the scores of complaints from local actors displeased with international politics who turn against the global order (to which they refer in a generalizing manner as ‘globalization’) and its perceived representatives (national or international elites, endorsing a neoliberal, cosmopolitan political orientation). We are also concerned in this volume with the mutual sympathies generated by diverse versions of anti-globalization, the counter-cosmopolitanism defined in opposition to cosmopolitan elites and the imagination of a worldwide anti-global community in discontent. We investigate these expressions of local disapproval as they emerge in particular contexts, in ‘culturally occupied locales’ (Comaroff and Comaroff 2001: 14), in the words of situated actors who share some awareness of their peripheral positions but voice their complaints with confidence, resentment or indignation. Their critical discourse is mostly unofficial, not very systematic or articulate, but in all cases meaningful within its own cultural specificity.

In this introduction and the chapters that follow, we explore these local and peripherally positioned sets of meaningfulness, compelled to pay serious attention to their complexity. But, before we start this journey, I would like first to clarify our use of two terms that appear in the title of this book – globalization and cosmopolitanism.

Globalization is an ill-defined notion, too vague and too generalizing to convey the intricacies and local specificity of global processes. Other anthropologists use more flexible terms, such as ‘transnational flows’ (Eriksen 2003) or ‘a world of flows’ (Appadurai 1996, 2001), or prefer to highlight how globalization continuously unfolds as an ongoing process (Lewellen 2002). The flows in circulation involve goods, technologies, ideas, people and economic capital moving in all directions, and – as Inda and Rosaldo (2002) stress – not merely from the West to the rest, but also between peripheral destinations. I see some advantages in the broad, all-purpose conceptualization of globalization: its semantic vagueness and all-inclusiveness encapsulates very accurately the dynamic of local complaints against global processes. Globalization here could be regarded as responsible for all kinds of disaffections with the world order; it is easily transformed into a category of blame, one that is more effective when it is deliberately maintained as all-encompassing and ill-defined as possible. As we shall see in the ethnographic cases presented in this volume, local critiques of globalization exploit this semantic imprecision to its limits.

Cosmopolitanism, too, encapsulates different and contradictory political positions, attitudes and involvements (see Werbner 2006). Those who practise it are not necessarily the same as those who preach it or those who are labelled ‘cosmopolitans’ (Werbner 1999; Vertovec and Cohen 2002: 5). And those who resist it, the ‘counter-cosmopolitans’ (Appiah 2007), often advocate their opposition in terms of alternative, but equally cosmopolitan, visions; they frequently treat cosmopolitanism as a condition comparable to globalization, associated with the emergence of a global, rootless culture and mass consumerism (see Vertovec and Cohen 2002: 9–10). While some can view cosmopolitanism as ‘an emancipatory project’, offering liberation from ‘the collective and the categorical’ (Rapport 2006, 2007: 225), others feel threatened by its transformative potential or detest those who are trying to enforce it. I argue here that cosmopolitanism can be realized both through ‘living together with difference’ (Werbner 2008: 2) and also while consuming it, sometimes in a top-down manner (Hannerz 2004), without really establishing roots or sharing a commitment. As with globalization, the all-inclusiveness of the term inspires critical remarks, arguments and resistance. Once more, local critics make full use of the uncertainty surrounding cosmopolitanism’s definition and turn it to their advantage. In this volume, we are particularly interested in this flexible and vague local use of the term, which is stretched beyond its refined academic treatment.

In local conversation, globalization is often closely associated with westernization and neoliberalism (Eriksen 2003), and cosmopolitanism with global governance (Hannerz 2004). These associations capture the imagination of local critics, who make the most of the broad semantic possibilities provided by these two terms and chart their ideological and political subversion, that is, anti-globalization and counter-cosmopolitanism. The authors of this process, the everyday life critics of politics and power, benefit from the wider global awareness that is fostered by globalization and cosmopolitanism themselves; and so do their ensuing critiques. In their interpretations of injustice and inequality in the world, local critics set the parameters for imagining a broader community of many others who feel the same kind of discontent.

Imagining a Community in Discontent

An emancipatory force in globalization, argues Arjun Appadurai (1996, 2001), is the work of imagination in social life. Appadurai extends Benedict Anderson’s (1983) notion of the ‘imagined community’ to one that encompass the challenges and the abundance of information made available by an increasingly globalized world. He talks about ‘imagined worlds’ – a level of imagining more global than ‘imagined communities’ – which result from a variety of historically constituted imaginations. Some (more particular) imagined worlds are set in opposition ‘to the imagined worlds of the official mind and the entrepreneurial mentality that surrounds them’ (Appadurai 1996: 33); such are the imagined worlds of our anthropological respondents in this volume, those discontented with the global status quo, those who are simply critically predisposed and those who wish to subvert other, more established, imagined worlds perceived as powerful, unjust and imposed from the outside or from above.

In the same manner that the citizens of the nation imagine many others like them sharing similar cultural ideals – a process described by Anderson (1983) – the disenfranchised around the globe sometimes imagine themselves as parts of a larger community in discontent. They imagine that they share their unhappiness about contemporary global politics with other individuals in the world who are equally dissatisfied with the dominant Western civilization order or its neoliberal cosmopolitan representatives. And they visualize those sympathizers as inhabiting their very own or parallel (but comparable) communities of discontent. This is how sometimes symbolic alliances are redrawn between groups that are culturally diverse or separated by previous disagreements and ideological polarities.

It is in this respect that the imagined community of the discontented is paradoxically globalized in its own imagination. It is in fact the growth of the opportunities provided by globalization that has engendered the possibility for its own critique: along with cosmopolitan awareness comes the imagination of a world that does not comply with the established parameters of the existing global order. A growing global awareness, here, sustains an intensification of global discontent and its multiple – but increasingly interconnected, reciprocally encouraged – expressions. The very technologies that have facilitated the global flow of ideas also provide the inspiration for conceiving and articulating an anti-globalization critique at the global scale. Within this critique the partnership of those in discontent slowly emerges as a growing community with its own worldwide consciousness, an ‘imagined world’ in Appadurai’s words.

We have so far stressed the link between an increasing global awareness and an increasing global discontent, but we do not, by any means, suggest that a unified, homogenizing process is at play here. Critical stances on globalization in principle object to homogenization. They emerge from culturally specific understandings of global processes – local versions of global awareness – and represent the views of communities that imagine the world differently. Disenfranchised actors around the world prefer to imagine global discontent in locally meaningful terms. And their imagination – inspired by local histories and the politics of everyday life – matters. Imagination in the globalized world is no longer the prerogative of leaders, artists, elite cosmopolitans or ritual practitioners, explains Appadurai; it is a social process at the hands of ordinary people (Appadurai 1996: 5, 31).

With his appreciation of imagination as a social practice, Appadurai (1996), more than any other theorist of globalization, has facilitated our conceptualization of the community of the discontented. But, despite the insightfulness of his approach, I feel compelled to depart from it in two critical respects. The first regards Appadurai’s focus on the various ‘landscapes’ of globalization – ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, ideoscapes – which I see as redirecting analytical attention to surface phenomena. Like other examples of theorizing in terms of landscapes (see Abramson 2000), the risk here lies with taking too lightly those deeply embedded relationships of power. Dwelling too much on the landscapes of global disjuncture can have such unwelcome consequences. As Lewellen pinpoints, Appadurai’s emphasis on fragmentation miscalculates the intricate connections between various fragmented parts: ‘what appears on the surface as disorganisation, disjuncture, fragmentation, and postmodern chaos is really quite systematic if we take the time to understand the larger system’ (Lewellen 2002: 98; see also Friedman 1994: 211).

My second point of departure concerns Appadurai’s view that globalization does not encourage its own criticism (Appadurai 2001: 4). This Appadurai attributes to ‘a growing disjuncture between the globalization of knowledge and the knowledge of globalization’ (Appadurai 2001: 4, 14). I am inclined to agree that globalization as a primarily apolitical flow of ideas and goods does not directly promote an awareness of global power and inequality. But at the same time it is not difficult to see that some of the ideas in circulation might have political consequences when they reach certain widely distributed audiences. As I have explained already, it is the global awareness promoted by globalization that has inspired the imagining of resisting communities and has enabled the spread of anti-globalization. In other words, despite the denial of political responsibility by the technologies that sustain the global flow, the knowledge in circulation and the mechanisms of circulation make possible the development of unexpected (and potentially anti-hegemonic and anti-homogenizing) political orientations (see Gledhill, this volume).

Cosmopolitan Counter-cosmopolitans

It is in the very nature of globalization that the complaints against it often assume global proportions. With the breaking down of communication barriers, Gledhill observes, global inequalities become visible enough to inspire transnational networks both between North and South, and between different communities in the South (2004: 343–44). But Gledhill also points to a second parallel possibility: soon after their birth, the networks assisted by the technologies of globalization become subject to recolonization by ‘the agencies of neoliberal global governmentality’ (ibid.: 344). In these paradoxical circumstances, which give rise not only to the critique but also to the proliferation of neoliberal capitalism, ethnically and socially diverse communities, unhappy with the dominant cosmopolitics, develop an acknowledgement of their common position vis-à-vis a Western, ‘universalist’ point of view. Their discontent gives rise to a silent recognition of other peripheral people’s introversion and closure, an acknowledgement of the universal community of those feeling discontented.

The recognition of parallel grounds for dissatisfaction among the universal community of the disenfranchised entails a degree of appreciation or respect for other cultures, an appreciation that can potentially develop out of the same political predicament, a shared sense of being dispossessed. In this type of anti-cosmopolitanism we can observe a certain degree of cosmopolitan empathy.

Hannerz (2004) has identified two faces of cosmopolitanism: its aesthetic, intellectual, consumerist dimension (a cosmopolitanism with a happy face); and its critical, political dimension (a cosmopolitanism with a worried face). The ethnographic cases presented in this volume testify that political cosmopolitanism is often seriously concerned with its counterpart, the aesthetic and consumerist cosmopolitanism. Peripheral actors in discontent target in their critique the neoliberal, global face of cosmopolitanism (its happy, apolitical face). And, along with this they attack older and recent cosmopolitan elites, those who are perceived to benefit from its commoditized artefacts, able to afford its acquired tastes, travel and consume other cultures (see also Hannerz 2004; Vertovec and Cohen 2002). Suspected of collaboration with established hierarchies of power, consumerist cosmopolitanism and the consuming cosmopolitan elites both become subjected to the critical scrutiny of political cosmopolitanism.

Appiah (2007) starts his chapter on ‘the counter-cosmopolitans’ with a portrait of a new (but somewhat unfamiliar to the Western audience) global community: They are young, he writes, and use the Internet; they resist Western consumerism, nationalism and traditional local allegiances; they aspire to make the world a better place; but, as Appiah explains, they are not the heirs of Cynic philosophy but members of the Ummah, the community of the faithful. ‘They are young, global Muslim fundamentalists’ (Appiah 2007: 138), some of them American, others children of Algerian immigrants in France, and most of them communicate with their global comrades in English. Like Christian fundamentalists, with whom they share the same anti-cosmopolitan world view, they do not plan to kill anybody or participate in any terrorist act (Appiah 2007: 137–40). They are first and foremost dissatisfied with the predominance of a Western, cosmopolitan ethos in the global world.

The community of young, Muslim, transnational counter-cosmopolitans, sketched by Appiah, represents a more privileged – paradoxically cosmopolitan – orientation of discontent in the Islamic world. Other, more ordinary, everyday actors in Indonesia, whose lives and mundane responsibilities confine them to well-circumscribed local contexts, share, when the opportunity permits, some similar worries. When they do find the time, they read Sabili, a widely circulated, fortnightly magazine, authored by the supporters of a Muslim political party (see Watson, this volume). Sabili contains articles with strong anti-Western views, which include a variety of recurring topics, such as the dangers posed by westernization, the consequences of Western intervention in Iraq, and the threat of Zionism or Christian missionary activity for the Muslim world.

The authors of Sabili, like Appiah’s counter-cosmopolitans, have a strong awareness of the links (and IT networks) uniting Muslim communities at the global level...