Beyond understanding: Comparative political theory and cosmopolitan political thought, a research agenda
| Author | Richard Shapcott |
| DOI | 10.1177/1474885116653367 |
| Published date | 01 January 2020 |
| Date | 01 January 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
E J P T
European Journal of Political Theory
2020, Vol. 19(1) 106–127
! The Author(s) 2016
Beyond understanding:
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Comparative political theory
DOI: 10.1177/1474885116653367
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
and cosmopolitan political
thought, a research agenda
Richard Shapcott
University of Queensland, Australia
Abstract
This article sets out the case for a mutual cross-fertilisation of normative cosmopolitan
thought and the field of comparative political theory. Its argument is that both are useful
to the other if their primary claims are warranted. Comparative political theory needs
coherence about what distinguishes its enterprise and makes it truly comparative across
traditions and normative cosmopolitanism needs transcultural validation of its norma-
tive ideal of human community and moral universality. The cosmopolitan agenda explor-
ing comparative views of inclusion and exclusion and universality in the context of
a global harm principle provides the field in which the necessary cross fertilisation
can occur.
Keywords
Cosmopolitanism, comparative political theory, universalism, harm principle
Introduction
This article addresses two audiences which have to date been largely autonomous
of each other – normative cosmopolitan political theory and comparative political
theory (CPT).1 Recent interventions suggest that the study of CPT is moving into a
new phase characterised by a shift from ‘scholastic’ to engaged political theorising.
While passing no judgment on the scholastic approach, this article aims to make a
further engagement with the idea of a normatively engaged CPT. Normative
cosmopolitan theory is oriented towards a defense of the moral unity of human-
kind and exploration of the possible political expressions of that unity. CPT is
largely oriented towards an expansion of the canon of political theory to include
‘non’ Western sources, that is those outside the usual Western canon, in order to
more accurately reflect the diversity of political thought in the world, and provide
Corresponding author:
Richard Shapcott, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4070, Australia.
Email: r.shapcott@uq.edu.au
Shapcott
107
greater resources for political theorising in the age of globalisation. The compati-
bility of these two orientations seems obvious when juxtaposed in this way and yet,
to date, there has been little dialogue or engagement between the two (with one or
two exceptions discussed here). This article seeks to identify reasons for bringing
these two sub-disciplines together and to propose a research agenda under which
the encounter may proceed. The intention is not to subsume the two branches into
one but to investigate the benefits of cross-fertilisation between them.
The argument is twofold: first, that CPT can meet the challenge posed by
Andrew March’s (2009) recent call for an engaged CPT enquiring into deep
value conflict by addressing an agenda developed by normative cosmopolitan pol-
itical theory; second, that normative cosmopolitanism requires the resources of
CPT in order to further its defense of cosmopolitan universalism. The argument
below sets out a cosmopolitan research agenda that focuses on the issue of inclu-
sion and exclusion from the realm of moral considerability, primarily in relation to
the scope of permissible harms (Linklater, 1990a, 2011). Harnessing CPT to this
normative cosmopolitan agenda can provide the focus for its engaged comparative
endeavors.
The article first discusses March’s argument for an engaged comparative polit-
ical theory. It argues that normative cosmopolitan political theory is a natural fit
for CPT that fits March’s criteria. On the other hand given its aspirations for moral
universalism, a viable normative cosmopolitan political theory necessarily requires
an engagement with a ‘world’s worth’ of political thought beyond the Western
canon. It then discusses CPT’s criticisms and conceptualisation of cosmopolitanism
as found in the work of Dallmayr and Godrej (2011). It argues that CPT can do
more than problematise cosmopolitan universalism as they imply. The second half
of the article demonstrates how cosmopolitanism provides a lens through which to
engage in CPT by pursuing the question of how different thinkers and traditions of
thought conceptualise and approach issues of inclusion and exclusion, and speci-
fically the question of the moral standing of human beings. This research agenda
requires the hermeneutic expertise and sensibility of CPT.2
What is CPT and what is it for?
CPT is a relatively recent development that seeks to expand the range of political
theorising in ‘the West’ beyond traditional European sources and to systematically
include non-Western political thought.3 CPT thinkers share the concern that lib-
eralism in particular and the Western canon in general suffer from a Eurocentrism
that is no longer, if it ever was, justified by the conditions of modern life and
thought. Thus Dallmayr, the founding figure and champion of CPT, argues con-
temporary global heterogeneity calls for an enquiry into the possible decentering of
Western and especially liberal thought via an investigation into non-Western pol-
itical thought (Dallmayr, 2004, 2010, 2014). If there is any normative commonality
amongst the practitioners of CPT it is close to the view that we live ‘after Babel’,
after the scattering of languages and peoples (Dallmayr, 2013: 48), and this ‘after’
should be reflected in political theory. In particular, they wish to challenge the
108
European Journal of Political Theory 19(1)
assumption that the Western canon is the only source of political wisdom and
should define the terms of reflection in political theory. The observation means
that political theorising has to take seriously the diversity and multiplicity of lan-
guages, customs and cultural traditions that make up contemporary political com-
munities domestically and globally.
In a provocative intervention, March (2009) criticised CPT on the grounds that
it has not given a sufficient methodological justification for comparative engage-
ment as a distinct approach. March’s argument is that CPT can and does have a
specific warrant but one that goes beyond much of what characterises it currently.
The focus of March’s critique is the identification of a dilemma facing CPT:
It wants to be relevant, which it achieves by directing itself to important normative
disputes. But when the task is bringing to light poorly understood moral perspectives
on normative disputes that oppose dominant Western views (such as Islamic funda-
mentalist or East Asian communitarian discourses), comparative political theory is
often not quite sure what to say. . . . After describing the contours of the differences
between certain Western views and certain non-Western views and noting that one
cannot assume the non-Western ones to be misguided, reactionary, or stagnant, com-
parative political theory often does not know where to go with its dialogue (March,
2009: 551).
The implication is that CPT approaches its task as simply to contrast and inform
and not to engage in substantive cross-cultural evaluation. In doing so it shies away
from one of the tasks of normative political theory, the assessment, evaluation and
advocacy of normative solutions to questions of political importance. In the face of
this dilemma, March argues that CPT’s distinct justification can be found in the
identification of points of ‘principle value – conflict between more or less autono-
mous moral doctrines’ (2009: 555). CPT should apply its knowledge and expertise
in understanding different cultures and traditions to the identification and evalu-
ation of points of contestation between different traditions. More specifically CPT
should undertake ‘the first-order evaluation of the implication of the contestations
of norms, values and principles between distinct and coherent doctrines of thought’
(March, 2009: 560). Comparative political theory is also to be conceived of as
‘‘justificatory’’ comparative political theory’ (2009: 562–563), engaged in enquiry
into how different traditions justify different principles. This engagement necessar-
ily requires investigating and comparing different justificatory strategies and not
just pragmatic areas of consensus. CPT, as suggested by March, would be con-
cerned with whether and how such fundamental doctrines or justificatory strategies
may or may not limit the capacities of practical consensus. According to March,
CPT can pay attention to the value conflict arising from fundamentally different
modes of justification, what we might call basic conflict over how arguments are
made and justified and to whom. He suggests that conflict arises between not just
substantive principles or values but between different modes of justification, in
particular the difference between religious and non-religious sources. In this
view, value conflict arises because what counts as a justifiable reason in one view
Shapcott
109
may not count as such in another since its basis of justification is not shared. Thus,
conflict could arise between secularists and Christians over the status of abortion or
gay marriage. This example presents a clear case for comparative political theory
because the two modes of argument are based on fundamentally different and
incompatible sources of authority. Justificatory comparison is necessary both in
understanding others but also in ascertaining what types of...
To continue reading
Request your trial