A Realistic Utopia? Nancy Fraser, Cosmopolitanism and the Making of a Just World Order
| Author | George Lawson |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00735.x |
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
A Realistic Utopia? Nancy Fraser,
Cosmopolitanism and the Making of
a Just World Order
George Lawson
London School of Economics and Political Science
Nearly two decades after the end of the ColdWar,academics, policy makers and commentators continue
to be puzzled by the shape, form and content of contemporary world politics. The fluidity of the
post-Cold War era has seen the elevation of largely functional explanations for why things are to a more
transcendent set of ideas about how social relations can be made afresh. This shift from ideology to utopia
is no idle problem,for what it tends to generate are images which often lie outside histor ical experience
and time and place specificities. This article is an attempt to provide a corrective to at least parts of this
malady by carrying out a Zeitdiagnose which questions some of the taken-for-granted assumptions about
the current period, in particular the schema offered by the prominent cosmopolitan thinker, Nancy
Fraser. The article looks in detail at the historical basis of Fraser’s current work, comparing it both to
similar visions prevalent in the inter-war years and to contemporary programmes based on the theory of
the democratic peace and the policy of democracy promotion. The article develops a construct – realistic
utopias – which aims to build from history to mid-range abstractions rather than from general abstractions
to events on the ground. As a result,it is argued, a more developed link can be made between theory and
practice, abstraction and history, normative project and institutional reality.
Beware the Utopians
Beware the utopians,zealous men cer tain of the path to the ideal social order (Ian
McEwan, Saturday, pp. 276–7).
Nearly two decades after the end of the ColdWar, academics,policy makers and
commentators continue to be puzzled by the shape, form and content of con-
temporary world politics.While the period immediately after the collapse of the
Soviet Union was met, for the most part, by triumphalist proclamations of the
‘end of history’ (Fukuyama, 1992), much political discourse during the 1990s
turned to more pessimistic, even apocalyptic,visions of ‘the clash of civilisations’
(Huntington, 1994),‘the coming anarchy’ (Kaplan, 1994) and the ‘new world
disorder’ (Anderson, 1992). It is these latter images which seem vindicated by
recent events – 9/11,the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the challenge posed by
a vicissitude of new security threats from airborne diseases that fail to recognise
borders to the sustained exploitation of the world’s natural resources.Despite this,
more optimistic voices continue to be heard:those who highlight the possibilities
of a new ‘global covenant’ fostered by social democracy (Archibugi et al., 1998;
Held, 2004; Jackson, 2003); those who focus on the growing significance of
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00735.x
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2008 VOL 56, 881–906
© 2008The Author.Jour nal compilation © 2008 Political StudiesAssociation
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and new social movements which band
together in an apparently burgeoning global civil society (Barber, 2004; Falk,
2004; Kaldor, 2003);those who exalt in the peace and prosperity generated by the
European Union as it expands to the east and south (Habermas, 2001;Leonard,
2005; Münkler, 2007; Rifkin, 2004); as well as those who support the broader
development of ‘governance without government’as represented by the spread of
international organisations and international regimes over increasing numbers of
issue areas and regions around the world (Rosenau and Czempiel, 1992; Shaw,
2000). So it is that lines are drawn, visions are polarised and debate commences.
Of course, if so many learned commentators are convinced that the current
historical period represents some kind of unique opening in which things are, at
least to some extent, ‘up for grabs’, then it is not unreasonable to assume that
something interesting is going on.But what? Is it the doomsayers or the romantics
who are generating the more compelling insights into the unsettled topography
of contemporary world politics? Perhaps unsurprisingly, the answer is neither.
More interestingly, it turns out that both groups are wrong for the same reason –
they are allowing the general fluidity of the post-Cold War era to cloud their
political judgement. In short, utopia is running ahead of reality. This is not
unusual – in periods of uncertainty, ideology often becomes elevated from a
broadly functional explanation for ‘why’things are to a more transcendent set of
ideas about ‘how’ social relations can be made afresh (Kumar, 1987;Mann, 1986;
Mannheim, 1960;Ricoeur, 1986). Yet the shift from ideology to utopia is no idle
problem,for what it tends to generate are images which often lie outside, beyond
or on top of history rather than visions which take their roots from what is
immanent within history. This article is an attempt to provide a corrective to at
least parts of this malady by carrying out a zeitdiagnose (diagnosis of our times)
which questions some of the taken-for-granted assumptions about the current
period, seeking to develop concrete abstractions which are grounded in ‘actually
existing’ conditions. The result is ‘realistic utopias’ which build from history to
mid-range abstractions rather than universal utopias which work from general
abstractions to events on the ground. This construct is,perhaps, more modest than
those offered by both utopians and dystopians alike. Indeed, it is an attempt to
steer,nudge and guide world historical processes rather than transform them from
some kind of tabula rasa (Wendt, 2001).
The starting point for this article is an engagement with the work of leading
cosmopolitan thinker, Nancy Fraser. Fraser’s schema,as outlined below,provides
a compelling framework for exploring the possibilities of cosmopolitanism in the
post-ColdWar world. But there is a fundamental problem in Fraser’s work which
risks doing harm to her general project. For if ideas of justice and progress are to
be rooted in actually existing historical conditions, then careful thought needs to
take place about what history is actually providing in terms of raw materials. For
those, like Fraser, who are committed to a critical, normative diagnosis of the
current conjuncture and who are engaged in transformative framing in which
882 GEORGE LAWSON
© 2008The Author.Jour nal compilation © 2008 Political StudiesAssociation
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2008, 56(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial