Response to Chris Brown's Review of Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory
| Author | Richard Beardsworth |
| DOI | 10.3366/jipt.2012.0031 |
| Published date | 01 April 2012 |
| Date | 01 April 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Review Essays: Critical Engagement |
RESPONSE TO CHRIS BROWN’S REVIEW
OF COSMOPOLITANISM AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS THEORY
RICHARD BEARDSWORTH
Chris Brown admires my scholarly work, but thinks it too scholarly for the
challenges at hand. He considers the book limited in three respects: 1) I take
up schools of IR thought (realism, Marxism, postmodern IR thought) that are
marginal within the larger discipline of IR; 2) my reading of cosmopolitanism
is restricted to liberal academic readings and therefore ignores cosmopolitan
narratives at work in the real world (he chooses as his examples political
Islamism and neo-conservatism); and 3) I am, consequently, being too abstract
and ‘theory-centred’ to foster a practical internationalism. Before responding to
these criticisms, I make one quick comment. In my attempt to find a sophisticated
cosmopolitan liberal position that has purchase on the empirical world, I argue,
through readings and critiques, for the re-invention of democracy, differentiated
universalism, cosmopolitan political judgement, and an international thought of
the lesser violence. Brown’s review of my book does not mention one of these
arguments! I respond, then, with a sense that the conversation is a little askew.
1) I take on the schools of realism, Marxism and postmodern IR thought
because my purpose is to clear some theoretical air with regard to strong critiques
of universalism in world politics within particularist IR theories. I do not take
on liberal institutionalism because it is not particularist. Since my conclusions
take me to the need for cosmopolitan political judgement in the international
field, and since Brown is himself concerned with political judgement in the
paradoxical relations between universalism and particularism, I do not accept
that this theoretical work is unduly abstract. The goals of both my book and his
are to make arguments that allow for greater discrimination of cosmopolitan-
inspired judgement in the political field. I consider this a useful theoretical
exercise for students of IR. In defence of both my way of doing it and Brown’s,it
is important to work through abstractions, even if one may later jettison unduly
heavy theoretical baggage.
Journal of International Political Theory, 8(1–2) 2012, 116–117
DOI: 10.3366/jipt.2012.0031
© Edinburgh University Press 2012
www.eupjournals.com/jipt
116
To continue reading
Request your trial