Globalisation Flashcards
What is the core argument of Abizadeh’s article, “Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged Incoherence of Global Solidarity” ?
It argues against the idea that there needs to be an external other to form a collective identity, viewing this idea as a fallacy perpetuated by modern ideologies of sovereignty and nationhood.
One of the main arguments is the critique of the Particularist thesis. What is the Particularist thesis?
The particularist thesis is the idea that different groups, like cultures or nations, have their own unique identities and interests. These differences can often lead to conflict because they focus on what makes each group distinct, instead of trying to find common ground or universal ideas.
- A weaker version, which says that a group needs an “external other” to define itself.
- A stronger version, which argues that groups define themselves in opposition to a hostile “other.”
How does Abizadeh criticise the Particularist theory, in relation to the two versions of the particularist thesis?
Abizadeh argues against both versions of the theory stating that it overemphasises division and ignores the potential for cooperation.
What is the Fallacy of Composition?
Particularists assume what is true for individual identity (recognition of ourselves by others is true for collective identity (can receive recognition from its own members)
What is Hegel’s recognition theory?
Identity and self-consciousness develop through interaction with others who recognize us.
What is Taylor’s dialogical theory?
Human identity is formed in dialogue with others and through relationships. We don’t develop our sense of self in isolation; it’s shaped by the language, culture, and people around us.
What does Abizadeh argue about Hegel and Taylor’s theories in relation to collective identity formation?
Abizadeh argues that these arguments do not apply to collective identity formation. A collective identity can be formed through internal recognition among its members or dialogue within the group.
How does Abizadeh argue that particularist thesis is conceptually false?
The author provides a definition of a human “we” that doesn’t designate a human “them” to show that the conceptual argument for particularism is false. The author suggests that a universal human “we” might also include nonhuman entities, demonstrating that the particularist argument cannot be limited to human beings.
How does modern ideas of state sovereignty contribute to the idea of needing an ‘other’ to form a collective identity, according to Abizadeh?
According to Abizadeh, modern ideas of state sovereignty creates the belief that a state’s identity is only formed when another external state recognises it. He argues this is not conceptually necessary, just a consequence of historical events.
How does Abizadeh criticise Schmitt’s Political Enemy Argument?
Schmitt argues that politics is all about identifying an “enemy” to define your group (“friends”). Abizadeh argues, you don’t always need an external enemy (another state) to define political groups Political disagreements can happen within a group, like debates or opposition within a country.
What are the two justifcations Abizadeh uses to reject the idea that to exist as a political entity you need an adversary?
- Reification: People mistakenly treat the causes of conflict as if they are permanent or inevitable, which they aren’t.
- Derrida’s Influence: The idea of an “enemy” isn’t always a real, concrete thing—it could just be an internal disagreement or even a made-up idea of difference.
Does Abizadeh think a cosmopolitan identity is possible?
Yes, he argues that it’s possible to create a global human identity and a worldwide democratic order where everyone feels united, without needing an “us versus them” mindset.
He argues that there’s nothing in theory or philosophy (no “conceptual or metaphysical barriers”) that stops humanity from forming a shared, global identity.
