An Empirical World of Cosmopolitan Asia

Abstract

Cosmopolitan theory claims that cosmopolitans transcend the borders of national societies and actively embrace diversity, differences, and an all-inclusive society of strangers (Ossewaarde 2007: 367–88; Pichler 2009: 3–26). Cosmopolitan theory offers normative arguments and visions about cosmopolitan democracy (Held 1995), transnational discursive democracy (Dryzek 2006), and global governance on poverty (Pogge 2008). These normative theories of cosmopolitanism, despite vast differences, share the common features of what Delanty (2006a: 25–47) calls ‘critical cosmopolitanism’. Yet, as Pichler (2009: 3–26) argues, we know little about what cosmopolitans are like and what distinguishes them from non-cosmopolitans on empirical grounds. Moreover, normative cosmopolitan theories tend to be American or European-centric, suffering the problems of constituency, democratic scope, social prerequisites and practical institutionalization (Bray 2009: 683–719). These problems highlight the importance of a pragmatic cosmopolitanism which ought to be rooted in daily life. This calls for an empirical study of whether normative claims of cosmopolitan theory can be confirmed on empirical grounds not only in Europe (Pichler 2009: 3–26), but also in Asia. Moreover, cosmopolitanism has been developed in the disciplines of philosophy, international relations, political theory, and sociology. Today, area studies are increasingly becoming a testing ground in confirming or negating some claims made by cosmopolitan theorists. Asian studies are a valuable discipline for answering the following questions: Is cosmopolitanism merely a ‘Western’ product or a global one? Will the Asian story confirm the universal aspiration of cosmopolitanism?