Fred Dallmayr

State of emergency

THE QUESTION concerning the condition and application of the contemporary State of Emergency is now at the centre of theoretical exploration across a range of specialities within the humanities and the critical social sciences, from sociology and political theory to literature, cultural, philosophical and international studies. The 14 articles written by highly distinguished contributors for this Special Section of Theory, Culture & Society on the State of Emergency are varied in their theoretical viewpoints, the cultural intentions behind their texts and in their social emphasis. The contributions are engaged with investigating questions such as the critical social significance of state and military institutions, with law and political order, the implications of terror and violence, and for whose political objectives the State of Emergency is planned. The orthodox modern State of Emergency was a situation, declared by the state, in which the strategies and tactics of the military were employed legally, typically because of a number of occurrences of civil disorder such as terrorism, the methodical use of carnage and coercion to attain political aims. Nazi Germany’s Decrees of 1933 are, for instance, a first-rate illustration of the modern State of Emergency. The 28 February Decree, for example, was one of the most oppressive acts of the new Nazi administration. It authorized the suspension of civil liberties in the wake of the fictitious crisis produced by the Nazis as a consequence of the fire that wrecked the Reichstag parliament building on the preceding day. Now, George W. Bush, the President of the United States, and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, have not, of course, formally affirmed a contemporary State of Emergency in their governments. Yet, in this Introduction, I shall argue that the Bush and Blair regimes are certainly beginning to lay the foundations for the state and purposes of a ‘hypermodern’ State of Emergency (Armitage,

Beyond Monologue: For a Comparative Political Theory

The essay advances a proposal that is addressed primarily to theorists, but with implications for the entire profession: the proposal to replace or supplement the rehearsal of routinized canons with a turn to global, cross-cultural (or “comparative”) political theorizing. I offer geopolitical and general intellectual reasons why the turn seems appropriate today, and I discuss a variety of theoretical or philosophical inspirations undergirding the turn. After highlighting some recent examples of comparative political theorizing, I conclude by responding to critical queries as well as indicating broader implications of the move “beyond monologue.” Fred Dallmayrs most recent publication is Dialogue among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices.

Cosmopolitanism Moral and Political

Barely a decade after the end of the Cold War, the fury of violence has been unleashed around the world, taking the form of terrorism, wars against terrorism, and genocidal mayhem. These developments stand in contrast to more hopeful legacies of the twentieth century: creation of the United Nations and adoption of international documents such as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” These legacies have encouraged a series of initiatives aiming at the formulation of a global or cosmopolitan ethics guiding the global community. The essay examines the promise and drawbacks of some of these initiatives. After reviewing proposals sponsored by Hans Kung and Martha Nussbaum, the essay turns to criticisms registering a perceived neglect of situated differences and motivational resources. To correct these deficits, the conclusion focuses on the political plane arguing that a viable global ethics needs to be anchored in, or supplemented by, a global political praxis.Barely a decade after the end of the Cold War, the fury of violence has been unleashed around the world, taking the form of terrorism, wars against terrorism, and genocidal mayhem. These developments stand in contrast to more hopeful legacies of the twentieth century: creation of the United Nations and adoption of international documents such as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” These legacies have encouraged a series of initiatives aiming at the formulation of a global or cosmopolitan ethics guiding the global community. The essay examines the promise and drawbacks of some of these initiatives. After reviewing proposals sponsored by Hans Küng and Martha Nussbaum, the essay turns to criticisms registering a perceived neglect of situated differences and motivational resources. To correct these deficits, the conclusion focuses on the political plane arguing that a viable global ethics needs to be anchored in, or supplemented by, a global political praxis.

Dialogue Among Civilizations

When asked about his view of Western civilization, the Mahatma Gandhi famously replied: “It would be a good idea.” His reply reminds us that “civilization” is not a secure possession but a fragile, ever-renewable endeavor; grammatically, it has the character more of a verb than a noun. This is particularly true of the emerging global or “world civilization”—what sometimes is called the nascent “cosmopolis.” Here again, caution is imperative. Anyone today who would claim to speak “in the name of” world civilization would be suspect (with good reason) of harboring hegemonic or imperialist designs. Contrary to the pretense of a facile cosmopolitanism, civilization in our time is what grammarians call a plurale tantum (meaning that it exists only in the plural)—notwithstanding the undeniable tightening of the network of global interactions. Hence, if there is to be a genuine civilizational encounter, participants have to proceed modestly and soberly: by taking their departure, at least initially, from their own distinct perspective or vantage point, that is, by remembering and bringing to bear their own cultural-historical “pre-judgments”—while simultaneously guarding against any form of cultural or ethnic self-enclosure.

Asian Values and Global Human Rights

’’Human rights’’ today has become a global agenda. While previously functioning as part of broader political ideologies (say, progressive liberalism), ‘‘human rights’’ in our time operates as an autonomous ideology or global program—equipped with its advocates and missionaries, and also its detractors. As history teaches, the status of missionaries is always ambivalent, because one can distinguish between the quality of the message and the role of the messenger. While the message may be intrinsically sound, the modus operandi of the messenger may be suspect or obnoxious. Thus, to take a very egregious example: the Christian gospel may announce ‘‘good news’’ to the world, but the manner in which Christianity was extended into the New World, by Spanish missionaries and soldiers, was surely bad news for the Indians. It is estimated that, in the course of less than a century, the European excursion into the Americas resulted in the deaths of some seventy million native inhabitants, victims of killing, starvation, and disease. 1 A later historical example is the spreading of French revolutionary ideas throughout Europe by Napoleon’s armies. If nothing else, historical examples of this kind are a summons to caution. In our time, advocates of human rights are typically (though not always) citizens and emissaries of the ‘‘West’’; and one does not have to be a student of Noam Chomsky in order to realize that the West today has amassed the most formidable arsenal of military, economic, and technological power—a fact that buttresses talk of global hegemony. In this situation the distinction between message and messenger becomes relevant again. On the whole, one would hope for fewer messengers who are zealots and for more self-critical, reflectively engaged individuals; differently phrased, one

Globalization and Inequality: A Plea for Global Justice

Our age is marked by two main trajectories: globalization and democratization–which are not readily compatible. While the move toward democracy requires a certain civic equality among all participants, globalization in its present form fosters or enhances social inequality. The paper concentrates on three main types of inequality: those of power, wealth and knowledge. In each of these domains the presentation follows a prominent mentor or set of mentors: in the first domain the political scientist Samuel Huntington; in the second the economist Amartya Sen; and in the last the philosophers Heidegger and Gadamer. By way of conclusion, the paper issues a plea for cosmopolitan or global democratic justice, as a counterpoise to prevailing modes of global inequality and inequity.

Introduction: Toward a Comparative Political Theory

This Special Issue is meant to inaugurate or help launch a field of inquiry which is either nonexistent or at most fledgling and embryonic in contemporary academia: the field of “comparative political theory” or “comparative political philosophy.” What is meant by these titles is an inquiry which, in a sustained fashion, reflects upon the status and meaning of political life no longer in a restricted geographical setting but in the global arena. The motivation behind this initiative is a transformation which profoundly shapes our waning century: the emergence of the “global village” involving the steadily intensifying interaction among previously (more or less) segregated civilizations or cultural zones. Although human lives everywhere are deeply affected today by the global forces of the market, technology, and the media, the implications of these changes have not yet fully penetrated into Western intellectual discourse. As practiced in most Western universities, the study of political theory or political philosophy revolves basically around the canon of Western political thought from Plato to Marx or Nietzsche—with occasional recent concessions to strands of feminism and multiculturalism as found in Western societies.

Lessons of September 11

September 11 is first of all a cause of mourning, both for the immediate victims and for the dismal condition of humanity. Seeking to derive lessons for the future, the article explores the implications of the events along three lines: for the United States; for the Muslim world; and for the international community. With regard to the United States, September 11 disclosed the vulnerability of the country in the midst of a relentlessly shrinking and interdependent world. This realization calls into question the deeply ingrained American preference for isolationism and/or unilateralism (that is, the preference for playing by no rules but ones own). With regard to the Muslim world, September 11 disclosed the lack of a viable political agenda (outside and apart from terrorism and the use/abuse of religion) - thus underscoring the need for a political reconstruction of the dar al-Islam. With regard to the international community, September 11 revealed the weakness of mediating institutions between hegemonic globalism and fragmented localism, hence counseling the building of regional institutions (after the model of the European Union).

Hermeneutics and inter-cultural dialog: linking theory and practice

Inter-cultural dialog is frequently treated as either unnecessary or else impossible. It is said to be unnecessary, because we all are the same or share the same ‘human nature’; it is claimed to be impossible because cultures seen as language games or forms or life are so different as to be radically incommensurable. The paper steers a course between absolute universalism and particularism by following the path of dialog and interrogation—where dialog does not mean empty chatter but the exploration of the ‘otherness’ of interlocutors on the far side of either assimilation or exclusion. Such dialog is the heart of hermeneutics as formulated by Hans-Georg Gadamer. The paper explores the question whether hermeneutical interpretation can be transferred from textual readings to the domain of cross-cultural encounters. After discussing both the historical development and the basic meaning of contemporary hermeneutics, the paper draws attention to the intimate linkage between interpretive understanding and ‘application’, or ‘practical philosophy.’ Drawing on the insights of Gadamer and some more overtly political thinkers, the paper then shows the relevance of hermeneutics for cross-cultural studies, as an antidote to the looming ‘clash of civilizations.’ It turns to some writings by Maurice Merleau-Ponty in order to emphasize the necessary linkage between interactive dialog and concrete embodied engagement. Undercutting purely mentalist or ‘idealist’ misconstruals of dialog, this linkage shows the mutual compatibility between Gadamerian hermeneutics and existential phenomenology.

Heidegger and Freud

The relation between Heidegger and psychology has long been a neglected theme. Outside narrowly professional circles — particularly the school of Daseinsanalyse inaugurated by Binswanger — the implications of Heidegger’s thought for psychology and psychotherapy have tended to be deemphasized if not entirely discounted. One reason for the neglect has been the scarcity of relevant source materials in this field. During the last few years this situation has dramatically changed, mainly due to the publication of the so-called (Zollikon Seminars Zollikoner Seminare) in 19870.1