Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism?

This article discusses Hegel’s views on global politics by relating them to the ‘communitarianism versus cosmopolitanism’ debate. I distinguish between three different theoretical positions and three different readings of Hegel, which I associate with the notions of ‘communitarianism’, ‘strong cosmo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of international political theory 2014-10, Vol.10 (3), p.325-344
1. Verfasser: Burns, Tony
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 344
container_issue 3
container_start_page 325
container_title Journal of international political theory
container_volume 10
creator Burns, Tony
description This article discusses Hegel’s views on global politics by relating them to the ‘communitarianism versus cosmopolitanism’ debate. I distinguish between three different theoretical positions and three different readings of Hegel, which I associate with the notions of ‘communitarianism’, ‘strong cosmopolitanism’ and ‘weak cosmopolitanism’, respectively. Contrary to a commonly held view that Hegel is not a cosmopolitan thinker at all, in any sense of the term, I argue that he is best thought of as a weak cosmopolitan thinker rather than a communitarian or a strong cosmopolitan advocate of the idea of a world-state. In passing, the article refers to the relationship which exists between Hegel’s ideas and those of three twentieth-century theorists who might be associated with these theoretical positions and these different readings of Hegel, namely, Carl Schmitt, Alexandre Kojève and Jürgen Habermas. The article also refers to the methodological problems which are confronted by readers of Hegel’s writings who wish to apply his ideas to the problems of global politics today. Here I refer to a distinction which I have made elsewhere between different kinds of reading, namely the interpretation, appropriation and the reconstruction of texts, which is especially relevant for readers of the works of Hegel.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1755088214539409
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_1755088214539409</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1755088214539409</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_1755088214539409</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-1d84f97e5f58752a17e873fc58f9150a6d400c1ac15514f9454162ad9297650a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9LxDAQxYMouK7ePeYLVDNppkm8LFLUFRa86LnENClZ2mZJuge_vd0_J8HTDO_93jA8Qu6BPQBI-QgSkSnFQWCpBdMXZHGQCpCcX573g39NbnLeMlYJhWpBVmvXuZ6asaVdH79NT3exD1Ow-YnWcRj2Y5hMCmYMeaAxURvzEI_IUVrdkitv-uzuznNJvl5fPut1sfl4e6-fN4UteTkV0CrhtXToUUnkBqRTsvQWldeAzFStYMyCsYAIMylQQMVNq7mW1eyXS8JOd22KOSfnm10Kg0k_DbDmUEDzt4A5Upwi2XSu2cZ9GucP_-d_AQ3BWco</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism?</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Burns, Tony</creator><creatorcontrib>Burns, Tony</creatorcontrib><description>This article discusses Hegel’s views on global politics by relating them to the ‘communitarianism versus cosmopolitanism’ debate. I distinguish between three different theoretical positions and three different readings of Hegel, which I associate with the notions of ‘communitarianism’, ‘strong cosmopolitanism’ and ‘weak cosmopolitanism’, respectively. Contrary to a commonly held view that Hegel is not a cosmopolitan thinker at all, in any sense of the term, I argue that he is best thought of as a weak cosmopolitan thinker rather than a communitarian or a strong cosmopolitan advocate of the idea of a world-state. In passing, the article refers to the relationship which exists between Hegel’s ideas and those of three twentieth-century theorists who might be associated with these theoretical positions and these different readings of Hegel, namely, Carl Schmitt, Alexandre Kojève and Jürgen Habermas. The article also refers to the methodological problems which are confronted by readers of Hegel’s writings who wish to apply his ideas to the problems of global politics today. Here I refer to a distinction which I have made elsewhere between different kinds of reading, namely the interpretation, appropriation and the reconstruction of texts, which is especially relevant for readers of the works of Hegel.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-0882</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-1722</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1755088214539409</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Journal of international political theory, 2014-10, Vol.10 (3), p.325-344</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-1d84f97e5f58752a17e873fc58f9150a6d400c1ac15514f9454162ad9297650a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-1d84f97e5f58752a17e873fc58f9150a6d400c1ac15514f9454162ad9297650a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1755088214539409$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1755088214539409$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21799,27903,27904,43600,43601</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Burns, Tony</creatorcontrib><title>Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism?</title><title>Journal of international political theory</title><description>This article discusses Hegel’s views on global politics by relating them to the ‘communitarianism versus cosmopolitanism’ debate. I distinguish between three different theoretical positions and three different readings of Hegel, which I associate with the notions of ‘communitarianism’, ‘strong cosmopolitanism’ and ‘weak cosmopolitanism’, respectively. Contrary to a commonly held view that Hegel is not a cosmopolitan thinker at all, in any sense of the term, I argue that he is best thought of as a weak cosmopolitan thinker rather than a communitarian or a strong cosmopolitan advocate of the idea of a world-state. In passing, the article refers to the relationship which exists between Hegel’s ideas and those of three twentieth-century theorists who might be associated with these theoretical positions and these different readings of Hegel, namely, Carl Schmitt, Alexandre Kojève and Jürgen Habermas. The article also refers to the methodological problems which are confronted by readers of Hegel’s writings who wish to apply his ideas to the problems of global politics today. Here I refer to a distinction which I have made elsewhere between different kinds of reading, namely the interpretation, appropriation and the reconstruction of texts, which is especially relevant for readers of the works of Hegel.</description><issn>1755-0882</issn><issn>1755-1722</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE9LxDAQxYMouK7ePeYLVDNppkm8LFLUFRa86LnENClZ2mZJuge_vd0_J8HTDO_93jA8Qu6BPQBI-QgSkSnFQWCpBdMXZHGQCpCcX573g39NbnLeMlYJhWpBVmvXuZ6asaVdH79NT3exD1Ow-YnWcRj2Y5hMCmYMeaAxURvzEI_IUVrdkitv-uzuznNJvl5fPut1sfl4e6-fN4UteTkV0CrhtXToUUnkBqRTsvQWldeAzFStYMyCsYAIMylQQMVNq7mW1eyXS8JOd22KOSfnm10Kg0k_DbDmUEDzt4A5Upwi2XSu2cZ9GucP_-d_AQ3BWco</recordid><startdate>201410</startdate><enddate>201410</enddate><creator>Burns, Tony</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201410</creationdate><title>Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism?</title><author>Burns, Tony</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-1d84f97e5f58752a17e873fc58f9150a6d400c1ac15514f9454162ad9297650a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Burns, Tony</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of international political theory</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Burns, Tony</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of international political theory</jtitle><date>2014-10</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>325</spage><epage>344</epage><pages>325-344</pages><issn>1755-0882</issn><eissn>1755-1722</eissn><abstract>This article discusses Hegel’s views on global politics by relating them to the ‘communitarianism versus cosmopolitanism’ debate. I distinguish between three different theoretical positions and three different readings of Hegel, which I associate with the notions of ‘communitarianism’, ‘strong cosmopolitanism’ and ‘weak cosmopolitanism’, respectively. Contrary to a commonly held view that Hegel is not a cosmopolitan thinker at all, in any sense of the term, I argue that he is best thought of as a weak cosmopolitan thinker rather than a communitarian or a strong cosmopolitan advocate of the idea of a world-state. In passing, the article refers to the relationship which exists between Hegel’s ideas and those of three twentieth-century theorists who might be associated with these theoretical positions and these different readings of Hegel, namely, Carl Schmitt, Alexandre Kojève and Jürgen Habermas. The article also refers to the methodological problems which are confronted by readers of Hegel’s writings who wish to apply his ideas to the problems of global politics today. Here I refer to a distinction which I have made elsewhere between different kinds of reading, namely the interpretation, appropriation and the reconstruction of texts, which is especially relevant for readers of the works of Hegel.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1755088214539409</doi><tpages>20</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1755-0882
ispartof Journal of international political theory, 2014-10, Vol.10 (3), p.325-344
issn 1755-0882
1755-1722
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_1755088214539409
source SAGE Complete A-Z List; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T11%3A52%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Hegel%20and%20global%20politics:%20Communitarianism%20or%20cosmopolitanism?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20international%20political%20theory&rft.au=Burns,%20Tony&rft.date=2014-10&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=325&rft.epage=344&rft.pages=325-344&rft.issn=1755-0882&rft.eissn=1755-1722&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1755088214539409&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_1755088214539409%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1755088214539409&rfr_iscdi=true