Abstract
Here, instead of returning to the debate on “methodological nationalism” in order to understand the importance of transnational modes of action in our contemporary world, the focus would rather be on “methodological cosmopolitanism”, which is linked to two notions: transnationalism and relations with the Other. The context which enables, but at the same time constrains, the discourses and actions of confessional actors will be analysed in order to understand how it influences religious transnationalism. If religious actors give climate change a priority in their actions, it is because of poverty. The protection of the poor and the most vulnerable is central in religious actors’ climate action and central in development policies mentioned in the Paris Agreement. All religions share this concern for the poor, and therefore this will lead them to share a common space of action to achieve climate justice. The question of poverty, social justice and development offered a common transnational platform to reinforce interfaith dialogue and will be discussed in this chapter through the perspective of international political sociology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
U. Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2006.
- 2.
Joshua S. Goldstein & Jon C. Pevehouse, International Relations, Boston, Pearson, 2013, pp. 425–426.
- 3.
- 4.
J. A. Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction, Londres, Macmillan, 2000, p. 40.
- 5.
According to Jan N. Pieterse, “Nowadays Globalization Is the Circumstance and Cosmopolitanism Is the Ethos”; Jan Nederveen Pieterse, “Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism: Towards an Agenda”, Development and Change, 37 (6), 2006, pp. 1247–1257.
- 6.
Timothy Samuel Shah, Alfred Stepan, & Monica Duffy Toft, Rethinking Religion and World Affairs, New York, Open University Press, 2012; Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, The Politics of Secularism in International Relations, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2008.
- 7.
Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), 1993, pp. 22–49; S. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, 1996. For a critical analysis of culturalist theories on religion and Islam especially, see among other, J.-L Esposito, The Islamic threat: Myth or Reality?, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.
- 8.
Cecelia Lynch, “A Neo-Weberian Approach to Religion in International Relations”, International Theory, 1 (3), 2009, pp. 381–408; T. B. Schwarz & C. Lynch, Religion in International Relations, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2016.
- 9.
F. Kratochwil, “Religion and (Inter-)national Politics: On the Heuristics of Identities, Structures, and Agents”, Alternatives, 30 (2), 2005, pp. 113–140.
- 10.
This requires us to think about international relations in the light of different theoretical currents in international relations (constructivism and critical theories, for example) and different disciplines in the humanities, including political philosophy.
- 11.
Arjun Appadurai, “The Production of Locality”, in R. Fardon (ed.), Counterworks: Managing the Diversity of Knowledge, London, Routledge, 1995, pp. 204–225.
- 12.
S. Khagram & P. Levitt (eds.), The Transnational Studies Reader. Intersections & Innovations, New York, Routledge, 2008.
- 13.
Ulrich Beck, “The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity”, in S. Khagram & P. Levitt (eds.), The Transnational Studies Reader …, op. cit., pp. 222–230.
- 14.
In her book “Artifacts and Allegiances. How Museums put the Nation and the World on display”, Peggy Levitt suggests museums might play a part in creating a cosmopolitan citizen. P. Levitt‚ Artifacts and Allegiances. How Museums put the Nation and the World on Display, Oakland, University of California Press, 2015.
- 15.
- 16.
For Nina Glick Schiller: “The actors in a transnational social field are not necessarily migrants or mobile individuals (…). The concept draws attention to the processes that develop and maintain networks of social relations across borders as part of the everyday life of the members of the network”. N. Glick Schiller, “The Transnational Migration Paradigm: Global Perspectives on Migration Research”, in D. Halm & Z. Sezgin (eds.), Migration and Organized Civil Society, London, Routledge, 2013 p. 26; See also Peggy Levitt and Nina Glick Schiller, “Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social Field Perspective on Society”, The International Migration Review, 38 (3), 2004, pp. 1002–1039. In the same way, the authors stress the importance of simultaneity: “Simultaneity, or living lives that incorporate daily activities, routines, and institutions located both in a destination country and transnationally, is a possibility that needs to be theorized and explored”, p. 1003.
- 17.
N. Glick Schiller, “Transnational Social Fields and Imperialism: Bringing a Theory of Power to Transnational Studies”, Anthropological Theory, 5 (4), 2005, pp. 439–461; V. Roudometof, “Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism, and Glocalization”; P. Bourdieu, «Genèse et structure du champ religieux», Revue française de sociologie, 12 (3), juillet-septembre 1971, pp. 295–334.
- 18.
F. Kratochwil, “Religion and (Inter-)national Politics: On the Heuristics of Identities, Structures, and Agents”, Alternatives, 30 (2), 2005, pp. 113–140.
- 19.
Mike Featherstone, “Cosmopolis: An Introduction”, Theory, Culture, and Society, 19 (1–2), 2002, pp. 1–16.
- 20.
Kant believed cosmopolitism guaranteed “permanent peace”.
- 21.
David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1995.
- 22.
U. Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2006, p. 10.
- 23.
Muriel Rouyer, Catherine de Wrangel, Emmanuelle Bousquet and Stefania Cubeddu (eds.), Regards sur le cosmopolitisme européen - Frontières et identités, Brussels, Peter Lang, 2011; Vincenzo Cicchelli & G. Truc (eds.), “De la mondialisation au cosmopolitisme”, Problèmes politiques et sociaux, n° 986–987, July–August 2011.
- 24.
Anthony Appiah, Kwame, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, New York, W. W. Norton, 2006.
- 25.
Michel Certeau (de), L’invention du quotidien. 1-Arts de faire, Paris, Gallimard, 1990.
- 26.
Vincenzo Cicchelli, Sylvie Octobre, “Pour une approche cosmopolite de la globalization”,Sociétés Plurielles, Presses de l’INALCO, 2018, Épistémologies du pluriel (hal-01692718), p. 3. See also Pieterse (2006).
- 27.
Thomas Lindemann and Julie Saada, «Théories de la reconnaissance dans les relations internationales», Cultures & Conflits, 87, 2012, 7–25; P. Hayden & K. Schick (eds.), Recognition and Global Politics. Critical Encounters Between State and World, Manchester University Press, 2016.
- 28.
Ulrich Beck, “The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies”, Theory, Culture and Society, 19 (1–2), 2002, pp. 17–44; U. Beck, “The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity”, British Journal of Sociology, 51 (1), 2008, pp. 79–105.
- 29.
U. Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2006.
- 30.
- 31.
J. Fahy & J. Haynes (eds.), Special issue “Interfaith on the World Stage”, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 16, 2018.
- 32.
As underlined by Victor Roudometof: «(…) attachment to locality is consequential in terms of openness towards outsiders» (Roudemetof 2005: 124).
- 33.
These are the words of Iyad Abumoghli, Director of Faith for Earth Strategic Engagement with Faith-based Organizations Executive Office United Nations Environment Programme Nairobi, Kenya. In United Nations Environment Programme and Parliament of the World’s Religions (2020), Faith for Earth: A Call for Action, UNEP, Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/33991/FECA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
- 34.
According to Rolf Lidskog and Ingemar Elander, “there are basically two types of multi-level governance (…). The federal and the regime models of environmental governance are expressions of the first type, whereas the cosmopolitan model is of the latter kind, as illustrated by World Social Forum and similar bottom-up initiatives”. (….) “Thus, roughly speaking, we have two parallel sets of institutions, one formal, going from global agreements derived from the Kyoto Protocol via EU and national governments down to local governments, and another, informal one of a much looser kind, linking social movements, voluntary associations, single-issue pressure groups, private businesses, research institutions and sometimes also local governments to each other”. Rolf Lidskog & Ingemar Elander, “Addressing Climate Change Democratically. Multi-Level Governance, Transnational Networks and Governmental Structures”, Sustainable Development, 18, 2010, p. 38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sadouni, S. (2022). Cosmopolitanism in Globalisation and New Forms of Transnational Religious Mobilisation. In: Religious Transnationalism and Climate Change . Human Rights Interventions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10610-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10610-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10609-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10610-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)