Tianxia: Between Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper argues that besides the two popular global justice theories, cosmopolitainsim and nationalism, the Confucian idea of tianxia 天下 (“All Under Heaven”) presents an alternative view. Cosmopolitanism focuses on individuals as the ultimate agents of the global community, while nationalism recognizes nations and states as the ultimate agents. The idea of tianxia can be understood as a version of cosmopolitanism that values the great unity and human love. Tianxia can also be read as a version of nationalism that prioritizes partial love. In this paper I argue that tianxia should be treated as a unique version of statist compomopolitanism that insists on the priority of states but pursues global peace and development. However, tianxia does not treat states as mere instruments. It does not endorse the egalitarian aspirations either. In the first section, I introduce the debate between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. In the second section, I present major arguments for nationalism. In the third section, I discuss main arguments for cosmopolitanism. In the fourth section, I clarify the disputes between nationalism and cosmopolitanism. In the fifth section, I present Confucian cosmopolitanism as a way to interpret Confucian view of global justice. In the sixth section, I clarify tianxia in the narrow and broad senses. In the seventh section, I argue that tianxia can be read as a version of statist cosmopolitanism that insists on the priority of states but pursues global peace and development. In the eighth section, I argue why tianxia is an alternative model of global justice that is neither nationalism nor cosmopolitanism.
Abstract
This paper argues that besides the two popular global justice theories, cosmopolitainsim and nationalism, the Confucian idea of tianxia 天下 (“All Under Heaven”) presents an alternative view. Cosmopolitanism focuses on individuals as the ultimate agents of the global community, while nationalism recognizes nations and states as the ultimate agents. The idea of tianxia can be understood as a version of cosmopolitanism that values the great unity and human love. Tianxia can also be read as a version of nationalism that prioritizes partial love. In this paper I argue that tianxia should be treated as a unique version of statist compomopolitanism that insists on the priority of states but pursues global peace and development. However, tianxia does not treat states as mere instruments. It does not endorse the egalitarian aspirations either. In the first section, I introduce the debate between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. In the second section, I present major arguments for nationalism. In the third section, I discuss main arguments for cosmopolitanism. In the fourth section, I clarify the disputes between nationalism and cosmopolitanism. In the fifth section, I present Confucian cosmopolitanism as a way to interpret Confucian view of global justice. In the sixth section, I clarify tianxia in the narrow and broad senses. In the seventh section, I argue that tianxia can be read as a version of statist cosmopolitanism that insists on the priority of states but pursues global peace and development. In the eighth section, I argue why tianxia is an alternative model of global justice that is neither nationalism nor cosmopolitanism.