Convened by Elisabeth Conradi and the Department of Political Science at the University of Göttingen, this workshop explored links between two seemingly distinct concepts – civil society and cosmopolitanism. Debates on civil society tend to occur in the context of the nation-state, whereas cosmopolitanism envisions the world as a political entity in which all members are committed to mutual respect and recognition. While both concepts stress universalist and inclusive values, existing civil societies have a track record of practices of exclusion, be it on social, ethnic or gender grounds. Therefore, vibrant civil societies may not necessarily lead to a cosmopolitan world society. This workshop, however, focussed on the ways in which civic alliances promote cosmopolitanism. Defining civil society as a multiplicity of voluntary alliances arranged by people involved in a common project, Elisabeth Conradi highlighted the transformative effects of civic alliances in her opening remarks. Special attention was given to the links between local practices and world society, the transformative qualities of civic alliances, questions of global responsibility and worldwide values as well as the development of a normative framework of cosmopolitanism, with most contributions coming from sociologists, philosophers and political scientists.

Two introductory papers provided a background for discussing definitions of civil society and cosmopolitanism. Günther Frankenberg’s paper on the conceptual limits of civil society proposed that the mere practice of association was not enough to locate a group or an organisation within civil society. According to Frankenberg, civil society is a social project and therefore needs to be defined through a set of descriptive as well as normative criteria. The first central determinant of a group’s belonging to civil society is civility by which Frankenberg understands a commitment to collective action, as well as a commitment to treating other human beings as equals. Groups that resort to violence or regard their opponents as subhuman do not belong to civil society. Frankenberg’s other criteria revolve around the notions of voluntarism, accountability and openness. During the discussion it became clear that the civil society described by Frankenberg’s conceptual matrix would be a very small one indeed. Groups that assume a moral right to civic disobedience fall outside the remit. So do religious organisations, since they assume a normative superiority vis-à-vis other groups. For historians, however, such a narrow definition possesses limited analytical value, especially in transnational contexts. Visions for a global civil society often went hand in hand with nationalist rivalries or the assumption of European cultural supremacy and leadership. Consequently, historians have argued that the concept of civil society should incorporate this ambivalence between inclusion and exclusion. 1 The second introductory paper, “World Society in a Communitarian Perspective” by Walter Reese-Schäfer, presented the approaches of Hans Joas, Michael Walzer and Amitai Etzioni to world society. Critics of communitarianism, most recently Amartya Sen, have argued that the assumption of self-evident universal values may weaken civil society instead of strengthening it, by ignoring inconsistencies that inevitably result from the choices that individuals make. 2 Reese-Schäfer was also critical of the assumption of self-evident values but concluded that there was an empirical process of the development of world-wide, universal values. Yet, little was said about the content of these values.

The following three papers provided more of an insight into how aspects of a cosmopolitan civil society might be manifested. Elisabeth Conradi’s paper on civic alliances attempted a description of cosmopolitan values and practices, albeit a negative one. Focussing on those practices that civic groups employ to maintain and promote liberal societies, Conradi argued that cosmopolitan practices can be identified by a process of elimination: civic groups that promote disrespect, resentment and intolerance, especially with reference to the body, engage in non-cosmopolitan practices. Conradi’s focus on civic practices instead of civil society as a sphere was welcomed by workshop participants, yet much of the discussion still revolved around the spaces in which cosmopolitan practices would be cultivated. Iris Marion Young’s conceptualization of global justice, presented by Joan Tronto represented another attempt to describe cosmopolitan values. Departing from a critique of Rawls’s model of linking responsibility to shared political institutions, Young proposes to base responsibility on social connections, which is, in her view, an adequate approach to address structural injustice. Young uses the anti-sweatshop boycotts on American college campuses as an example. Given the complex chain of production which makes it difficult to assign individual responsibility such product boycotts are, in Young’s view, an adequate way of taking social responsibility. The responses by Susanne Tönsmann, Detlef von Daniels and Stephan Truninger all criticized Young’s conceptual model of responsibility, arguing that different degrees of responsibility would be blurred. Yet, for historians, Young’s observation that certain concepts of responsibility are capable of generating effective collective action remains interesting. Donatella della Porta provided another angle on current cosmopolitan values based on the findings of an empirical study on European social groups. According to della Porta, the turn of the millennium saw a new type of social movement with the advent of ad-hoc alliances between different social groups, overlapping membership, multi-issue approaches and little concern for organisational unity. Among the core values of these new ‘new social movements’ were democracy, social justice, global justice and ecology but, Della Porta argued, the common aim of networking with other groups also represented a value in itself.

Another contribution that rooted the idea of a cosmopolitan civil society in common practices was Joan Tronto’s paper on “Peace Keeping as Care Work”. Interpreting the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’s report “Responsibility to Protect” as a paradigm shift from justice to an ethics of care, Tronto argued that the feminist ethics of care could be made to work in the sphere of international relations. A care paradigm in international peace keeping missions would give civil society a larger role in humanitarian missions and be more responsive to people’s real needs. Tronto was aware of the danger of paternalism implicit in a ‘care’ approach to humanitarian missions, and the pitfalls of a language of care which might turn humanitarian missions into acts of charity. Yet, she argued, paternalism could be avoided by democratising humanitarian missions.

Ulrich Lölke’s contribution on the practices, spaces and narratives of memory in the colonial context led to an interesting discussion on globalized and collective memory. Walter Reese-Schäfer’s comment on initiatives for transnational history writing and projects for history textbooks to promote a shared European history was a reminder that the construction of memory could be relevant in the development of a cosmopolitan civil society.

The last panel of the workshop concentrated on civil society in non-Western contexts. Behrouz Khosrozadeh presented a case study of Iran and the model of “Islamic civil society”. Khosrozadeh argued that there is a multiplicity of civic alliances in Iran, encouraging public debate, even though criticism of the authorities is often veiled. This paper very much challenged the concept of civil society presented by the other contributors, and the discussion showed that many workshop participants were hesitant to agree with the notion of a non-secular civil society. Furthermore, it was argued that civic alliances in Iran were to a large extent co-opted by the state. Nevertheless, Khosrozadeh’s work has not been the only one to pick up on Iran’s developing civil society, as recent publications by journalists have shown. 3 Stephan Stetter’s paper “World Society and the Middle East: Patterns of Inclusion/Exclusion and Prospects for Peace” also pointed out that civil society in the Middle East is still closely linked to the politicization of identity. Stetter went on to argue that, as long as this was the case, prospects for peace remained slim and that Israeli-Palestinian initiatives for a cross-border civil society tended to evaporate in times of political crisis. That raises another question regarding cosmopolitan civil society: will it not remain elusive in the absence of world peace? Is civil society capable to reduce violent conflict, or is peace a precondition for a flourishing world society? Stetter proposed the former, citing the weakening of identity politics, the promotion of personal encounters and cross-cutting identities as possible routes to promote peace in the Middle East.

Especially the last panel demonstrated the difficulty of linking civic alliances to the project of cosmopolitanism. Some practices employed by civic groups may promote cosmopolitanism, others may not. Therefore, exclusionary practices within real civil societies remain a formidable obstacle to a cosmopolitan world society. Likewise, the examples from the Middle East demonstrated that a narrow definition of civil society is too limiting. The most illuminating contributions of the workshop were those that focussed on the way civic alliances applied cosmopolitan values in their actions, be it in relation to global justice or social responsibility.

Footnotes:
1 See especially the contribution by Sven Reichardt in: Dieter Gosewinkel, Dieter Rucht, Wolfgang an den Daele and Jürgen Kocka, eds, Zivilgesellschaft – national und transnational. WZB-Jahrbuch 2003 (Berlin: Sigma, 2004).
2 Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (London: Allen Lane, 2006).
3 Lilli Gruber, Tschador: Im Herzen des Iran, translated by Friederike Hausmann (Munich: Blessing, 2006).