David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (1):76-110 (2010)
Can there be a global demos? The current debate about this topic is divided between two opposing camps: the “pessimist” or “impossibilist” camp, which holds that the emergence of a global demos is either conceptually or empirically impossible, and the “optimist” or “possibilist” camp, which holds that the emergence of a global demos is conceptually as well as empirically possible and an embryonic version of it already exists. However, the two camps agree neither on a common working definition of a global demos, nor on the relevant empirical facts, so it is difficult to reconcile their conflicting outlooks. We seek to move the debate beyond this stalemate. We argue that existing conceptions of a demos are ill-suited for capturing what kind of a global demos is needed to facilitate good global governance, and we propose a new conception of a demos that is better suited for this purpose. We suggest that some of the most prominent conceptions of a demos have focused too much on who the members of a demos are and too little on what functional characteristics the demos must have in order to perform its role in facilitating governance within the relevant domain. Our new proposal shifts the emphasis from the first, “compositional” question to the second, “performative” one, and provides a more “agency-based” account of a global demos. The key criterion that a collection of individuals must meet in order to qualify as a demos is that it is not merely demarcated by an appropriate membership criterion, but that it can be organized, democratically, so as to function as a state-like agent. Compared to the existing, predominantly “compositional” approaches to thinking about the demos, this agency-based approach puts us into a much better position to assess the empirical prospects for the emergence of a global demos that can facilitate good global governance.
|Keywords||Democracy Boundary problem Global democracy Social cohesion Group agency All-affected principle Cosmopolitanism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Patti Tamara Lenard (2012). Creating Cosmopolitans. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (5):613-630.
Laura Valentini (2012). Assessing the Global Order: Justice, Legitimacy, or Political Justice? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (5):593-612.
Similar books and articles
Pablo Gilabert (2012). From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford University Press, UK.
Daniel Weinstock (2009). Motivating the Global Demos. Metaphilosophy 40 (1):92-108.
Mathias Koenig-Archibugi & Michael Zürn (eds.) (2006). New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness. Palgrave Macmillan.
Georges Enderle (2000). Whose Ethos for Public Goods in the Global Economy? Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (1):131-144.
Bill Wringe (2010). Global Obligations and the Agency Objection. Ratio 23 (2):217-231.
Gillian Brock (2009). Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account. Oxford University Press.
Todd Sandler (2004). Global Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Andreas Rasche & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert (2012). Institutionalizing Global Governance: The Role of the United Nations Global Compact. Business Ethics 21 (1):100-114.
Ruth Chadwick & Sarah Wilson (2004). Genomic Databases as Global Public Goods? Res Publica 10 (2):123-134.
Added to index2010-01-14
Total downloads75 ( #59,907 of 1,934,425 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #52,857 of 1,934,425 )
How can I increase my downloads?