A Cosmopolitanism from Below:Alternative Globalization and the Creation

of a Solidarity without Bounds *

Introduction

T coupling of a savage neoliberalismthat exacerbates already glaring domestic and global disparities in wealthdistribution with a ‘‘clash of fundamentalisms’’ (Ali ) pittingco-constitutive and Manichean brands of religious extremism to oneanother has prompted many prominent figures to call for a new inter-nationalism among the world’s peoples (Beck , pp. -; Bourdieu, ; Derrida , ; Habermas , ; Habermas andDerrida ). Solidarity itself is hardly a novel concern, having beenpresent at the heart of sociology since the latter’s disciplinary inceptionduring the middle of the th century, when European thinkers began tobe seriously preoccupied by the potentially corrosive impact upon socialcohesion of the transition from the medieval to the modern epoch.Nevertheless, the worrisome ambiguity of our current predicament,which lurches between the belligerent reassertion of ethnic nationalismand religious tribalism, on the one hand, and the unfulfilled promise of aglobalizing world order, on the other, gives us a new and urgent impetusto ask: how, exactly, do we foster a sense of solidarity without bounds?And although sub- and supra-national solidaristic ties have existed in

* The research for and writing of this paperwere made possible by a Canada-US. Fulbri-ght Program Fellowship and a StandardResearch Grant from the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada.Earlier versions of the paper were presentedto the Cultural Sociology Workshop, YaleUniversity, February ; the InternationalStudies Association Annual Convention,

Montreal, March ; and the InternationalSocial Theory Consortium Annual Meeting,Toronto, June . I would like to thank theparticipants at these events, notably JeffreyAlexander, Feyzi Baban, Ron Eyerman, FuatKeyman, and Philip Smith. I also benefittedgreatly from Albert Banerjee’s and SabinaHeilman’s research assistance.

Fuyuki K, Department of Sociology, York University, Toronto, Canada[kurasawa@yorku.ca]Arch.europ.sociol.,XLV,(),p -p —-//-$.perart+$.perpage©A.E.S.

various forms and to different extents over time, the widespread reco-gnition of the phenomenon of globalization provides us with an oppor-tunity to put into question the implicitly national frames of referencewithin which most conventional explanations of social solidarity ope-rate ().

Enter cosmopolitanism, which, despite having a long and distin-guished pedigree, has recently resurfaced as an appealing alternative tothe dynamics noted above. Whether in its guise as a universalist moralideal whereby human beings should primarily understand themselves ascitizens of the world respectful of and conversant with a multiplicity ofways of life, or as a political project devising a vibrant body of interna-tional law and transferring sovereignty ‘‘upward’’ to institutions of glo-bal governance, the contemporary cosmopolitan position is un-doubtedly promising. Nevertheless, much of this potential remainsunfulfilled because cosmopolitans’ distrust of thick social relations— which they equate too readily with the primordialism of ethno-nationalism and other ‘‘pre-political’’ identities — causes them to adoptan excessively formalist and thin conception of the socio-culturaldimensions of collective existence (Calhoun , ). This sociallyminimalist position promotes an understanding of global solidarityaccording to which the latter consists of a process of trick-le-downintegration of the world’s citizens through their adherence to a commonpolitical culture composed of universal principles (participatory demo-cracy, human rights, etc.) entrenched in international law and globalinstitutions.

Although this kind of project from above is essential to achieving asense of solidarity without bounds, my aim in this paper is to demon-strate that cosmopolitanism is, just as importantly, a transnational modeof practice whereby actors construct bonds of mutual commitment andreciprocity across borders through public discourse and socio-politicalstruggle. In other words, the crux of the matter lies in grasping the workof constructing and performing a cosmopolitanism from below vianormatively and politically oriented forms of global social action. I wantto claim that this practice-oriented perspective allows us to questionthree of the main assumptions imbedded within previous versions of

() My point is not that solidarity has onlyexisted within the framework of the nation-state; historically — and to this day in someinstances — city-states, sub-national regions,continents, supra-national empires, univer-salist ideologies (religions, political doctrines,and the like), and collective identities (gender,

ethnicity, etc.) have also inspired a sense oftogetherness. However, sociologists and othersocial scientists have generally neglected theseother loci of solidarity, primarily employing anunderstanding of society (and thus of solida-rity) that is nationally bounded.

global solidarity, namely cultural homogenization, political fragmenta-tion, and social thinness. Hence, against the argument that humantogetherness requires a difference-blind cultural assimilationism, thesecond section of the paper will contend that the recognition of globalcultural pluralism is becoming a sine qua non for establishing viablesolidaristic ties. Then, to counter the belief that there is a necessarytrade-off between the respect for the right to difference and politicalcohesion, I will try to explain how political alliances between individualsand groups from various parts of the world are taking on a networked orweb-like character that is itself the undergirding of cosmopolitanismfrom below. Finally, to problematize the idea that only a socially thin andformalist cosmopolitanism is possible and desirable, I will highlight thelived culture of an alternative globalization to which ordinary citizensand progressive civic associations active on the world stage (socialmovements, non-governmental organizations, and the like) are contri-buting, and thereby thickening transnational social relations.

Throughout the paper, I will draw upon examples taken from thealternative globalization movement (hereafter, the AGM), which is aloose constellation of transnational ‘‘subaltern counterpublics’’ (Frasera, p. ) giving birth to the progressive aspects of a fledgling globalcivil society (). The AGM began to enter public consciousness aroundthe world with events such as the Zapatista rebellion in the Chiapasregion of Mexico and the Seattle protests that played a part in the col-lapse of World Trade Organization negotiations in , gaining evenmore visibility via the annual World Social Forum launched in andthe recent massive protests against the US-led invasion of Iraq. To beclear, my intent is not to champion the AGM or to make the case that itperfectly embodies or fully realizes cosmopolitan ideals. However, Ibelieve that it is ‘‘good to think’’ with it, for its attempts to invent a dif-

() Fraser defines subaltern counterpublicsas ‘‘parallel discursive arenas where membersof subordinated social groups invent and cir-culate counter-discourses, which in turn per-mit them to formulate oppositional interpre-tations of their identities, interests, and needs’’(Fraser a, p. ). I use the designation‘‘alternative globalization movement’’ insteadof the better known ‘‘‘anti-globalization’’ tag,for it is clear that the AGM is not opposed toglobalization per se, but rather to the neoliberaland narrowly economistic version of it groun-ded in market fundamentalism. Furthermore,the AGM has an explicitly global outlook. Thisis so in terms of the multinational compositionof its member groups, the kinds of causes and

strategies they espouse, as well as the means ofcommunication they employ. For the AGM,then, an alternative and substantive project ofglobalization widens the application of the ideaof freedom of movement across borders toinclude people, ideas and information (e.g., the‘‘‘sans papiers’ movement’’ in France and the‘No One is Illegal’ organization, both of whichdefend the rights of undocumented immi-grants in the North). An alternative globaliza-tion also means fair trade, global distributivejustice, recognition of cultural diversity, parti-cipatory democracy, peace, and environmentalsustainability. See Graeber (, pp. -)and Klein (a, pp. -).

ferent form of global solidaristic politics can help us work through andreconceptualize the labour of cosmopolitanism from below (). TheAGM is useful in coming to understand that social bonds with distantothers are not solely derived from normative principle or institutionalarrangements, since they must also be constructed out of public dis-course and socio-political struggle.

The limits of cosmopolitanism from above

The recent proliferation of academic literature on cosmopolitanismneed not be enumerated here, though it should be noted that the pre-ponderance of philosophical and political perspectives on the topic hasskewed it in an purely ethical or structural direction (). From a nor-mative vantage-point, cosmopolitanism represents a universal idealcountering the moral dubiousness of restricted or discrete notions of acommunity of reciprocal rights and obligations, while in institutionalterms, it is a by-product of a redesign of the structures of globalgovernance. Yet neither normative cosmopolitans nor their institu-tionalist counterparts have been sufficiently attentive to the transnatio-nalization of the sources of and possibilities for solidaristic action frombelow, thereby neglecting the processes through which individuals andgroups are cultivating relatively thick global social relations.

If we follow the logic of the normativists, the key to cosmopolitanismis for all individuals to understand themselves first and foremost asuniversal subjects, citizens of the world, and members of the greathuman family. The well-being of faraway strangers should be no less of

() Another caveat is in order: the followingpages are not intended as a full-blown politicalsociology or social movement analysis of theAGM, something that would require a dif-ferent order of demonstration, evidentiarymethodology, and evaluation of the partici-pants (their claims, objectives, resources, suc-cesses, etc.). For ‘‘insider’’ accounts of theAGM, see Brecher et al. (); Cockburn andSaint-Clair (); Goodman (); Graeber(); Klein (a); Notes from Nowhere(); Starr (). For organizational analy-ses of the World Social Forum, the principalinstitutional manifestation of the AGM, seeHardt (); Mertes (); Pianta ();Schönleitner ().

() A partial exception to this critique isfound in the area of transnational culturalstudies, where a number of landmark studiesof globalizing processes and networks (e.g.,diasporic groups, hybrid identities, travellingcultures) offer a more socio-cultural angle withregards to cosmopolitanism. See, inter alia,Appadurai (); Clifford (); Friedman(); Gilroy (, ); Ong (), aswell as the special issues of the journals PublicCulture (, ()) and Theory, Culture &Society (, (-)). However, for the mostpart, these analyses have not dealt with howgroups are mobilizing the question of univer-sal human solidarity in the name of strugglesfor an alternative globalization.

a concern than that of our immediate neighbours, for we are all, as freeand equal individuals, participants in a universal political culture thatentitles us to the same rights and protections regardless of our specificcircumstances or identities (Bohman and Lutz-Bachmann ; Der-rida ; Kant ; Nussbaum ; Singer ; Turner ).While the ethical universalism underpinning normative cosmopol-itanism is laudable in its critique of moral parochialism, it tends toadvocate the transcendence or shedding away of local and national ties.To be at home everywhere also means to belong nowhere in particular.This can breed a kind of jet-setting elitism, ‘‘the class consciousness offrequent travellers’’ (Calhoun ), that fawns at its own deterritoria-lized sophistication while cringing at the ‘‘provincialism’’ of anything itperceives to be the more rooted experiences and lifeworlds within whichmost human beings actually live. Similarly, most normative cosmopol-itans have misgivings about situated and particularistic social relations,which in addition to being supposedly incompatible with universalistcommitments, they believe to be easily captured for tribalistic purposes.Put simply, all thicker socio-cultural ties are tarred with the brush ofethnic nationalism (). And although it mounts a compelling caseagainst the socio-economic inequalities embedded in the current worldorder, the ethical paradigm of global distributive justice fails to explainhow its cosmopolitan appeal can effectively achieve its aims. Hence,what we find is a rather anaemic version of cosmopolitanism connectingindividuals on the basis of their standing as abstract bearers of universalrights and freedoms, in a manner that is at most tenuously connected toprogressive global civil society struggles.

Institutional cosmopolitans, for their part, conceive of solidarity asan offshoot of new schemes of global governance. Writings on cosmo-politan democracy or cosmopolitics have put forth a number of propo-sals for the redesign of the current world order (Archibugi et al. ;Falk ; Falk ; Falk and Strauss ; Held ). The stress onlegal institutionalization is particularly striking in the recent work ofHabermas, for whom international law becomes the institutionalembodiment and rational lynchpin of a minimalist, universal politicalconsensus organized around the dual pillars of liberal democracy andhuman rights. Habermas opts for a procedural vision of such a consen-sus, whereby following of democratically legitimate procedures is theonly means by which to secure agreement among free, equal and diversecitizens about decisions regarding the laws under which they will begoverned. In other words, procedural legitimacy becomes the central

() For a notable exception, see Turner ().

mechanism of social integration in a democratic and pluralist politicalculture. Legal institutionalization simultaneously reflects andshapes the procedural enactment of public deliberation betweencitizens, since the discourse-ethical conditions of unrestrained and un-distorted communication, as well as egalitarian reciprocity and mutualrecognition, foster democratic opinion- and will-formation in andthrough the public sphere. Thus, constitutional patriotism with a cos-mopolitan intent consists of a rational attachment to the democraticprocedures entrenched in a domestic constitution (or, in the Europeancase, in a prospective supra-national one) and international law, whichserve to integrate citizens into a political community (Habermas ,pp. -, -; , pp. -, -; , pp. -).

Compounding the social meagreness of Habermas’s proceduralconception of cosmopolitanism is the weight he places on a cosmopol-itan legal order (Habermas , pp. -; ; Habermas andDerrida ), which effectively overshadows the issue of forgingtransnational solidaristic relations between individuals and groups. Iwould contend that despite the fact that a process of cross-civilizationaland reciprocally egalitarian public discourse leading to the formation ofa universal consensus is desirable, its realization depends upon some-thing more than legislation decreed from above. Habermas attempts tobypass this problem by concentrating on the institutionalization ofinternational law, yet he ends up with a formalist solution that is depri-ved of the socio-cultural density afforded by an actual dynamic of globalopinion- and will-formation about, for instance, the meaning of demo-cracy and the content of human rights discourses (Habermas ,pp. -; , pp. -). More significantly for our purposes,he functionally overloads the idea of legal cosmopolitanism, whose for-malist framework cannot on its own create a common global politicalculture and substantive public consensus. Instead, as is the case in adomestic setting where constitutional patriotism and a vibrant publicsphere are mutually reinforcing, cosmopolitan law and the cultivation oftransnational socio-cultural ties between citizens are entwined andinterdependent. Habermas is aware of this, denoting the importance of acommon (but so far only Europe-wide) worldview, as well as of civicassociations and certain political parties, for the creation of supra-national solidarity (Habermas , pp. -, -, ; Habermasand Derrida ). Nonetheless, this remains an insufficiently elabo-rated insight in his writings, one whose passing mention pales in com-parison to his elaborate discussion of domestic procedural justificationand legal cosmopolitanism. In fact, one could go so far as to reverse

Habermas’s emphasis, since it can plausibly be claimed that the cons-truction of thicker social relations among global civil society actors is infact a ‘‘trickle-up’’ precondition for the procedural legitimacy of anybody of cosmopolitan law.

Pace normativists and institutionalists, there is more to cosmopolita-nism than a set of global ethical standards, models of global governanceor procedurally justifiable international law. A solidarity without boundscomes into being through modes of discursively mediated socio-political action, something that becomes clearer when civic associationssuch as the AGM are taken into consideration. In the first place, we cansee that transnational social integration along cosmopolitan lines doesnot require cultural assimilation but, on the contrary, the acknowledg-ment of global diversity. In turn, the recognition of cultural pluralismneed not be a recipe for the fracturing of a shared socio-political project,for the latter can be advanced through the creation of criss-crossingwebs of affinity between multiple groups from around the world.And finally, cosmopolitanism does not have to be socially thin, as thelived culture of alternative globalization has a robustness and vitalitywhich thickens transnational social bonds between individuals andgroups. Let me now turn to each of these three dimensions of thequestion in turn.

The recognition of global pluralism

In its normative and institutional incarnations, cosmopolitanism hastended to follow the lead of assimilationist egalitarians (Gitlin ;Rorty ), according to whom a commitment to equal treatment of allhuman beings requires cultural uniformity; whether in a nationalor global polity, socio-political institutions can only grant individualsubjects the same rights and freedoms if they are treated as identicalcitizens. When translated in cosmopolitan terms, assimilationist egali-tarianism implicitly expects human beings to follow a path of scaling upof their identities until they become abstract bearers of universal rightsand duties, who embrace all of humankind yet are ‘‘unencumbered’’ bysub-cosmopolitan attachments. To be cosmopolitan in this way is tobecome geographically and culturally disembedded, to adopt a viewfrom nowhere that leaves socio-cultural specificities aside in order tounite under a generic globetrotting banner that falsely universalizes theexperiences of economic and cultural elites (Calhoun ). Aside from

the fact that it overlooks other, less rarefied cosmopolitan lifeworlds— those of Indians working in call centres to answer queries fromAmerican or British clients in real time, or of Maghreban immigrants inFrance producing rai music, for instance — this cosmopolitanism fromabove elides the extent to which individuals and groups are hierarchi-cally situated in intersecting structures of domination as well as un-evenly able and willing to claim a cosmopolitan status. To paraphraseOrwell, all world citizens are equal, but some world citizens are moreequal than others.

A practice of cosmopolitanism from below must strive to reconcileegalitarian universalism with a respect for the right to cultural specificityand difference, and thus to include a multiplicity of experiences beyondthe confines of the ‘‘class consciousness of frequent travellers’’ (Calhoun). Thus, cosmopolitanism does not signify being from nowhere oreverywhere at once, but rather embracing the simultaneous existence ofmultilayered local, national and global identities. Vitally, to my mind, itis also premised upon an ethos of cultural openness that actively seeksout and tries to understand and appreciate ways of thinking and actingfound in different societies, as well as listening to the voices of those whoare not often heard in the elite cosmopolitan discourse.

What is interesting about the AGM in this respect is how it seesresistance to domination as being intimately tied to the search forinclusion of others. Its worldview is deeply engrained in the right tocultural difference and the idea that strength lies in diversity, principlesthat are strategically useful as rhetorical antidotes to the generic culturespawned by global neoliberalism — a culture that would flatten outvariations among peoples in the name of cultivating non-descriptconsumers for the planet’s shopping malls and docile labour for itsworkplaces (Bové ; Fisher and Ponniah , p. ; Klein a;Marcos b). But the AGM’s defence of pluralism is also visible onthe ground, for as many observers have noted, the protest marches andcounter-summits that have greeted various meetings of internationalfinancial and political organizations over the last few years (in Seattle,Quebec City, Prague, etc.) — to say nothing of the World SocialForums () themselves — have brought together a bewildering range ofsubaltern groups whose identities and livelihoods are threatened by thecurrent world order: women, indigenous peoples, workers, immigrants,

() A journalist’s description of the com-position of the Mumbai World SocialForum is evocative: ‘‘At the forum, held forthe first time in Asia (January -), were

professors from Tunisia, a Pakistani hard rockband, Irish nuns, and a woman wearing a signreading ‘Australians for Peace’’’ (Ramesh, p. ).

people of colour, gays and lesbians, environmentalists, farmers, and soon ().

In light of the lessons of feminism and the international women’smovement—where the most sophisticated debates about questions ofvoice and representation have taken place over the last few decades ()—the AGM is wary of adopting the perspective of a single group asrepresentative of the whole. The diversity of its membership makessuch generalizations impossible, for how could the experiences of land-less Brazilian peasants stand in for, say, those of Javanese factory workersor Indians opposed to the Narmada Valley dam projects? Its transna-tional coalitions are best described as patchworks grounded in the localand the national, which are considered to be essential dimensions ofexistence rather than the remaining traces of provincialism to be even-tually overcome. Further, the AGM has come to realize that its embraceof global cultural heterogeneity must not occlude the existence ofinternal socio-economic assymetries. Despite neoliberalism’s near-universal reach, the material deprivation and organized violence facedby many people from the global South remain considerably worse indegree and kind than those experienced in the North. Although manyfarmers are joining forces against genetically modified crops, the realitiesof subsistence farming — let alone landlessness — in South America,Asia and Africa dramatically differ from those of organic agriculture inEurope and North America; the same could be said about transnationalenvironmentalism, with ecological preservation being a sine qua non forday-to-day survival for many of the earth’s communities (). Thus,for many civic associations, participation in the AGM is based uponboth solidarity with the excluded of the world and opposition to thespecific state of affairs and forms of oppression that they confront intheir everyday lives.

() It is in this spirit that SubcomandanteMarcos, the spokesperson for Zapatistas, hasmade an oft-cited remark: ‘‘Marcos is gay inSan Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asianin Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anar-chist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a MayanIndian in the streets of San Cristóbal, a Jew inGermany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk inQuebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman onthe Metro at . pm, a peasant without land,a gang member in the slums, an unemployedworker, an unhappy student and, of course, aZapatista in the mountains’’ (Klein b,p. ).

() For instance, third wave feminists have

not only exposed the phallocentrism of theuniversal philosophical subject, but the eth-nocentrism and heteronormativity of the ideaof global sisterhood and the signifier ‘‘woman’’found in the writings of their first- andsecond-wave Western predecessors (Collins; Fraser and Nicholson ; Hooks ;Mohanty , ; Young ).

() In addition, citizens who attend protestsagainst neoliberal globalization face vastly dif-ferent levels of personal danger and staterepression, the killing or ‘disappearance’ ofactivists being quite routine in poor countries(Mertes , p. ).

When grasped in this way, cosmopolitanism can consist of a broaden-ing of horizons, with the AGM’s constituent parts taking steps to subs-tantially engage with and listen to each other. As such, its summits andforums are explicitly designed to provide participants with opportuni-ties to exchange and acquire first-hand information about the difficultpolitical, cultural and socio-economic circumstances faced by ordinarycitizens on all continents, in order to gain a more global perspective. Forinstance, supporters of the Zapatistas who made the trek to the Lacan-dón jungle in Southern Mexico to attend the International Encuentrosfor Humanity and Against Neoliberalism rapidly discovered that theywere not expected to teach the indigenous peoples of Chiapas how tobecome world citizens, but to observe indigenous ways of life and dis-cuss the conditions in their own communities. Appreciating andcontributing to the preservation of a variety of languages, beliefs andforms of activity thereby becomes a vital part of a different sort of glo-balization, ‘‘a world where many worlds fit’’ as the Zapatistas themselvesare fond of declaring (Marcos a, p. ). Here, actors can becomecosmopolitan by learning to respect and value other ways of organizingsocial life and believing in universal distributive justice, not by sheddingall socio-cultural particularities in order to fit into a single, genericmould.

Splinters or webs?

Having tried to demonstrate that a cosmopolitanism from below neednot choose sides in the false antinomy between egalitarian universalismand cultural pluralism, I would now like to tackle another commonlyheld idea, namely that respecting the right to difference is intrinsicallyhostile to global solidarity and invariably leads to political fragmenta-tion. There is no doubt that certain kinds of identity politics promote aradical particularism and cultural isolationism that undercut the pros-pects of cosmopolitanism, fetishizing otherness by championing dif-ference for difference’s sake. According to radical particularists, identi-ties are discrete and self-contained, and consequently inherently andabsolutely incommensurable. The centre does not and should not holdanymore, for the only way to achieve cultural authenticity and unique-ness is to ‘‘go it alone’’, to opt for separatism and to maintain distancesbetween groups in order to avoid diluting or compromising socio-cultural essences.

However, the alternative to assimilationism is not a radical particu-larism that substitutes a splintered transnationalism for a homogenizingglobal uniformity. Better to think of a cosmopolitanism built out ofcross-cutting lines of affinity between civic associations in differentparts of the world (). Rather than following a comprehensive or neatlylaid out plan, a vast web of this sort contains shifting nodes of com-monality and shared interests, with groups discursively negotiatingsolidaristic bonds and pragmatically assembling alliances that join forcesaround specific issues while remaining united in resistance to globalneoliberalism. This is why the AGM’s self-description as a ‘‘movementof movements’’ is fruitful, for it suggests a cosmopolitan mosaic withmultiple points of intersection, where horizontal and transversal strug-gles are simultaneously waged at different scales and in numerous set-tings around the world (ranging from neighbourhood councils andcommunal land ownership initiatives to transnational campaigns forwomen’s rights and environmental protection). What commentatorshave described as the AGM’s swarm-like quality is a manifestation ofthis decentralized and pragmatic assemblage of diverse coalitionsbetween individuals and groups that are differently situated yet canunite without losing their distinctiveness. Over time, as participants inthe AGM have discovered and cultivated more and more commonalitiesand developed a similar analysis of the global dynamics that are harmingthem, the web is being reconfigured as it continues to expand andbecome denser ().

Thus, in addition to the cross-border organizing of labour to stopthe global race to the bottom of wages, the AGM has witnessed theformation of a number of alliances that cut across civic associations’conventional constituencies: the Save Narmada Movement opposed tothe building of dams on the Narmada River in India has drawn onsupport from national and international constituencies; during the WTO protests in Seattle, US ecological activists and union membersmarched side-by-side and went on to form the Alliance for SustainableJobs and the Environment (); the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre

() To this extent, the AGM is an heir ofthe venerable history of progressive coalition-building beyond territorial borders, whichwould include abolitionism, feminism, inter-national socialism, the Popular Front duringthe Spanish Civil War, anti-colonial strugglesin the Third World, and the anti-apartheidmovement. Today, feminist theory providesthe most interesting discussion of affinity-based solidarity. See, among others, Allen

(); Dean (); Fraser (b); Fraserand Nicholson (); Young (, pp. -, -, -; ).

() Hardt and Negri’s widely cited yetrather murky concept of the ‘‘multitude’’ canserve as a theoretical equivalent to the idea of aweb or swarm (Hardt , p. ; Hardt andNegri ).

() The banner ‘‘Teamsters and TurtlesTogether at Last!’’ was amongst the most

was the site where migrant rights organizations (such as the ‘‘sans-papiers’’ and the ‘‘No One is Illegal’’ campaign) joined forces with ViaCampesina, the global peasants’ union, with regards to corporate agri-culture’s exploitation of an undocumented workforce; and culture jam-mers, who specialize in resistance to advertising and the commerciali-zation of public space, have linked up with unions and women’s groupsrepresenting Third World labourers who make many of the consumergoods sold in the North. Moreover, civic associations in one region arereplicating the strategies of resistance and campaigns to counter it (e.g.,alternative economic models, local representative democracy) pioneeredin another region.

The global anti-sweatshop movement nicely illustrates the network-ed character of the AGM’s cosmopolitanism from below. By learningand listening to eyewitness accounts about the work conditions in Asianand South American factories churning out the garments and athleticshoes advertised and distributed around the globe, North American andEuropean activists have forged links with civic associations in bothhemispheres. Public information and protest campaigns (leafleting,picketing storefronts, counter-advertising, etc.) have retraced theunderbelly of the global commodity chain that stretches from appareland clothing stores to transnational corporations’ affiliates and subcon-tractors, thereby connecting glittering products to the lives of workersemployed in sweatshops and maquiladoras. Thanks to the anti-sweatshop movement, a growing number of consumers are sensing thatthey are bound to producers as co-participants in the circuits of globalcapitalism, and thus that all workers must enjoy certain rights and betterworking conditions (Klein , pp. -; Young ).

The web form of global solidarity that the AGM aims to achieve is amatter of choice and necessity. At one level, having learned from themistakes of many earlier progressive political movements and parties inwhich bureaucratic-authoritarian tendencies (with their rigid divisionsbetween leadership and rank-and-file members) became sources ofdisunity and conflict, participants in the AGM have deliberately set outto invent an organizational structure that is decentralized and relativelyflexible (). Consequently, there is a marked predilection for localself-management and grassroots initiatives stressing direct citizens’involvement (e.g., participatory budgeting, co-operatives, neighbour-

memorable ones in Seattle (Cockburn and St.Clair , p. ). This alliance is particularlynotable in the context of the bitter ‘‘jobs vs.ecology’’ debates that have often pitted thegreen and labour movements against one ano-

ther in the US over the past few decades.() See Graeber (, pp. -); Notes

from Nowhere (, pp. -); Schönleitner(, pp. -).

hood councils), with bodies such as the World Social Forum and itsregional equivalents functioning to loosely coordinate various civicassociations and making transnational linkages possible. While no exe-cutive body can issue edicts that members must follow, the AGM’snetwork structure is fluid enough to enable civil society actors who donot hold identical positions or represent similar constituencies tocoalesce rapidly around emerging events and issues (say, the NarmadaValley dam projects in India or the war in Iraq), as well as to adapt tochanging circumstances and requirements (say, direct confrontation orthe possibility of negotiations with authorities during demonstrations).

At another level, structural decentralization is a strategic requirementfor the AGM given the sheer array of civic associations that participatein it and the sometimes disparate causes they represent (labour, femi-nism, environmentalism, indigenous rights, peace, anti-poverty, humanrights, etc.). Excessive concentration of power, prescription of an ideo-logical outlook focusing on a ‘‘primary’’ source of oppression at theexpense of others — for instance, an anti-capitalism or environmenta-lism that ignores gendered forms of domination — or specification of arigid programme through which to transform the existing world orderwould very likely threaten the viability of coalitions within the AGM.Hence, beyond a consensus about the ills of neoliberal globalization, thedegrees of political integration and direct collaboration between itsconstituent parts vary widely; they are generally highest among ‘‘trans-national advocacy networks’’ (Keck and Sikkink ), yet can extendwell beyond these to incorporate broad-based alliances. Global cam-paigns against genetically modified foodstuffs, for example, havebrought together the French ‘‘Confédération Paysanne’’ and the IndianKarnataka State Farmers’ Association (Bové , p. ), while alsodrawing support from consumer protection groups and ecologists. Thenodes in the AGM’s network assemble and reassemble around preciseissues and events, sometimes giving birth to novel subaltern counter-publics and communities of interest.

How does a web-like structure coordinate its numerous components?The AGM has adopted a set of horizontal organizational mechanismsdesigned to retain civic associations’ grassroots independence whileconnecting them to one another in at least a minimal fashion. Duringmeetings and forums, participants are organized in affinity groups,self-governing units comprised of a small number of individuals ( orless) who support each other and are free to decide how and to whatextent they will participate in specific forms of activity, as well as whatcoalitions they will join in the process. Each affinity group selects a

‘‘spoke’’ who represents its members and is linked to others in spokes-councils, large public deliberative and decision-making assemblies.Whenever contentious decisional matters are raised within theseassemblies, the spoke consults her or his affinity group, which takes aposition that is is then conveyed to the spokescouncil. Finally, a processof open debate and negotiation is initiated in order to encourage theassembly to reach a consensus ().

By no means are these procedures flawless, since the objective ofconsensual decisional outcomes puts pressure on outliers and strongdisagreements remain within the AGM. Among other things, this is whyit has not yet been able to translate its critique of global neoliberalisminto a coherent set of policy proposals for a different world order (). Atthe same time, the AGM’s structural configuration attempts to balancethe need to foster convergence of the different strands of the web withthe right to dissent, the fact that participants should not be coerced toadopt a position or commit an act with which they do not explicitly andfreely agree (Graeber , pp. -). In fact, I want to argue that thiskind of open and decentralized process is more likely to yield sustainableand solid global alliances than top-down models of political authorityand enforced unity; because it encourages collaboration, compromiseand independence, it can minimize the risk of splintering off. Moreover,it can nurture a cosmopolitanism born out of a commitment to a dialo-gical widening of horizons, for individuals and groups must justify theirpositions to others, listen to and consider rival arguments, and therebybe exposed to a wide range of opinions and experiences out of whichthey can take better informed decisions and even discover previouslyunknown affinities and interests with other civic associations.

() For a more detailed description ofaffinity groups and spokescouncils, see Grae-ber (, p. ); Notes from Nowhere (,pp. , ).

() For instance, a number of substantialdifferences have come to the fore in the WorldSocial Forum. Should the latter’s long-termobjective be the formation of a world govern-ment or local self-management? What is thebest means of achieving such an objective:reform of the world order or revolution(including armed struggle)? In the shorterterm, should it encourage economicde-globalization (through the assertion ofnational sovereignty or de-linking), or greater

insertion into the world economy? What is therole of political parties (which are formallybanned from the World Social Forum) andNGOs vis-à-vis social movements? Should itprimarily aim to formulate concrete policyproposals, or be a space for dialogue? On thesequestions and the relatively underdevelopedstate of the AGM’s policy proposals, see Bello(); Brecher et al. (); Hardt ();Mertes (); Ramesh (); Sader ();Schönleitner (). However, what is remar-kable is that, so far, these disagreements havebeen for the most part the subject of debateand negotiation rather than bitter splits anddenunciations.

The lived culture of alternative globalization

So far in this paper, I have argued that we can conceptualize a cos-mopolitan project that is committed to egalitarian universalism and therecognition of cultural difference, and one that is politically decentrali-zed without compromising the prospect of coalition-building. In this,the final section, I want to push such insights further by explaining howa cosmopolitanism from below is taking shape through the creation ofrelatively thick and rich bonds of global solidarity, which are sustaining apolitical culture of alternative globalization ordered around intersectingmodes of thought and action, values, beliefs, narratives and symbols.The idea of a progressive political culture emerging out of global civilsociety is something that the existing literature on cosmopolitanism,with its minimalist conception of transnational social relations, hasbarely touched upon. As we have seen, normative cosmopolitans putforth principles of world citizenship and care for humankind that ab-stractly privilege universalist commitments above all others, whereasinstitutional cosmopolitans concentrate on devising schemes of globalgovernance or procedural norms of international law. Without denyingthe validity of these ideas, we should note that they are weakly groundedin sociological terms and neglect the extent to which political practice iscontributing to the establishment of bonds of mutuality between civicactors located in different parts of the world. Clearly, this lived politicalculture does not constitute a uniform or totalizing cosmopolitan identitythat would replace other layers of social experience or the plurality ofconceptions of the good life. Conversely, however, the analysis proposedhere does not treat such layers and conceptions as static and alreadyformed prior to global socio-political dynamics; on the contrary, itconsiders how participation in public dialogue and political struggle canquestion, expand and transform an individual or group’s worldview in acosmopolitan direction.

Because it stresses both democratic openness and agonism, anArendtian perspective on political action is useful for our purposes.Indeed, for Arendt (, p. ), public realms foster ties among citizensby virtue or promoting unrestricted exchange of information and opi-nions, which anyone can assess and contest-Solidaristic relations withindiscursive communities grow out of debate and deliberation between avariety of divergent positions, not — as is often assumed in certaincommunitarian arguments — from an original state of civic unani-

mity (). The cut and thrust of argumentation produces robust socialrelations between dialogical partners, who in the process of making theirrespective cases and trying to convince others, develop a respect for themand are exposed to different realities. Developing this line of thinking ina more Habermasian direction, I would contend that the process ofrational justification and acknowledgement of the better argument ispropitious to mutual recognition and a sense of togetherness amongmembers of discursive communities.

This practice-oriented framework allows us to come to grips with thetransnational political culture that the AGM is developing, according towhich global civil society actors are becoming involved in overlappingcommunities of public discourse and political action. Grassroots globalsocial integration is occurring via participation in the devising of aproject of alternative globalization, which supports sites and momentsof critique of neoliberalism and elaboration of a different world order.Public arenas like the World Social Forum and the Peoples’ Sum-mit of the Americas in Quebec City constitute overlapping communitiesof discourse, in which civic associations openly voice their demands,explain their experiences and state their opinions with other like-mindedgroups; solidarity thus results from transnational communicativeaction (). This dynamic is sustained by a growing alternative com-munication infrastructure, made up of community and independentmedia outlets that pepper the globe (). And although the internet isa contested political terrain, it remains an essential tool for organizingand exchanging information within the AGM. Without it, global daysof action such as the February , marches against the war inIraq — which were predominantly coordinated and publicized on all

() See Arendt (, pp. -; ,p. ); Calhoun (; , p. ). Arendtcontends that for the American FoundingFathers, the public realm’s purpose woulddisappear if all citizens were of the same opi-nion because it would not be necessary fordiscursive exchange to take place (Arendt, p. ). Similarly, she views absoluteunanimity as unhealthy to the democratic lifeof any people, for it breeds a political con-formism that disengages citizens from publicactivity and speech.

() On publics as sources of solidarity, seeArendt (, p. ); Calhoun (, pp. -). On the World Social Forum’s role as apublic space, see Bello (, pp. -). As itsCharter of Principles declares, ‘‘the WorldSocial Forum is an open meeting place forreflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas,

formulation of proposals, free exchange ofexperiences and interlinking for effectiveaction’’ (Fisher and Ponniah , p. ).

() Two of the best examples of this alter-native communication infrastructure are theIndymedia network, which is made up of localoutfits in major cities and regions around theworld, and Le Monde diplomatique, a monthlyFrench newspaper that has played an impor-tant role in the creation of the World SocialForum and currently has foreign editions(and is published in the following languages:French, German, English, Arabic, Catalan,Chinese, Spanish, Esperanto, Portuguese,Greek, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Farsi,Russian, Serbian, Czech, and Turkish). Forthe former, see <http: //www.indymedia.org>;for the latter, see <http: //www.monde-diplomatique.fr/int>.

continents through electronic resources (websites, email listservs,etc.) — would scarcely have been conceivable.

Apart from its roots in public discourse, a robust cosmopolitanism iscoming into its own today because participation in the AGM is ad-vancing a planetary consciousness, which is itself underpinned byintersecting frameworks of interpretation, symbolic systems, and sets ofpolitical and normative beliefs. A global solidarity extending to distantstrangers, consisting of a sense of belonging to and responsibility forhumankind as a whole, may somewhat counteract the primordialism ofinter-civilizational discord, at the same time as it creates interpersonalbonds of trust, respect and mutual assistance among individuals andgroups active in the AGM (). By being exposed to others, civic asso-ciations can broaden their visions of human capabilities and of thenecessary conditions for a full realized life, as well as being exposed tothe diverse forms of injustice and domination connected to neoliberalhegemony; for instance, North American indigenous peoples may learnabout the aspirations, demands, and forms of discrimination faced bythe Dalit caste in India or the French ‘‘sans papiers’’ (undocumentedimmigrants primarily from the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa), andvice versa, with all of them coming to grasp how their existences arebeing adversely affected by the rule of global capital.

A vital aspect of the lived culture of alternative globalization is theinvention and performance of distinctive modes of political action andnarrative that become familiar to participants in the AGM and identi-fiable by external audiences. Therefore, by virtue of being repeated overtime and transmitted to others, acts of protest and forms of speech (themarching and storming of barricades, the chanting of slogans, thespeeches and advancement of certain arguments, etc.) become ritu-alized, supplying civic associations with a repertoire of strategiesdeployed in a variety of settings, from major events on the world stage(such as a G summit of world leaders) to localized struggles for basicneeds (e.g., opposition to the privatization of electricity and water ser-vices in South African townships). The AGM has aimed to erect thisrepertoire of practices as symbolic markers of resistance to global neo-liberalism that affirm their constituencies, vision of a different worldorder, while signalling to ordinary citizens and world leaders that vastsections of humankind consider the current global state of affairs to beneither necessary nor acceptable.

() This is a striking and consistent featureof personal accounts from the frontlines of theAGM. See Cockburn and St. Clair ();

Klein (a); Mertes (, p. ); Notesfrom Nowhere ().

In addition, the vitality of the AGM’s cosmopolitanism from belowis attributable to its capacity to tap into the temporal dimension of sociallife. Playing a socially and culturally integrative role across geographicalborders, communication and participation in gatherings at regularintervals enable actors to share common experiences, exchange ideas,and collaborate in the staging of events and campaigns. And in spite ofthe AGM’s recent formation, it has made great efforts to develop a col-lective memory laden with dense iconography: the image of a maskedSubcomandante Marcos and a band of indigenous insurgents (theEZLN) emerging out of the jungles of Chiapas on January , — the date of the North American Free Trade Agreement’simplementation — to declare ‘‘Ya Basta!’’ to an unsuspecting world ();the ‘‘five days that shook the world’’ (Cockburn and St. Clair ) inlate November and early December , during the ‘‘Battle in Seattle’’that awoke many North Americans to the mass movement for an alter-native globalization; the tearing down of the fence that separated pro-testers and citizens from official delegates and politicians during theSixth Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April, ; the annualWorld Social Forum in Porto Alegre, and most recently in Mumbai,originally timed to coincide with (and thus act as the popular counter-part to) the World Economic Forum in Davos; and the massive February, marches on all continents against the US-led invasion of Iraq.Instances such as these have rapidly become part of the lore of theAGM, quasi-mythological elements that participants keep alive andrevive during each new struggle. They form a mnemonic inventory thatis ‘fired up’ during moments of socio-political action and decision-making, and also nourishes a planetary consciousness and sense of be-longing to a project dedicated to a just world order.

Finally, it should not be overlooked that the sort of grounded cos-mopolitanism I am describing here owes a great deal to the ludic aspectsof the culture of alternative globalization. One of the sources of theAGM’s popular appeal is to be found in its carnivalesque spirit, itscelebration of collective rebellion via aesthetic forms of expression andvarious sorts of playfully subversive, agit-prop- and situationist-likeperformances (). In this way, the AGM is aiming to encourage an

() In January, , an internationalcelebration of the th anniversary of theEZLN uprising took place in Chiapas.

() For instance, under the cry of ‘‘capi-talism is boring!’’, the April , protest inQuebec City during the Summit of the Ame-ricas was dubbed a Carnival Against Capi-

talism. It featured groups such as the Societyfor Creative Anachronism and the MedievalBloc, which wielded a ‘‘weapon’’ consisting ofa giant catapult lobbing stuffed toy animalsover the fence. Other AGM protests haveincluded the Radical Cheerleaders, the Revo-lutionary Anarchist Clown Bloc, and a Pink

unleashing of the imagination and an eruption of creativity, in order tocreate social bonds among actors who communally design and experi-ment with ways of thinking and acting that may expand the boundariesof traditional understandings of political struggle. Moreover, throughsuch unconventional activities as street festivals and concerts, progres-sive civic associations are attempting to broaden their appeal by reachingout to members of the general public who may not join protest marchesbut are willing to support aesthetically pleasurable and culturally inno-vative activities with a critical edge. Moreover, aside from publicizingopposition to neoliberal globalization, politico-aesthetic carnivals aredesigned to interrupt everyday life’s regimentation and disciplining ofbodies and minds, and to pull ordinary citizens out of their lifeworldsand temporarily experience for themselves some of the characteristics ofthe kind of egalitarian and pluralist social order that the AGM is pro-posing. Hence, the acts of sharing these sorts of ludic public spaces andmoments with others, of discussing matters of common concern withthem, or yet again of being in a crowd that marches through the streetsof a city, can cultivate transnational relations of solidarity (Mertes ;Schönleitner , p. ).

Conclusion

The concatenation of an unbridled neoliberalism, a hardening ofethno-religious conflicts and the acceleration of global integration hasthrust cosmopolitanism into the limelight, with an ever-increasingnumber of thinkers championing it as a way out of our current intel-lectual and political morass. Some, who I termed normative cosmopo-litans, have supported the idea of an enlargement of our moral com-munity to embrace the whole of humankind, while others of a moreinstitutional bent have devised models for the reorganization of globalgovernance structures or appropriate deliberative mechanisms for ademocratically legitimate and minimally conceived international poli-tical consensus. These are important contributions, with which I amsubstantially in accord, yet their purely ethical or formalist interpreta-tions of the problem at hand suffer from socio-cultural underdevelop-

Bloc consisting of individuals dressed as fairiesand ballerinas. An important player here is theLondon-based ‘‘Reclaim the Streets’’ move-ment, which organizes street parties in many

cities around the world (Graeber ,pp. -; Klein , pp. -; Notesfrom Nowhere , pp. -).

ment. This is why, using the AGM as an exemplar, this paper has pro-posed a notion of cosmopolitanism from below that considers thenecessary construction and enactment of ties of mutuality through thework of public discourse and political practice.

Against the assimilationist egalitarian belief that only cultural uni-formity is compatible with global socio-economic redistribution, I citedvarious attempts by the AGM to recognize a multiplicity of ways ofbeing in the world. I also tried to show that acknowledging culturalpluralism in this way need not, as radical particularists would have it,result in political fragmentation or monism. As some of the AGM’sinitiatives suggest, global solidarity can be derived from transnationalwebs of affinity that are themselves formed out of individuals andgroups participating in processes of discussion and argumentationaiming to negotiate a common political terrain. Finally, to the claim thatcosmopolitanism can only be grounded in a minimalist universalconsensus, I counterposed the AGM’s support for a lived cosmopolitanculture that takes root in the creativity of socio-political activities such aspublic discourse and ritual performance.

Of course, none of this seeks to proclaim that the task of cultivating aversion of cosmopolitanism out of the progressive strands of a stillbrittle global civil society is an easy one, nor even that the AGM is itsideal manifestation. Much remains to be accomplished, for the possiblethickening of social, political and cultural ties between civic associationsand concerned citizens will need to be porous and fluid enough toincorporate an ever-widening chorus of voices that can pose a crediblealternative to neoliberal globalization. Cosmopolitanism from below iswithout bounds — but it is, just as significantly, without guarantees. It isbuilt from the ground up, and remains a work in progress continually inneed of being recreated and reimagined. No longer can transnationalsocial relations be considered merely the product of naturalized essen-ces, abstract norms, or institutional arrangements. As I have attemptedto demonstrate here, all that is left are the efforts of human beingscommitted to each other and to the realization of a vision of a just andpluralist world. And yet this very fact, the socially self-constitutingcharacter of a different sort of cosmopolitanism, is the font of itsrobustness and vibrancy.

R E F E R E N C E S

A Tariq, . The Clash of Fundamenta-lisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity (Lon-don and New York, Verso).

A Amy, . ‘‘‘Solidarity after IdentityPolitics: Hannah Arendt and the Power ofFeminist Theory’’, Philosophy & SocialCriticism, (), pp. -.

A Arjun, . Modernity at Large:Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Min-neapolis, MN, University of MinnesotaPress).

A Daniele, David H and MartinKö, eds, . Re-imagining PoliticalCommunity: Studies in Cosmopolitan Demo-cracy (Stanford, CA, Stanford UniversityPress).

A, Hannah, . On Revolution (Har-mondsworth, Penguin).

—, []. The Human Condition (Chi-cago, University of Chicago Press, nd ed.).

B Ulrich,. World Risk Society (Lon-don, Sage).

B Walden, . ‘‘Pacific Panopticon’’,New Left Review, , pp. -.

B James and Matthias L-B, eds, . Perpetual Peace:Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cam-bridge, MA, MIT Press).

B Pierre, . ‘‘Pour un nouvelinternationalisme’’, in Contre-feux: propospour servir à la résistance contre l’invasionnéo-libérale (Paris, Raisons d’agir, pp. -).

—, . ‘‘Pour un mouvement social euro-péen’’, in Contre-feux II. Pour un mouvementsocial européen (Paris, Raisons d’agir, II,pp. -).

B́ José, . ‘‘‘A Farmers’ International?’’New Left Review, , pp. -.

B Jeremy, Tim C and BrendanS, . Globalization from Below: ThePower of Solidarity (Cambridge, MA, SouthEnd Press).

C Craig, . ‘‘Plurality, Promises,and Public Spaces’’, in Craig Calhoun andJohn McGowan, ed., Hannah Arendt and theMeaning of Politics (Minneapolis, MN,University of Minnesota Press, pp. -).

—, . ‘‘Constitutional Patriotism and thePublic Sphere: Interests, Identity and Soli-darity in the Integration of Europe’’, inPablo de Greiff and Ciaran Cronin, eds,Global Justice and Transnational Politics(Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. -).

—, . ‘‘The Class Consciousness of Fre-quent Travellers: Towards a Critique ofActually Existing Cosmopolitanism’’, inDaniele Archibugi, ed., Debating Cosmopo-litics (London and New York, Verso,pp. -).

C James, . Routes: Travel andTranslation in the Late Twentieth Century(Cambridge, MA, Harvard UniversityPress).

C Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair,. Five Days That Shook the World:Seattle and Beyond (London and New York,Verso).

C Patricia Hill, . Black FeministThought (London and New York, Rout-ledge).

D Jodi, . Solidarity of Strangers:Feminism after Identity Politics (Berkeley,CA, University of California Press).

D Jacques, . Specters of Marx: TheState of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, andthe New International (London and NewYork, Routledge).

—, . On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness(London and New York, Routledge).

F Richard, . On Humane Governance:Toward a New Global Politics (College Park,PA, Pennsylvania State University Press).

—, Human Rights Horizons: The Pursuitof Justice in a Globalizing World (Londonand New York, Routledge).

F Richard and Andrew S, .‘‘The Deeper Challenges of Global Terro-rism: A Democratizing Response’’, inDaniele Archibugi, ed. Debating Cosmopoli-tics (London and New York, Verso,pp. -).

F William F. and Thomas P, eds,. Another World is Possible: PopularAlternatives to Globalization at the WorldSocial Forum (London, Zed).

F Nancy, a. ‘‘Rethinking the PublicSphere: A Contribution to the Critique of

Actually Existing Democracy’’, in JusticeInterruptus: Critical Reflections on the‘‘Postsocialist’’ Condition (London and NewYork, Routledge, pp. -).

—, b. ‘‘Multiculturalism, Antiessentia-lism, and Radical Democracy: A Genealogyof the Current Impasse in FeministTheory’’, in Justice Interruptus: CriticalReflections on the ‘‘Postsocialist’’ Condition(London and New York, Routledge,pp. -).

F Nancy and Linda J. N, .‘‘Social Criticism without Philosophy: AnEncounter between Feminism and Postmo-dernism’’, in Linda J. Nicholson, ed.,Feminism/Postmodernism (London and NewYork, Routledge, pp. -).

F Jonathan, . Cultural Identityand Global Process (London, Sage).

G Paul, . The Black Atlantic:Modernity and Double Consciousness (Cam-bridge, MA, Harvard University Press).

—, . Between Camps: Nations, Culturesand the Allure of Race (Harmondsworth,Penguin).

G Todd, . ‘‘From Universality toDifference: Notes on the Fragmentation ofthe Idea of the Left’’, in Craig Calhoun, ed.,Social Theory and the Politics of Identity(Malden, MA, Blackwell pp. -).

G James, ed., . Protest and Glo-balisation: Prospects for Transnational Soli-darity (Sydney, Pluto Press Australia).

G David, . ‘‘The New Anar-chists’’, New Left Review, , pp. -.

H Jürgen, []. Between Factsand Norms: Contributions to a DiscourseTheory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge,MA, MIT Press).

—, []. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge, MA,MIT Press).

—, []. The Postnational Constella-tion: Political Essays (Cambridge, MA,MIT Press).

—, . ‘‘Interpreting the Fall of a Monu-ment’’, Constellations, (), pp. -.

H Jürgen and Jacques D, .‘‘February , or What Binds EuropeansTogether: A Plea for a Common ForeignPolicy, Beginning in the Core of Europe’’,Constellations, (), pp. -.

H Michael, . ‘‘Today’s Bandung’’,New Left Review, , pp. -.

H Michael and Antonio N, .Empire (Cambridge, MA, Harvard Univer-sity Press).

H David, . Democracy and the GlobalOrder: From the Modern State to Cosmopoli-tan Governance (Cambridge, Polity).

K Emmanuel, []. ‘‘PerpetualPeace: A Philosophical Sketch’’, in HansReiss, ed., Political Writings (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, pp. -).

K Margaret E. and Kathryn S,. Activists beyond Borders: AdvocacyNetworks in International Politics (Ithaca,NY, Cornell University Press).

K Naomi, . No Logo (New York,Picador).

—, a. Fences and Windows: Dispatchesfrom the Front Lines of the GlobalizationDebate (New York, Picador).

—, b. ‘‘The Unknown Icon’’, in TomHayden, ed., The Zapatista Reader (NewYork, Thunder Mouth’s Press, pp. -).

M Subcomandante, a. ‘‘FourthDeclaration from the Lacandón Jungle’’, inTom Hayden, ed., The Zapatista Reader(New York, Thunder Mouth’s Press,pp. -).

—, b. ‘‘The Fourth World War HasBegun’’, in Tom Hayden, ed., The ZapatistaReader (New York, Thunder Mouth’s Press,pp. -).

M Tom, . ‘‘Grass-roots Globalism:Reply to Michael Hardt’’, New Left Review,, pp. -.

M Chandra Talpade, . ‘‘UnderWestern Eyes: Feminist Scholarship andColonial Discourses’’, Feminist Review, ,pp. -.

—, . ‘‘Feminist Encounters: Locating thePolitics of Experience’’, in Linda Nicholsonand Steven Seidman, eds, Social Postmoder-nism: Beyond Identity Politics (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, pp. -).

N N, ed., . We AreEverywhere: The Irresistible Rise of GlobalAnticapitalism (London and New York,Verso).

N Martha, []. ‘‘Patriotismand Cosmopolitanism’’, in Joshua Cohen,ed., For Love of Country? (Boston, Beacon,pp. -).

O Aihwa, . Flexible Citizenship: TheCultural Logics of Transnationality (Du-rham, NC, Duke University Press).

P Mario, . ‘‘Democracy vs. Globa-lization: The Growth of Parallel Summitsand Global Movements’’, in Daniele Archi-bugi, ed., Debating Cosmopolitics (Londonand New York, Verso, pp. -).

R Randeep, . ‘‘Place in the Sun forEveryone — Except George Bush, Coca-Cola and Windows’’, The Guardian Weekly,-, p. .

R Richard, . Achieving Our Country:Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century Ame-rica (Cambridge, MA, Harvard UniversityPress).

SEmir, . ‘‘Beyond Civil Society: TheLeft after Porto Alegre’’, New Left Review,, pp. -.

Sö Günther, . ‘‘World SocialForum: Making Another World Possible’’,in John Clark, ed., Globalizing Civic Enga-gement: Civil Society and TransnationalAction (London, Earthscan, pp. -).

S Peter, . One World: The Ethics ofGlobalization (New Haven, CT, Yale Uni-versity Press).

S Amory, . Naming the Enemy:Anti-corporate Movements Confront Globali-zation (London, Zed).

T Bryan S., . ‘‘Cosmopolitan Vir-tue, Globalization and Patriotism’’, Theory,Culture & Society, (-), pp. -.

Y Iris, . ‘‘From Guilt to Responsi-bility’’, Dissent, (), pp. -.

—, . Justice and the Politics of Difference(Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).

—, . ‘‘Gender as Seriality: ThinkingAbout Women as a Social Collective’’, inLinda Nicholson and Steven Seidman, eds,Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Poli-tics (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. -).