
The sociologist Robert Fine, who was a long-time sympathiser and sometime activist with Workersâ Liberty, passed away on 9 June 2018 at the age of 72.
As our series of book reviews to commemorate his life illustrates, Fine dedicated his scholarship to many far-reaching topics in social and political theory. These topics include the rule of law, the anti-apartheid movement and independent trade unions in South Africa, racism and antisemitism, and the political thought of GWF Hegel, Karl Marx, and Hannah Arendt.
Since Dale Streetâs review in Solidarity #432 and Dan Davisonâs tribute article in Solidarity #512 both thoroughly discuss the last book Fine published in his lifetime, namely Antisemitism and the Left: On the Return of the Jewish Question (2017) with Philip Spencer, this discussion of his 2007 book Cosmopolitanism (London and New York: Routledge 2007) will complete our survey of Fineâs works.
The notion of cosmopolitanism has been formulated and disputed in many ways over thousands of years. Its basic idea is that all humans are or could be members of a single community. Accordingly, we have obligations to others that go beyond those of kinship or citizenship and we should value the differences in peopleâs ways of living, though these two aspects of cosmopolitanism often exist in tension. [1]
When asked where he was from, the Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes the Cynic (c. 412-323 BCE) famously answered âI am a citizen of the worldâ, thereby coining the term âcosmopolitanâ. The British-Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah suggests that, if there is a slogan that summarises cosmopolitanism, it might be âuniversality plus differenceâ. [2]
In the mid-20th century, the Stalinists infamously used the anti-Semitic allegation of ârootless cosmopolitanismâ (often alongside the apparently contradictory allegation of âZionismâ) to liquidate opponents within the official Communist Parties. This disapproving use of âcosmopolitanismâ connotes foreignness and disloyalty.
Whilst cosmopolitanism is perhaps most readily contrasted with nationalism and is often painted as a new threat to âthe nationâ, cosmopolitanism predates both nationalism and the nation-state by millennia.
In Cosmopolitanism, Fine explores the idea of cosmopolitanism, its use in critical thought, and its application to political issues in what he calls âan exercise in cosmopolitan social theorisingâ (p. xvii). In his words:
âCosmopolitan social theory understands social relations through a universalistic conception of humanity and by means of universalistic analytical tools and methodological procedures. Its simple but by no means trivial claim is that, despite all our differences, humankind is effectively one and must be understood as such.â (p. xvii)
To Fine, cosmopolitanism has two faces: in its âinterpretive momentâ as the cosmopolitan outlook, which is âa form of consciousnessâ, and in its âexternal momentâ as the cosmopolitan condition, which is âan existing social realityâ (p. 134)
One can understand Fineâs turn to cosmopolitanism as part of his overarching search for newer, positive contents for the anti-Stalinist left, such that we are not simply defined in the negative by our opposition to both Stalinism and capitalism. [3] As Fine puts it:
â[Cosmopolitan social theory] has the virtue today of facing up to the decline of the âold leftâ, with its fixation on the politics of anti-imperialism regardless of substantive content, and the decline of the ânew leftâ with its own fixation on particular visible identities regardless of our common human condition.â (p. 135)
Significant sections of the modern left reject cosmopolitan thought. Sometimes this takes the form of repackaging nationalism as progressive or socialist, as has been the case in several âleft-populistâ movements such as Aufstehen in Germany and La France Insoumise in France.
Other times the rejection of cosmopolitan thought takes the form of dismissing universalism and other Enlightenment values as nothing more than white Eurocentrism. This is especially true in identity politics derived from poststructuralist and postcolonial theory. Such identity politics foreground oneâs identity (e.g. race, gender, nationality) as decisive for political organising and for the truth or moral authority of oneâs claims and actions, often in the form of ânarrativesâ to which only members of the relevant oppressed group can attest.
It is therefore a fitting time to consider Fineâs writings on cosmopolitanism.
Since 1989, a ânew cosmopolitanâ current of thought has become popular in the human sciences in light of globalisation and its accompanying social transformations. As Fine puts it, â[t]he new cosmopolitanism is an endeavour to denature and decentre the nation-state â to loosen the ties that bind the nation-state to theories of democracy in political theory, theories of society in sociology, theories of internationalism in international relations, theories of sovereignty in international law and theories of justice in political philosophyâ (p. 5-6).
One prominent figure in this intellectual current is the sociologist Ulrich Beck, who argues against what he terms âmethodological nationalismâ. In Beckâs view, traditional sociology equates âsocietyâ with the delimited nation-state. Since we now live in a transnational epoch of, for example, global risks and crises that cannot be confined or comprehended at the national level, the central concepts of classical social theory are obsolete as a means of understanding social reality (p. 6-7). In place of these âzombie categoriesâ, Beck calls for a social theory better suited to the âcosmopolitan conditionâ of our present. [4]
As Fine observes, this approach risks prematurely setting aside concepts in the hurry to join the âcult of the newâ (p. 8). It also underestimates the extent to which classical social theory opposed methodological nationalism. In Marxâs writings, for instance, âwe find not only a normative commitment to âinternationalismâ rather than nationalism but more significantly an analysis of the erosion of national boundaries by global capitalism and a critique of the dynamics of capital accumulation in which national characteristics play a strictly subordinate partâ (p. 12).
Fine goes on to explore the affinities between the new cosmopolitanism and older theories of natural law, especially via the highly influential philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). To Kant, an international legal order and universal civil society would underpin a new cosmopolitan order that could guarantee peaceful inter-state relations. Republicanism and perpetual peace are the pillars of this ideal order, which Kant viewed as âProvidence and the Laws of Nature accomplishing their universal purposeâ (p. 27).
Whilst GWF Hegel (1770-1831) appreciated the value of Kantâs cosmopolitan vision, Hegel saw it as resting on an overly idealised image of the modern republican state:
â[O]nce we explore the substance of the republican state â the power of its executive, its propensities to legal authoritarianism, the patriotism it fosters, the disciplinary powers it wields, the interests of its rulers in war, its view of itself as an Earthly God â the affinity between republicanism and cosmopolitanism becomes more problematic.â (p. 36).
As Fine puts it, âthe nub of Hegelâs criticism of Kantâ might be that âwe cannot simply ratchet cosmopolitan laws and institutions onto existing forms of the modern state and think we have solved the problem of political violenceâ (p. 38).
Fine also considers how more recent social and political theorists like JĂŒrgen Habermas have tried to rethink the relationship between cosmopolitanism and political community in the form of a multi-layered global order.
In this respect, the key ideas Habermas explores are âconstitutional patriotismâ and âthe constitutionalisation of international lawâ. By constitutional patriotism, Habermas means a kind of inclusive, post-national loyalty to a stateâs constitutional principles (as opposed to the state itself) that recognises the heterogeneous nature of the stateâs population and fosters respect for others.
Although Habermas intended constitutional patriotism as a more progressive and cosmopolitan alternative to nationalism, as Fine observes, its internal urge towards a dualistic âus and themâ vision of the world suggests âthat constitutional patriotism is closer to nationalism than its advocates would like to thinkâ (p. 48).
Perhaps for this reason, Habermas turned his theoretical attention away from the national level and towards the European and international levels. Here Fine contrasts Habermasâ approach with that of the 20th century liberal philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002).
Rawls theorised an international âLaw of Peoplesâ that could guide liberal societies in its interactions with other societies. Amongst other things, the Law of Peoples emphasises respect for human rights and self-determination. Nevertheless, it âretains the classical notion of bounded political peoples as [its] basic unitâ and holds that âonly those peoples which acknowledge and uphold human rights should be recognised as equal members of a society of peoplesâ (p. 64-65).
Habermas tries to overcome the defects of Rawlsâ perspective by using âthe constitutional principles of international lawâ as âa rational foundation of criticism and reform of positive international lawsâ, effectively adapting âthe theory of constitutional patriotism to the arena of world societyâ (p. 71).
However, this has the shortcoming of idealising international law âin a new cosmopolitan clothâ (p. 76). Rather than exaggerate lawâs capabilities and attractiveness, we should âleave space for the political field of judgementâ (p. 77). After all, whilst law, as both a form and mediation of power, âimplies some level of inhibition of powerâ, âlaw is part of society and contains within itself the power relations that traverse societyâ (p. 74).
Fine then addresses the thorny topic of humanitarian intervention. Here we find a deeper ambivalence within cosmopolitanism itself because it contains competing ideals: that we should act to prevent crimes against humanity from being committed and that we should seek alternatives to warfare.
Whilst appealing to cosmopolitan values to justify humanitarian intervention in given circumstances seems âeither hopelessly naive or wilfully cynicalâ in light of how easily this can mask an imperialist order amongst the big powers, as Fine points out, âcritics of cosmopolitanism must still engage with the problem to which cosmopolitanism is a response: never again to be indifferent to the deliberate mass destruction of human lives simply because the perpetrators are ordained by a sovereign nation-state or because the victims are foreignersâ (p. 81).
Whilst Fine does not pretend to have straightforward answers, he notes that the responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities need not be attached only to states and international organisations: â[i]t might include, for instance, publicity and support for civil rights movements, free trade unions, womenâs equality movements and democratic political parties in atrocity-committing regimes, and safe havens for refugees in search of asylum from these regimesâ (p. 95).
Fine strikes a similar chord when discussing the prosecution of crimes against humanity. Here, as in his previous book Political Investigations: Hegel, Marx, Arendt (2001), Fine draws heavily on the political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), for whom â[t]he cosmopolitan point of view is not simply to validate international criminal justice but to reconcile a commitment to this transformative political project with recognition of the world as it actually existsâ (p. 111).
To Fine, Arendtâs âworldly cosmopolitanism is not forged simply through the progression of legal and institutional forms but through our capacity as actors in the public sphere to come to terms with our cosmopolitan existenceâ, which âmeans that when we judge and act in political matters, we take our bearings âfrom the idea not the actuality, of being a world citizenââ (p. 111).
Turning to Arendtâs final, unfinished work The Life of the Mind (1977-78), Fine stresses Arendtâs appreciation of the relationship between the human faculties (or activities) of will, judgement, and understanding. To Fine, this relationship helps us comprehend cosmopolitanismâs nature as both a description of social reality and an element in the life of the modern mind.
Following his Hegel-inspired approach, Fineâs chapters are always mindful of both âthe critiqueâ and âthe critique of the critiqueâ. He makes efforts to resist falling into either idealisation or disillusionment when interpreting cosmopolitanism. Similarly, he is âwary of constructing a sharp divide between âactually existing cosmopolitanismâ and the âcosmopolitanism to comeââ, preferring instead to view them as different sides of the same complex phenomenon (p. 140).
Unlike both his preceding book (Political Investigations) and his following book (Antisemitism and the Left), Fine does not give Marx a central role in Cosmopolitanism. This seems to stem in part from a certain wariness of âthe modernist identification of the universal with some selected particularâ, including the âthe identification of the âuniversal classâ...with the interests and values of humanity as a wholeâ (p. 135).
I am in qualified agreement insofar as not all interests we ought to respect or support are reducible to those of what we Marxists would consider the universal class, namely the working class. I would also agree that the Stalinist regime wrought its totalitarian horrors by presenting its own interests as those of the universal class.
Nevertheless, the perspective of class remains vital. First, it helps to avoid the kinds of disastrous conclusions reached by the short-lived Euston Manifesto grouping of âdemocrats and progressivesâ around the time of the bookâs publication.
That grouping attempted a political realignment âbeyond the socialist left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitmentâ. It made only glancing references to class, made armed intervention the cornerstone of its ânew internationalismâ, and several of its founders went as far as supporting the Iraq War.
Second, one should not underestimate the universalising drive of capital and how, by creating wage-labour across the world, capitalism produces working-class agents who possess common interests and unique leverage by virtue of their systemic position as wealth producers. As such, independent organised labour is distinctly positioned to fight for and actualise cosmopolitan values in the face of tyranny and barbarism.
The role of black workersâ independent trade unions in the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, which Fine wrote about extensively, illustrates this distinct position well. While I sadly was unable to speak with Fine himself about it before his passing, I suspect that he would agree. From what I am told by his former students, towards the end of his life, Fine became more appreciative of his earlier work on South Africa.
At the time of writing this review, the COVID-19 pandemic is gripping the entire world. Yet it is at this moment, when the interconnectedness of humanity is most starkly apparent, that both nationalist and localist forms of isolationism are rising. Border closures, dehumanising immigration rules, and xenophobic attitudes leave migrants and refugees even more âotherisedâ and vulnerable than they were already.
If there is any moment for the organised left to stand up for cosmopolitanism, it is now.
[1] Kwame Anthony Appiah terms these intertwining, but potentially conflicting, ideals within cosmopolitanism âuniversal concernâ and âlegitimate differenceâ. Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (London: Penguin Books 2007), p. xiii.
[2] Appiah, Cosmopolitanism, p. 151.
[3] Robert Fine, âThe Poverty of Anti-Stalinismâ, Workersâ Liberty, vol 1, no. 14, 1990, pp. 14-15.
[4] Ulrich Beck, âThe Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism Fails,â Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 24 (7-8), 2007, pp. 286-290.