Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck
Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck
复制标题
谁的宇宙，哪个世界政治？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Latour
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Latour
缔造和平的人有福了。读一份和平建议（如乌尔里希·贝克的）总是比读一份圣战呼吁（如塞缪尔·亨廷顿的）要好。贝克在这次研讨会的主要文章中所表达的世界主义的稳健和现实主义形式是值得欢迎的。另一方面，只有当人们了解和平建议所要解决的冲突的真实的程度时，和平建议才有意义。一种超然的、我们可以说是廉价的理解敌意的方式，一种威尔逊式的对敌意复杂性的漠不关心，可能会进一步使暴力争端的当事方变得更加敌对。贝克的解决方案的问题在于，如果世界大战是关于普遍性和特殊性的问题，就像他所说的那样，那么世界和平早就会随之而来了。贝克方法的局限性在于，他的“世界政治学”不包含宇宙，因此也不包含政治。我非常崇拜贝克的社会学--这是欧洲唯一一个影响深远的社会学--并且在几个场合都这样说过。我们现在看到的是一个朋友之间的争论，他们一起努力解决一个难题，到目前为止，这个难题已经击败了世界各地的每一个人。让我从一开始就明确指出，我不是在辩论一门世界性的社会科学的有用性，这种科学超越了民族国家的界限，试图用新型的统计和调查来看待全球现象。我更容易接受这一点，因为对我来说，社会从来就不是民族国家的等价物。原因有二：第一，科学网络
Blessed are the peacemakers. It is always nicer to read a peace proposal (like Ulrich Beck’s) than a call for jihad (like Samuel Huntington’s). Beck’s robust and realist form of cosmopolitanism, expressed in the lead article of this symposium, is to be welcomed. On the other hand, peace proposals make sense only if the real extent of the conflicts they are supposed to settle is understood. A detached and, let us say, inexpensive way of understanding enmity, a Wilsonian indifference to its complexity, may further infuriate the parties to a violent dispute. The problem with Beck’s solution is that, if world wars were about issues of universality and particularity, as he makes them out to be, then world peace would have ensued long ago. The limitation of Beck’s approach is that his “cosmopolitics” entails no cosmos and hence no politics either. I am a great admirer of Beck’s sociology—the only far-reaching one Europe has to offer—and have said so in print on several occasions. What we have here is an argument among friends working together on a puzzle that has defeated, so far, everyone everywhere. Let me make clear from the beginning that I am not debating the usefulness of a cosmopolitan social science that, beyond the boundaries of nation-states, would try to look at global phenomena using new types of statistics and inquiries. I accept this point all the more readily since for me, society has never been the equivalent of nation-state. For two reasons: the first is that the scientific networks