Author:

Abstract:

The concept of ‘citizenship’ has a long history in Western political philosophy. In contemporary debates, it is a hot topic. What is special about today’s citizenship debate, is that it is deeply influenced by globalization. The central research question is how to think global citizenship today. I investigate this question in two steps, corresponding to two ways of reading the research question. First, it can be read as emphasizing How to think global citizenship today? This reading implies an methodological inquiry. In chapter 1, I develop a methodology, based on a close reading of Wendy Brown and James Tully and building on the tradition of critique in which they are situated. This approach focuses on the background assumptions of the debate and its constitutive terms, rather than the actual positions and arguments. In chapters 2 and 3, I apply this method to the constitutive terms of the debate, to wit ‘the global’ and ‘citizenship’. In the analysis of ‘the global’ (or, put differently, the manner in which the term ‘globalisation’ functions in contemporary political philosophy), I discuss the ‘naturalization’ of ‘the global’, which amounts to a ‘global ideology’ (Chandler). In the analysis of citizenship, I discuss the false universalism that has been uncovered in the contestation of citizenship by social movements. Second, it can be read as emphasizing How to think global citizenship today? Once it has been demonstrated that the notions of both citizenship and ‘the global’ need to be ‘put in their place’, the question is how to think global citizenship differently? What are the conditions of possibility of such an endeavor? At the heart of my answer is an epistemological argument about the complicity of knowledge with power, and of contemporary political philosophy with the legacy of imperialism and colonialism. In chapter 4 I investigate how Tully deals with the imperial legacy, as he develops an argument for the de-imperialisation of modern citizenship and advances a concept of diverse citizenship, which he translates into a notion of glocal citizenship. Although the importance of Tully’s call for de-imperialisation can hardly be underestimated, I argue that it is ultimately insufficient. Drawing on the modernity/coloniality framework, I argue that Tully’s de-imperialisation needs to be developed further, and that epistemological decolonization is needed. In chapter 5, I discuss the implications for global citizenship, as I set up a dialogue between Tully’s notion of ‘glocal citizenship’ and Mignolo’s ‘decolonial cosmopolitanism’. Although these notions are fundamentally different, they are complementary. The answer to the question about the conditions of possibility for thinking global citizenship differently consists in an argument about the necessity of a post-imperial, decolonial project. In conclusion, I broaden the argument for a decolonial project from global citizenship to political philosophy and democracy.