Department of Political Science

The State Made Me Do It: How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

The State Made Me Do It : How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State. / Axelsen, David Vestergaard.

In: Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 21, No. 4, 12.2013, p. 451-472.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Axelsen, DV 2013, 'The State Made Me Do It: How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State', Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12005

APA

Axelsen, D. V. (2013). The State Made Me Do It: How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State. Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(4), 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12005

CBE

MLA

Axelsen, David Vestergaard. "The State Made Me Do It: How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State". Journal of Political Philosophy. 2013, 21(4). 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12005

Vancouver

Author

Axelsen, David Vestergaard. / The State Made Me Do It : How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State. In: Journal of Political Philosophy. 2013 ; Vol. 21, No. 4. pp. 451-472.

Bibtex

@article{f07058a1be7d4763802d0a09e98eaf77,
title = "The State Made Me Do It: How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State",
abstract = "Anti-cosmopolitans claim that our obligations towards compatriots greatly outweigh (and in some cases eclipse) duties towards foreigners, and that our relationship with the latter is of a sort that does not include strong, redistributive obligations as a matter of justice. Contradicting this claim, cosmopolitans hold that our obligations towards compatriots and non-compatriots are equally strong (or for weak cosmopolitans, almost equally strong), and thus, we should redistribute resources from rich to poor on a much larger scale than we are currently doing. The present article does not provide an independent argument for cosmopolitanism. Instead it grants a number of key anti-cosmopolitan premises, and argues that even if we accept these, we have good reasons to deny the conclusions. More specifically, the article attempts to show that national identity and anti-cosmopolitan sentiments are to a non-insignificant degree created and upheld by state institutions and policies. Hence, contrary to what some anti-cosmopolitans hold, we cannot conclude that people are unable to fulfil strong, redistributive duties towards foreigners, but only that they cannot do so under the state policies currently pursued (most importantly, but not exclusively) in Western democracies and the present institutional background. Furthermore, the fact that we are shaping the content and depth of this relationship and rendering people unable to meet these obligations through our choice of state policies is a questionable foundation for basing conclusions about justice. The article finally claims that alternative policies could plausibly make the relationship between non-compatriots be understood as deeper and more worthy as an end in itself, making people capable of meeting strong(er) obligations towards non-compatriots, and that anti-cosmopolitans have not shown why we should not prefer such policies.",
author = "Axelsen, {David Vestergaard}",
year = "2013",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1111/jopp.12005",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "451--472",
journal = "Journal of Political Philosophy",
issn = "0963-8016",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The State Made Me Do It

T2 - How Anti-cosmopolitanism is Created by the State

AU - Axelsen, David Vestergaard

PY - 2013/12

Y1 - 2013/12

N2 - Anti-cosmopolitans claim that our obligations towards compatriots greatly outweigh (and in some cases eclipse) duties towards foreigners, and that our relationship with the latter is of a sort that does not include strong, redistributive obligations as a matter of justice. Contradicting this claim, cosmopolitans hold that our obligations towards compatriots and non-compatriots are equally strong (or for weak cosmopolitans, almost equally strong), and thus, we should redistribute resources from rich to poor on a much larger scale than we are currently doing. The present article does not provide an independent argument for cosmopolitanism. Instead it grants a number of key anti-cosmopolitan premises, and argues that even if we accept these, we have good reasons to deny the conclusions. More specifically, the article attempts to show that national identity and anti-cosmopolitan sentiments are to a non-insignificant degree created and upheld by state institutions and policies. Hence, contrary to what some anti-cosmopolitans hold, we cannot conclude that people are unable to fulfil strong, redistributive duties towards foreigners, but only that they cannot do so under the state policies currently pursued (most importantly, but not exclusively) in Western democracies and the present institutional background. Furthermore, the fact that we are shaping the content and depth of this relationship and rendering people unable to meet these obligations through our choice of state policies is a questionable foundation for basing conclusions about justice. The article finally claims that alternative policies could plausibly make the relationship between non-compatriots be understood as deeper and more worthy as an end in itself, making people capable of meeting strong(er) obligations towards non-compatriots, and that anti-cosmopolitans have not shown why we should not prefer such policies.

AB - Anti-cosmopolitans claim that our obligations towards compatriots greatly outweigh (and in some cases eclipse) duties towards foreigners, and that our relationship with the latter is of a sort that does not include strong, redistributive obligations as a matter of justice. Contradicting this claim, cosmopolitans hold that our obligations towards compatriots and non-compatriots are equally strong (or for weak cosmopolitans, almost equally strong), and thus, we should redistribute resources from rich to poor on a much larger scale than we are currently doing. The present article does not provide an independent argument for cosmopolitanism. Instead it grants a number of key anti-cosmopolitan premises, and argues that even if we accept these, we have good reasons to deny the conclusions. More specifically, the article attempts to show that national identity and anti-cosmopolitan sentiments are to a non-insignificant degree created and upheld by state institutions and policies. Hence, contrary to what some anti-cosmopolitans hold, we cannot conclude that people are unable to fulfil strong, redistributive duties towards foreigners, but only that they cannot do so under the state policies currently pursued (most importantly, but not exclusively) in Western democracies and the present institutional background. Furthermore, the fact that we are shaping the content and depth of this relationship and rendering people unable to meet these obligations through our choice of state policies is a questionable foundation for basing conclusions about justice. The article finally claims that alternative policies could plausibly make the relationship between non-compatriots be understood as deeper and more worthy as an end in itself, making people capable of meeting strong(er) obligations towards non-compatriots, and that anti-cosmopolitans have not shown why we should not prefer such policies.

U2 - 10.1111/jopp.12005

DO - 10.1111/jopp.12005

M3 - Journal article

VL - 21

SP - 451

EP - 472

JO - Journal of Political Philosophy

JF - Journal of Political Philosophy

SN - 0963-8016

IS - 4

ER -