The Road to Global Citizenship

Globality denotes the development of society on a universal scale. Society is no longer contained by the nation state and social solidarity in the Durkheimian sense becomes global rather than national. This development intensifies the ethical challenge of modernity: the development of a cosmopolitan conception of the human subject. This paper asks what this ethical challenge demands both of us as individual citizens and of the states to which we belong. A cosmopolitan conception of the human subject is one that abstracts from group-based differences of identity in specifying what it is to be a person. Whether people get to be persons depends on the action of the state in providing a constitutional framework of right. It depends also on individuals becoming both willing and able to be self-determining persons who can recognise their fellows as persons. The development of a cosmopolitan conception of right is hindered by profound ambivalence about the modern project of self-determination and the demands it makes of us. It is hindered also by the lack of a secular account of the human subject and by conceptions of human rights that follow upon an onto-theological conception of the human subject. These are anti-statist in orientation and share this in common with laissez-faire economic globalism. Cosmopolitan right depends on both persons and states understanding what it would mean to re-conceive the res publica such that states are oriented as public authorities within a constitutionally governed interstate order.

Berlin Studies, 2021

Today, the impact of globalization on society is growing. The peculiarity of this influence is that the countries of the world have different economic, political, cultural, spiritual and social life, sometimes negatively and sometimes positively. Because now it is difficult to find a country that is fully protected by the processes and effects of globalization. While only a handful of countries, such as North Korea, are passive participants in the global system, it is also undeniable that they are lagging far behind in development. Another noteworthy fact is that the growing achievements in the world of science and technology, which accelerate the process of globalization, make it necessary to impose "restrictions" on certain aspects of globalization, even from a security point of view. Because society is able to govern itself through modern achievements, even without the help of the state. This will undermine the centuries-old status of the state as a political

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

Decentralised, self-organised cross-border activities are increasingly shaping global policymaking. While state actors have lost ground, policy and economic networks have emerged as key actors, transforming international relations as well as national spheres. Academic discourse is following their activity, often focusing on "advocacy networks" and on the role of transnational actors within the transformation of the world economy and world polity. In contrast to these research activities, the approach proposed here extends the scope of inquiry to include the role of transnational networks in norm-building and norm-implementation.

A methodological premise on the content of globality: the general order of the society is corporate by his "net of negotiations," by his discourse/ social exchange; the frame of such negotiations is developed (it is cause and caused) by the technological systems. The net of the social processes is leavened, today, of different forms of "sovereignty", of different contents of the "power" (normal and recurrent phenomenon in the west society with the diffusion of new means of production) that works like control on the interaction macroprocesses/ social negotiations. In this sense there are, among the others, two peculiars considerations: first ,globality,in effect,consists in the diffusion of a technical setting geared to the technological/economic macrosystems; second, this process of ordering bestows on her the structure of general system of the local nets on which she acts. In reality, the apparent inevitability of the macroprocesses, in this technique,suffers of quite a lot necessity of adaptation to the characteristics of the local nets, that see, even, enhanced their capability of interaction using the carriers and the forms of exchange of the same global processes. The problem is all in the substantial difference among local net and local aggregate: an inferring distinction not by a separate observations but only by the social exchange code of the local area,through the capabilities/ abilities that the social actors of the area have to put themselves in conditions of reciprocity, of feedback,of movement respect their personal nets. In substance,to build a local net means to put in order the equilibrium of interaction and exchange of the subjective nets extending the effects of opportunity and development;to govern the local net means "to check,to balance for guarantee" the interaction among his complex and the general processes. Just this function of balancing among local and global delineates the technical passage from government, from the upright intervention, contained and canalized, to the governance, to the coordination of the individual and institutional, public and private processes, coaching collective based actions on the cooperation among the different subjects. Governance in effect, is formatted by the general relations net that includes whether the institutional actions, whether the formalities of interaction among public institutions, private organisms, collective movements, up to the same social actors that, in this process of continual feedback, are constituted like subjects of citizen. The objective content of citizenship, then, is definited by the "ability" of consistence (subjective motivations, shared representations.) that characterize the identity of the subject and by the "capability" of autonomy and movement that he realizes in the own social surrounding (formative capability, techniques, financial.). But there is an other passage:the reality appears us, then, like a system of interactions/ relations, corporate from other nets, his distributions of weights determines the difference among actor and subject. The individual is characterized for a substantial difficulty to govern the complexity of his relations: he possesses all the informative data from his nets, but he is not in degree, alone, to develop the adequate logic to categorize and govern this kit of experiences.

Il presente volume intende rappresentare alcune delle sfi-de che la globalizzazione propone alla sociologia mediante la presentazione di concetti all'apparenza inconciliabili. Between global and Local. Citizenship and Social Change conduce il lettore nel dibattito sulla globalizzazione spo-stando la sua analisi dal campo giuridico a quello politico, dal campo sociale a quello culturale attraversando tema-tiche legate alla cittadinanza, all'identità, al multicultura-lismo nonché particolari situazioni che, sempre più spesso, ne diventano una diretta conseguenza.

2010

is is an age of communication; collectivism gives rise to global village that calls for a global citizenry. It is easy to be a globalectronic (global and electronic) citizen who attains his nationality through internet, multimedia extension, mobile phones, cyber space, and electronic mail etc. It is well-nigh impossible to be a global citizen as every individual has its idiosyncrasy that always grow up with the social milieu lying around him. erefore, people living in the North are unable to cope with people living in the South in all aspects of life. Political unevenness between the North and the South is a major source of dichotomy between two poles. Globalization is a source that collects people in the form of a whole but ineff ectual in forging them to be a global citizen. All political battles over globalization can become to an end if selective morality diminishes. e South is unable to move in the world at will but the North can. Hence claims of laissez faire, peace, human rights, good governance, and sustainable human development are at stake as pluralism facing crises in morality. us it seems diffi cult to have an end product in the form of a global citizenship. It is only possible when morality prevails in attaining its end product through freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Volume 1 Il presente volume intende rappresentare alcune delle sfi-de che la globalizzazione propone alla sociologia mediante la presentazione di concetti all'apparenza inconciliabili. Between global and Local. Citizenship and Social Change conduce il lettore nel dibattito sulla globalizzazione spo-stando la sua analisi dal campo giuridico a quello politico, dal campo sociale a quello culturale attraversando tema-tiche legate alla cittadinanza, all'identità, al multicultura-lismo nonché particolari situazioni che, sempre più spesso, ne diventano una diretta conseguenza.

Until now, attempts to identify a meeting point between the preservation of a universal political identity and maintaining national forms of belonging seem to find little application in the policies of world governments. Consequently, the idea of the individual as a citizen of the world is exposed to the risk of becoming an aspirational ideal devoid of practical and objective translations. In this regard, Theresa May's recent criticism of a concept of world citizenship separate from any ethnic or national membership is an ideal starting point for reflecting on the intrinsic tensions of cosmopolitan political thought regarding citizenship. In response to the distant origin of the conflict between the universalist vision of man and the particular dimension of political participation, the article opens with a brief historical excursus of the principles of cosmopolitanism from classical antiquity to modern political thought, before arriving at a series of reflections on the changing of these values in today's globalized scene. This study allows us to describe the evolution of the long tradition on which the universal human rights enshrined after the end of the Second World War are established. Universal human rights seem to be closely connected to the Age of Enlightenment's cosmopolitan principles of hospitality and solidarity. Although today's increasing social and political integration seems to facilitate the observation of the right to Kantian hospitality, it is noted that the right to asylum and the physical vulnerability of the individual are increasingly suspended or canceled by the same States who claim to be custodians of the universal values of man. Well known evidence of these contradictions are the tragic living conditions of migrants hosted in European hotspots, but also the treatment of the so-called Dreamers in the United States. Exploring the worthiness of the problem of the civil and political status of the growing number of migrants in the world, the need to guarantee access of citizenship benefits to foreigners is emphasized, in the hope that international solidarity practices on which cosmopolitan thought is based will continue to find application in current and future societies.