‘With a level of philosophical sophistication rarely found in the discipline of international relations, Sergei Prozorov’s texts issue challenges that no one interested in politics in general and global politics in particular should ignore.’ Michael J. Shapiro, University of Hawai’i Manoa, USA ‘Taken together, Ontology and World Politics and Theory of the Political Subject represent the most ambitious re-articulation of the ontological and ethical foundations of universalism to date by one of the most brilliant and provocative scholars of his generation. I can thus warmly recommend these volumes to anyone with an interest in cutting-edge international political theory.’ Jens Bartelson, Professor of Political Science, Lund University, Sweden ‘Drawing on a wide range of sources in political theory and philosophy, Prozorov develops a novel and ambitious defense of universalism. He does so not against, but through approaches that critique global models for their hegemonic and excluding nature. The result is a re-articulation of universalism that seeks to affirm difference and plurality through concepts of community, equality and freedom.’ Roland Bleiker, Professor of International Relations, School of Political Science and International Studies , University of Queensland, Australia ONTOLOGY AND WORLD POLITICS Together these two companion volumes develop an innovative theory of world politics, grounded in the reinterpretation of the concepts of ‘world’ and ‘politics’ from an ontological perspective. In the discipline of international relations the concept of world politics remains ambivalent, functioning both as a synonym of international relations and its antonym, denoting the aspirations for overcoming interstate pluralism in favour of a universalist politics of the global community or the world state. Rather than distinguish ‘world politics’ from ‘international politics’ by its site, level or issues, Prozorov interprets it as another kind of politics. Drawing on Martin Heidegger’s account of world disclosure and Alain Badiou’s phenomenology of worlds, this book posits world politics as a practice of the affirmation of universal axioms across an infinite plurality of limited and particular situations or ‘worlds’. Prozorov reinterprets the familiar principles of community, equality and freedom in ontological terms as attributes of pure being, subtracted from all positive determinations, and presents them as axioms of universalist politics valid in any world whatsoever. This approach to world politics serves as the groundwork for a comprehensive reconsideration of the central themes of political and international relations theory. Systematic and accessible, these works will be key reading for all students and scholars of political science and international relations. Sergei Prozorov is University Lecturer in World Politics at the University of Helsinki and Academy of Finland Research Fellow. He is the author of four books, the most recent being The Ethics of Postcommunism . He has also published numerous articles on political philosophy and international relations in major international journals. ONTOLOGY AND WORLD POLITICS Void universalism I Sergei Prozorov First published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Sergei Prozorov The right of Sergei Prozorov to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Prozorov, Sergei, author. Ontology and world politics : void universalism I / Sergei Prozorov. pages cm. — (Interventions) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-415-84023-1 (hardback) — ISBN 978-0-415-84024-8 (paperback) — ISBN 978-0-203-74574- 8 (e-book) 1. Political science—Philosophy. 2. World politics—Philosophy. 3. Ontology—Political aspects. I. Title. JA71.P78 2014 320.01—dc23 2013009589 ISBN: 978-0-415-84023-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-84024-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-74574-8 (ebk) To my daughter Pauliina: welcome to the world CONTENTS Preface Introduction: the existence of universality The question of world politics Why there is no theory of world politics Towards an ontology of world politics From the void to the universal PART I The World and worlds 1 Three concepts of the world The constitutive ambivalence of world politics The world as everything The world as something The world as nothing The universality of the void 2 Politics: bringing the World into worlds Politics beyond the (inter)national Nihilism Metapolitics Putting the World back in Schmitt’s concept of the political: the partition of the void Rancière’s concept of politics: equality and the spectre of ontology PART II What is world politics? 3 Three axioms of politics Being-in-the-World: the ontological mood Community, equality, freedom Universality and historicity Community without fraternity For all: universalism beyond anthropocentrism 4 The typology of political invariants Politics and its negations Seven forms of politics World politics: libertarianism, egalitarianism, communitarianism The new world: the subsumption of universality The three nothings: void, world, sovereignty Bibliography Index Preface Universalism has been suffering from a bad reputation, particularly as a political doctrine. The modern condition that we have come to know as nihilism makes it difficult, if not outright impossible, to invoke universal values or principles, be they transcendent or immanent, theological or scientific. Since the early twentieth century, universalism has also been under attack from various strands in philosophy and social sciences, which sought to expose the socially or politically constructed, historically contingent, culturally particular character of the allegedly universal concepts and ideals, from human rights to possessive individualism, from constitutionalism to civil society, from state sovereignty to gender equality. Such diverse approaches as social constructivism and neo- Marxism, feminism and post-colonialism, multiculturalism and post- structuralism demonstrate, in different ways, how the things we have been accustomed to consider universal are in fact products of highly particular historical conjunctures, cultural constellations, social class or economic order, and their alleged universality is always a result of a hegemonic operation of universalization that conceals the particular origin or character of what it presents as universal. This universalization is not merely a hypocritical but also at least potentially a violent project that ventures to exclude, dominate or eliminate whatever cannot be subsumed under its hegemonic figure of universality. The elevation of a particular object or phenomenon to the status of the universal transforms the pluralistic space of coexistence of particularities into the site of domination of the newly minted universal, paving the way for various forms of imperialism and resistance to it from other particular forces. Universalist politics is thus held to be inherently conflictual due to its hostility to difference. The mitigation of such conflicts, be they domestic or international, requires the operation that reverses the hegemonic gesture of universalization and restores the particularity of the phenomena or practices in question, making it no longer possible to invoke it as a pretext for dominating other particularities or limiting pluralism. To the extent that universality is admissible in this critical discourse, it is only as a characteristic of the space between particularities, the space of their pluralistic coexistence. In this account the universal stands precisely for the prohibition of universalization and the imperative of maintaining particularistic pluralism. From the criticism of unilateralism of US foreign policy under George W. Bush to domestic debates about multiculturalism and integration, from the discussion of the foundations of European identity to the calls for a ‘multipolar’ world we observe the problematization of universalism that has itself become almost universal. This problematization is not only familiar but, more importantly, correct. The affirmation of sovereignty, human rights, private property or any other positive principle as a universal can only come at the price of the effacement of its historical origin and the forgetting of its past or even present use to justify exclusion or domination or advance ulterior interests of particular parties. And, yet, this problematization soon stops being intellectually satisfying for at least two reasons. First, insofar as every concept or ideal can be shown to have a historical origin in a particular situation, universalism proves to be a much too easy target. Nothing is simpler than exposing the particularity of every claim to universality as a hegemonic strategy whose very fervor betrays its illegitimacy. Second, the simplicity of problematizing universalism contrasts unfavourably with the extreme difficulty of dispensing with it entirely. The only alternative to hegemonic universalization seems to be an equally unpalatable prospect of the valorization of particularism that permanently risks collapsing into relativism or nihilism. In the absence of any universal principles it becomes impossible to adjudicate between particular forms of politics, including the violent politics of exclusion, domination or extermination that hegemonic universalism was itself accused of. Domestically, the abrogation of universalism reduces political life to ceaseless conflict between particular forces with particular interests that threatens social atomization, anomie and ultimately a relapse into Hobbes’ war of all against all. Internationally, the renunciation of universalism seems to throw us back to the ‘anarchic’ international system that is conventionally dated back to the Peace of Westphalia, the system, whose propensity to war inspired countless masterpieces of political theory and the birth of the very discipline of international relations. If the reason for dispensing with universalism was its propensity to exclusion, domination and violence, then the rampant valorization of particularism does not seem to fare much better. The tensions between universalism and particularism are evidently intensified in the condition of globalization. On the one hand, globalization is usually approached in quasi-universalist terms as the progressive integration of the world’s economic, cultural or even political (sub)systems that erase the