Page 82 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

68 Politics in a Small World

influence how it is developing in practice, broadly turn on questions of
“ sovereignty ” and “ imperialism. ” Contemporary political sociologists are
divided over whether global governance is inherently imperialist, or
whether it can be steered in a more cosmopolitan direction. Political cos-
mopolitans are not pro - Empire, but, from the point of view of “ anti -

imperialists, ” they are insufficiently attentive to the historical conditions
and dangers of imperialism and how that might affect and infl uence impe-
rialist tendencies in global governance today.
There is no doubt that global governance differs formally from impe-
rialism in that it ostensibly involves relations between sovereign states. It
is different, then, from Empires that owned and ruled sections of the
world directly (Ferguson, 2008 ) On the other hand, an unconditional
commitment to state sovereignty, regardless of a state ’ s democratic struc-

ture and the respect of its officials for the rule of law, is a problem for
political cosmopolitans, who see limitations on state sovereignty as entirely
legitimate where states are involved in torture and murder, or where they
systematically fail to enforce laws against routine violence that takes place
within their own societies. Particularly at risk here are women, when
violence in the “ private sphere ” of family life is treated as normal and
goes unpunished; and ethnic minorities, where fear and hatred erupts,
especially on the part of those who are able to access and use states ’ means
of force. Political cosmopolitans consider that sovereignty should be reas-
sessed and reformed: it should be shared in a democratically reformed
UN in which state representatives agree on the legitimate limits of state
activity. Breach of those limits could involve interference in states ’ domes-
tic affairs. Political cosmopolitans see shared sovereignty as already devel-
oping as a legal possibility, and argue that intervention may be justifi ed
in certain cases, legally and morally (Held, 1995a, 1995b, 2002 ; Habermas,
2006 ). In contrast, those who interpret global governance as inherently
imperialist see such interventions as linked to continuing attempts to
dominate and exploit people who live in post - colonial states that have
achieved only a precarious and formal recognition of sovereignty: global
governance in general, and especially the use of military force on other
states, is a way of extending imperialism (Chomsky, 2000 ; Hardt and
Negri, 2000 ; Harvey, 2003, 2005 ; Amir, 2007 ; Douzinas, 2007 ). What
“ human rights ” mean, and to whom; how societies are to be structured
for the good of all; and who is to decide: these are the objects of the
cultural politics of global governance for sociologists as well as for those
directly involved in the organizations of global governance.
The distinction David Held has made between state autonomy and state
sovereignty is useful to separate out issues that are often confl ated under