Adopting a Foucauldian critical methodology, this thesis reflects upon the inherent ambiguities of cosmopolitan government in/of EU(rope), which, it is suggested, are borne out in the ambiguous relationship between the particular liberal subjects – a ‘subject of interest’ and ‘subject of right’ - that such government seeks to identify, produce and foster. Developing Foucault’s own recently published genealogy of liberal government, it is argued that cosmopolitan government can be conceived as the promotion of (neo)liberal deregulatory market agendas within and beyond EU(rope): a EU(rope) of free competitive ‘subjects of interest’, increasingly conceived as entrepreneurs. This, it is argued, is the constitutive basis of contemporary post-national government in EU(rope) (Part I). Taking seriously the nuances in Foucault’s analysis, cosmopolitan government can, however, also be understood in terms of the evocation of EU(rope) as socially just nation-state rooted in constitution and social-contract: a EU(rope) of ‘subjects of right’ or citizens. Such a conceptualisation is often evident in scholarly and practical opposition to the perceived extremes of a ‘market’ Europe, as illustrated via an analysis of Habermas’s scholarship and French discourses on EU(rope) (Part II). Finally, taking the deliberative impulse in Habermas much further than he does in his own work on EU(rope), a range of scholarly interventions and associated institutional innovations have thought/ practiced cosmopolitan government as a multi-levelled, multi-scalar, open-ended deliberative endeavour ostensibly respectful of Europe’s extant plurality in theory and practice, but this is not without its own foundational ontology of the autonomous, rational, reasonable European subject. Indeed, via an analysis of deliberative forms of governance in contemporary EU(rope), it is argued that such a conception of rationality or reason is - in both theory and practice - closely associated with the aforementioned (neo)liberal rationality of cosmopolitan government to the extent that such rationalities are EU(rope)’s very condition of possibility (Part III). The thesis demonstrates, then, that the ambiguous relationship between a ‘subject of interest’ and ‘subject of right’ is not overcome in either the theory or practice of cosmopolitan government. It concludes by postulating that there may be good ethico-political reasons for giving up the attempt to overcome such ambiguity.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:526464 |
| Date | January 2010 |
| Creators | Parker, Owen |
| Publisher | University of Warwick |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3921/ |
Page generated in 0.0128 seconds