Cosmopolitanism or globalization: the Anthropocene turn

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advance the debate on “cosmopolitanism or globalization” by approaching this rich literature from cultural, ethical and governance angles, and by introducing key notions from the work that has taken place in the natural sciences, around the Anthropocene. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on analytical tactics that draw on a literature review and thematic analysis. Findings The composite analytical “lens” is introduced here (crafted around cultural, ethical and governance angles) to approach the debate on “cosmopolitanism or globalization” plus the engagement with the literature on the Anthropocene, allow us to engage with current understandings of the global and the “planetary” that are at the heart of cosmopolitanism. Research limitations/implications The paper deals with and merges two complex streams of literature (“cosmopolitanism or globalization” and the Anthropocene), and as such, needs to be seen as part of an initial, exploratory scholarly effort. Practical implications The analytical “lens” described here shall be of further use to develop current trends re-claiming cosmopolitanism for the study of organizations. Social implications This work can help nurture a cosmopolitan sensitivity which celebrates difference, highlights expanded concerns for the “distant other” and fosters involvement in new forms of governance. Originality/value The approaches introduced here bring new angles to continue thinking about the planet as the “cosmos” of cosmopolitanism, and to explore new understandings around organizations and (global) responsibility.

Alternative visions: Permaculture as imaginaries of the Anthropocene

“…Mannen et al, 2012) and the Anthropocene more generally (e.g. Alcaraz et al, 2016), we then conclude by laying out directions for future research based on our theorizing.…”

“…Empirical studies following particular permaculture initiatives as they unfold, tracing the evolving relations between humans, land, and other species, are lacking, and constitute an important gap in our understanding of organizational responses to the Anthropocene (Alcaraz et al, 2016; Heikkurinen et al, 2015). The current study does not engage in this kind of empirical effort; however, we prepare the terrain for such research by broadly considering the diverse imaginaries involved in such initiatives.…”

Dark times for cosmopolitanism? An ethical framework to address private agri‐food governance and planetary stewardship

“…Several authors (see Guibernau, 2001; Maak, 2009) have referred to these as being cultural, moral, legal, and political. Following the work of the authors [Alcaraz et al (2016)], we ended up slightly modifying those categories, and identifying them as cultural, moral and governance perspectives. These three perspectives and our two key research questions drove our data collection and analysis.…”

Institutional-Political Scenarios for Anthropocene Society

“…Ultimately it is our social beliefs and values that define their purpose, role, form, and impact (Bazerman & Hoffman, 1999). This path emphasizes that changes in social structures are required to lead to a better human future through better governance (Biermann et al, 2012), values and beliefs (Alcaraz, Sugars, Nicolopoulou, & Tirado, 2016), and a variety of new or amended societal institutions (Hoffman & Jennings, 2015; Hulme, 2009). Over the longer-term, this trajectory of Anthropocene Society will bring contemporary considerations for sustainability into a new orientation, one that requires, not an adjustment of social systems to the limits set by the biosphere, but recognition of the planetary boundaries beyond which social systems should not go but already have, leading to new forms of moral reasoning (Ellis & Trachtenberg, 2013) and “a shared view of human and Earth histories [that] calls for a renewed engagement with ethics” (Schmidt, Brown, & Orr, 2016), most notably within the domains of religious values (Pope Francis, 2015) and personal ethics (Jonas, 1973).…”