Abstract
While focusing on the thought of Charles Taylor the question whether the politics of loyalty can be part of a transcendental structure for society is discussed in this article. Classical patriotism, for instance, involves loyalty to public institutions and laws to enhance self-rule. In the twentieth century, however, classical patriotism became fused with nationalism (i.e. loyalty to culture), resulting in many instances in human suffering. Part of the explanation for this derailment is to be found in the Taylorian concept of the hypertrophy of autonomous freedom. The argument developed in this article links up with trends in liberalism and Taylor’s own reasoning that hypertrophy can be curbed within a transcendental structure for society (i.e. a cosmopolitan politics of loyalty). However, in the liberalist trends (and also in Taylor’s thought) tension exists between such a structure and the perception that loyalty politics is a mere particularism. As alternative I propose engagement between the cosmopolitan perspective and the various loyalties, with the latter a transcendental principle that needs to be applied in collaboration with other principles.
Highlights
For cosmopolitans the idea of taking patriotism and nationalism seriously is an outrage, because of the bigoted, jingoistic and bloody history of twentieth-century nationalism
Cosmopolitans operate with the perception that this kind of politics is only interested in the survival, interest and power of the own group against the cosmopolitan orientation with its openness to all people
Kal (2001:186), is of the opinion that a tension between cosmopolitanism and the autonomism associated with loyalty manifests itself inherently to Taylor’s thought
Summary
For cosmopolitans the idea of taking patriotism and nationalism seriously is an outrage, because of the bigoted, jingoistic and bloody history of twentieth-century nationalism. I will embark on a search to connect the cosmopolitan stance and the politics of loyalty in a more integral way Directing this attempt is a hunch that the dilemma between the exclusivity of loyalism and the sterility of cosmopolitanism is due to an absolutisation of either a legitimate loyalist morality or an impotent use of the transcendental order for society suggested by the concept cosmopolis[1]. Michael Heyns politics of loyalty will be linked with a diagnosis that sees a fully secularised and autonomist freedom as the root-cause of both exclusivist loyalism and sterile non-commitment[2] This autonomism represses the idea of a societal structure that provides a just (not repressed and no over-emphasised) place and function to loyalties. I will argue that we should look for an integral view in the idea of particular loyalties that receives a legitimate and necessary place in a structure for society
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
