Calibración de cámara como parámetro forense

One of the themes of cosmopolitanism is identity and that cultural diversity can exist within the global realm of humanity. Cosmopolitanism elucidates to the type of identity which could exist within the global realm of humanity making global governance and ethics possible. ‘Someone who is attached to a particular place or home with its cultural particularities but takes pleasure from the presence of other,

32

different places that are home to other different people’ (Appiah, 1996, p. 22 cited in Kaldor, 2000, p.6). Cosmpolitanism thus conveys a certain image or ideal type of individual, referred to as a cosmopolitan. Similarly, Kaldor (2000) like Appiah (1996) stresses difference when defining a cosmopolitan. Kaldor, (2000) defines a cosmopolitan as someone who is knowledgeable about different cultures and language. The idea is that if someone is knowledgeable about difference then they are also acceptant of difference. In this way tolerance of difference is linked to globalization and the idea that identities are not simply defined according to the territory of the nation state. Rather, as Hudson (2008, p.284) argues the cosmopolitan identity is ‘a pick-and-mix of globally available ingredients of identity, building a progressive and inclusive self-image’. Therefore, when defining the cosmopolitan - choice of identities, multiple affiliations and multiple attachments are stressed as being a reality.

However, it could be said that the idea of cultural diversity within the unity of the global realm of humanity is an abstract ideal as there are many complexities. The idea of a global, universal identity leads to the question – what form and values should such an identity have? Kaldor (2000) envisages the global identity as being one which is synonymous with human rights. Kaldor (2000) links human rights with multiple identities, saying that Kant envisaged a global system in which everyone had the right to hospitality and thus because human rights exist at the global level they would constitute the binding force within which multiple identities could exist. Dower (2008, p.9) explains how ‘the Stoics accepted the idea of concentric rings of identity – accepting the idea of being a citizen of the world did not involve rejecting one’s identity as a member of a family, local community or a larger political community’. In this way the unity would be the global community of humanity and within this

33

there would be diversity, notably those signifying attachment of national identity, cultural identity, religious identity and so forth. Within cosmopolitanism world citizen denotes the emphasis on common humanity (Couture and Nielsen, 2005). Although the idea of a common humanity, one based on human rights in which multiple identities can exist is important in cosmopolitanism, the existence of a common humanity can be dangerous if the voices of minorities or subaltern groups, as Walker (2005a) argues, are silenced in the process. Further, Dower (2008, p.6) states

‘all too often, especially in the past, there has been an inappropriate projection of values onto the rest of the world, whether explicitly in the name of cosmopolitanism or in other ways. But the response to this should not be to reject cosmopolitanism but to fashion a form of cosmopolitanism which avoids these criticisms’.

Thus, from a cosmopolitan perspective the existence of universal values is very much dependent on how cultural identities or identities of difference are incorporated within the macro universal identity.

Much has been written about the negotiation of identities within the macro universal identity and the dangers of silently walking into or advocating a homogenous macro identity at the expense of more micro identities. Beck and Grande (2007, p.71), when referring to this negotiation warn about the dangers of hierarchy stating ‘differences should neither be arranged hierarchically nor should they be replaced by common norms, values and standards; rather, they should be accepted as such and even have a positive value placed on them’. In this way difference is embraced and conceptualized as providing fluidity and as adding depth, creation and

34

choice – therefore it could be argued that subjectivity and personal freedom are prioritized. However, Walker (2005a) argues that although cosmopolitanism advocates the importance of all cultures, without prioritizing any, or giving greater importance to any, this can transcend into cultural relativism. For this reason Walker (2005a) presses the importance of universalism based on humanity whereby commonality exists but not at the expense of universalism leading to processes of cultural imperialism. Beck and Grande (2007, p.71) use ‘cosmopolitan realism’ to refer to how differences can exist within unity and cosmopolitan realism basically means the recognition of the legitimate interests of others and their inclusion in the calculation of one’s own interests’. The idea of legitimacy is closely linked to citizenship and in particular McPhee (2005) in the sense of how the state incorporates minorities and thus parts into the whole. Cosmopolitan ideas of identity are of relevance to the research and the logic of identity demonstrates this.

According to Hudson (2008, p.279) ‘the logic of identity/difference imposes a false unity on groups defined by difference, and it imposes a false emphasis on a single characteristic on individuals’. Similarly, Beck (2006, p.25) argues that, within the national outlook there is

‘the prison error of identity. According to this view, each human being has one native country, which he cannot choose, he is born into it and it conforms to the either/or logic of nations and the associated stereotypes’.

Beck (2006, p.25) argues that within the prison error of identity, ‘people with strange- sounding names find themselves repeatedly subjected to cross-examination’. It could be said that the prison error of identity has become increasingly relevant in the ‘war

35

on terror’ because the discourse associated with ‘new terrorism’ is one whereby Muslim citizens are predominantly subject to counter terrorism measures based on constructed stereotypes of the terrorist (as is explained in the following chapter). It could therefore be argued that with the increase in police powers under counter terrorism legislation and the creation of Muslims’ Islamic identity as representing a threat in the ‘war on terror’ this has contributed to the extent that the logic of identity is used by the state and the police. Further, the introduction of counter terrorism legislation has contributed to the damage and harm the ‘false emphasis on a single characteristic’ (Hudson, 2008, p.279) means, as under counter terrorism legislation it can lead to house arrest or detention. The logic of identity therefore interacts with the legal rights and the status of citizens suspected of terrorism in the ‘war on terror’.