ABSTRACT
As Habermas goes on, however, "the question arises of whether there exists a fimctional equivalent for the rusion of the nation of citizens with the
l I o evt'
,
2J b - al1
Il litical r l
. ci
, ll
:u
~ e litics - fr I
r nyms - Olfe b J less y i i·
G . t~ b tion!'; levels Olnizati Oll
Confronting similar concerns in the mid-twentieth century. Theodor Adorno wrote,
An emancipated society ... would not be a unitary state, but the realization of universality in the reconciliation of differences. Politics that are still seriously concerned with such a society ought not, therefore, propound the abstract equality of men even as an idea. Instead, they should point to the bad equality today ... and conceive the better state as one in which people could be different without fcar.2"
This is very inadequately achieved at the lev-el of the nation·state. to be sure. but it seems harder. not easier. to develop in a gJobal polity. Indeed, the pro· jection of nationality to a global scale is a major motivation behind repression of difference. This is not to say that cultural and social differences provoke 110 conflict in villages or urban neighborhoods. They do, but face-to-face rela.tions also provide for important fonns of mediation. Ethnic violence in cities and villages commonly reflects organized enmity on a larger scale rather than being its basis.
