This book explores whether any theory alone is sufficiently capable of resolving the complexity of global justice, arguing that a combination of statism and cosmopolitanism is needed.

In current times, xenophobia, nationalism and populism have amplified othering in both domestic and international politics. In global justice, the dichotomy between the ‘polis’ and the ‘cosmopolis’ separates statism from cosmopolitanism. Using resource curse as a complex case of global justice, the author demonstrates how neither statism nor cosmopolitanism alone are sufficient but goes on to argue that a combination of the two theories is simultaneously necessary and sufficient to resolve the complexity of global justice. He demonstrates how statism is primarily applied to the institutional dimensions of resource curse and only secondarily applied to the interactional dimensions, while cosmopolitanism is applied to the interactional dimensions but only secondarily applied to the institutional dimensions, and therefore a combination of both theories is needed to resolve the problem of resource curse – using the strength of the former to compensate for the weakness of the latter, and vice versa.

Global justice is widely taught and researched as one of the most important areas in political philosophy and political theory. This book will be of great interest to students and researchers, philosophers and political scientists of African politics, political theory, political philosophy, international relations and international development.

This book explores whether any theory alone is sufficiently capable of resolving the complexity of global justice, arguing that a combination of statism and cosmopolitanism is needed.

In current times, xenophobia, nationalism and populism have amplified othering in both domestic and international politics. In global justice, the dichotomy between the ‘polis’ and the ‘cosmopolis’ separates statism from cosmopolitanism. Using resource curse as a complex case of global justice, the author demonstrates how neither statism nor cosmopolitanism alone are sufficient but goes on to argue that a combination of the two theories is simultaneously necessary and sufficient to resolve the complexity of global justice. He demonstrates how statism is primarily applied to the institutional dimensions of resource curse and only secondarily applied to the interactional dimensions, while cosmopolitanism is applied to the interactional dimensions but only secondarily applied to the institutional dimensions, and therefore a combination of both theories is needed to resolve the problem of resource curse – using the strength of the former to compensate for the weakness of the latter, and vice versa.

Global justice is widely taught and researched as one of the most important areas in political philosophy and political theory. This book will be of great interest to students and researchers, philosophers and political scientists of African politics, political theory, political philosophy, international relations and international development.

This book investigates whether African cultures can appropriate some useful aspects of Western cultures, or whether doing so risks falling into the metaphysical empire and diluting African identity.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Ndlovu-Gatsheni characterise the metaphysical empire as an intangible non-physical and non-geographical invasion of the mental universe of formerly colonised peoples. As mutual exclusivists, they argue that authentic decolonization necessitates a complete dissociation of the African and her culture from colonial heritage. However, cultural appropriationists such as Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie argue that the African adoption of colonial heritage such as the English language is in no way antithetical to decolonization. This book delves into the debate by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of cultural appropriationism and, on the other hand, testing the validity of mutual exclusivism. The book demonstrates that cultural appropriation without falling into the metaphysical empire is possible, but that this poses important questions about the nature of the decolonization project itself, and where it should start and stop. A more accommodative decolonization would recognize the relationship between cultural universals and particulars, whilst also creating room for cultural appropriation. Ultimately, the book argues that both cultural appropriationists and mutual exclusivists must simultaneously renounce absolutism. By being amenable to a fusion of horizons, discourse can move beyond the decolonization fallacy of arguing that things are always either/or.

This original and important contribution to the metaphysical empire debate will be a seminal read for researchers across the fields of philosophy, political science, African studies, and Black studies.

This book investigates whether African cultures can appropriate some useful aspects of Western cultures, or whether doing so risks falling into the metaphysical empire and diluting African identity.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Ndlovu-Gatsheni characterise the metaphysical empire as an intangible non-physical and non-geographical invasion of the mental universe of formerly colonised peoples. As mutual exclusivists, they argue that authentic decolonization necessitates a complete dissociation of the African and her culture from colonial heritage. However, cultural appropriationists such as Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie argue that the African adoption of colonial heritage such as the English language is in no way antithetical to decolonization. This book delves into the debate by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of cultural appropriationism and, on the other hand, testing the validity of mutual exclusivism. The book demonstrates that cultural appropriation without falling into the metaphysical empire is possible, but that this poses important questions about the nature of the decolonization project itself, and where it should start and stop. A more accommodative decolonization would recognize the relationship between cultural universals and particulars, whilst also creating room for cultural appropriation. Ultimately, the book argues that both cultural appropriationists and mutual exclusivists must simultaneously renounce absolutism. By being amenable to a fusion of horizons, discourse can move beyond the decolonization fallacy of arguing that things are always either/or.

This original and important contribution to the metaphysical empire debate will be a seminal read for researchers across the fields of philosophy, political science, African studies, and Black studies.

This book explores the possible (actual, potential and imagined) future security threats migration from Nigeria could pose to Europe, the United States of America, Canada and to some extent Australia. The negative consequences of terrorism, resource curse, extreme poverty, bad governance and illiteracy are highly likely to compound the already existing migration (both legal and illegal migration) from Nigeria to Europe. Given the current nationalist and populist tendencies in the United States of America and many parts of Europe, which have amplified the securitization of migration, the authors argue that the continuous high influx of legal and illegal migrants from Africa is a potential global security case.

This book explores whether any theory alone is sufficiently capable of resolving the complexity of global justice, arguing that a combination of statism and cosmopolitanism is needed.

In current times, xenophobia, nationalism and populism have amplified othering in both domestic and international politics. In global justice, the dichotomy between the ‘polis’ and the ‘cosmopolis’ separates statism from cosmopolitanism. Using resource curse as a complex case of global justice, the author demonstrates how neither statism nor cosmopolitanism alone are sufficient but goes on to argue that a combination of the two theories is simultaneously necessary and sufficient to resolve the complexity of global justice. He demonstrates how statism is primarily applied to the institutional dimensions of resource curse and only secondarily applied to the interactional dimensions, while cosmopolitanism is applied to the interactional dimensions but only secondarily applied to the institutional dimensions, and therefore a combination of both theories is needed to resolve the problem of resource curse – using the strength of the former to compensate for the weakness of the latter, and vice versa.

Global justice is widely taught and researched as one of the most important areas in political philosophy and political theory. This book will be of great interest to students and researchers, philosophers and political scientists of African politics, political theory, political philosophy, international relations and international development.

This book explores whether any theory alone is sufficiently capable of resolving the complexity of global justice, arguing that a combination of statism and cosmopolitanism is needed.

In current times, xenophobia, nationalism and populism have amplified othering in both domestic and international politics. In global justice, the dichotomy between the ‘polis’ and the ‘cosmopolis’ separates statism from cosmopolitanism. Using resource curse as a complex case of global justice, the author demonstrates how neither statism nor cosmopolitanism alone are sufficient but goes on to argue that a combination of the two theories is simultaneously necessary and sufficient to resolve the complexity of global justice. He demonstrates how statism is primarily applied to the institutional dimensions of resource curse and only secondarily applied to the interactional dimensions, while cosmopolitanism is applied to the interactional dimensions but only secondarily applied to the institutional dimensions, and therefore a combination of both theories is needed to resolve the problem of resource curse – using the strength of the former to compensate for the weakness of the latter, and vice versa.

Global justice is widely taught and researched as one of the most important areas in political philosophy and political theory. This book will be of great interest to students and researchers, philosophers and political scientists of African politics, political theory, political philosophy, international relations and international development.

This book investigates whether African cultures can appropriate some useful aspects of Western cultures, or whether doing so risks falling into the metaphysical empire and diluting African identity.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Ndlovu-Gatsheni characterise the metaphysical empire as an intangible non-physical and non-geographical invasion of the mental universe of formerly colonised peoples. As mutual exclusivists, they argue that authentic decolonization necessitates a complete dissociation of the African and her culture from colonial heritage. However, cultural appropriationists such as Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie argue that the African adoption of colonial heritage such as the English language is in no way antithetical to decolonization. This book delves into the debate by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of cultural appropriationism and, on the other hand, testing the validity of mutual exclusivism. The book demonstrates that cultural appropriation without falling into the metaphysical empire is possible, but that this poses important questions about the nature of the decolonization project itself, and where it should start and stop. A more accommodative decolonization would recognize the relationship between cultural universals and particulars, whilst also creating room for cultural appropriation. Ultimately, the book argues that both cultural appropriationists and mutual exclusivists must simultaneously renounce absolutism. By being amenable to a fusion of horizons, discourse can move beyond the decolonization fallacy of arguing that things are always either/or.

This original and important contribution to the metaphysical empire debate will be a seminal read for researchers across the fields of philosophy, political science, African studies, and Black studies.

This book investigates whether African cultures can appropriate some useful aspects of Western cultures, or whether doing so risks falling into the metaphysical empire and diluting African identity.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Ndlovu-Gatsheni characterise the metaphysical empire as an intangible non-physical and non-geographical invasion of the mental universe of formerly colonised peoples. As mutual exclusivists, they argue that authentic decolonization necessitates a complete dissociation of the African and her culture from colonial heritage. However, cultural appropriationists such as Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie argue that the African adoption of colonial heritage such as the English language is in no way antithetical to decolonization. This book delves into the debate by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of cultural appropriationism and, on the other hand, testing the validity of mutual exclusivism. The book demonstrates that cultural appropriation without falling into the metaphysical empire is possible, but that this poses important questions about the nature of the decolonization project itself, and where it should start and stop. A more accommodative decolonization would recognize the relationship between cultural universals and particulars, whilst also creating room for cultural appropriation. Ultimately, the book argues that both cultural appropriationists and mutual exclusivists must simultaneously renounce absolutism. By being amenable to a fusion of horizons, discourse can move beyond the decolonization fallacy of arguing that things are always either/or.

This original and important contribution to the metaphysical empire debate will be a seminal read for researchers across the fields of philosophy, political science, African studies, and Black studies.

This book explores the possible (actual, potential and imagined) future security threats migration from Nigeria could pose to Europe, the United States of America, Canada and to some extent Australia. The negative consequences of terrorism, resource curse, extreme poverty, bad governance and illiteracy are highly likely to compound the already existing migration (both legal and illegal migration) from Nigeria to Europe. Given the current nationalist and populist tendencies in the United States of America and many parts of Europe, which have amplified the securitization of migration, the authors argue that the continuous high influx of legal and illegal migrants from Africa is a potential global security case.