Sociology

Purpose and Thesis
There is a possibility of having a better world. This has become a major cry of the movement of ant neoliberal globalization. In the book cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom, the author David Harvey provides his own description of this cry saying that a better cosmopolitan theory is possible.

The modern theorists of cosmopolitan predicate their views on assumptions concerning the local, international, national and global space even though there is no clear analysis of the concept. These said theorists have now fallen prey to the reason of geographical ruses. This has made them accept to what Harvey refers to as the geographical evils banalities that lead to the shaping of the imagination of the entire universe, hence determining as well as limiting the cosmopolitan.

Many of the social theories of hegemonic that have shaped central interpretations as well as practices of politics over the past about three hundred years have shown little interest or else no close attention to the production of places, spaces together with the surrounding might impose on thought as well as action.

In practice, there are tacit assumptions almost everywhere concerning the nature of time and space, the pulling together of places including the idea of what the nature gives or what it does not give. The effect is almost like that one of  making an attempt to read the world making user of a very old map no matter how subjective or wrong it could be (251). In essence, without a significant geography theory, we may never be informed about the cosmopolitan theory that can defeat the main enemy in the story by Harvey the neoliberal globalization.

Methodology
Kants Anthropology and Geography
This first part of the book is talking about the universal values. It is an extended review of literature as focused using a lens of a geography critic. Harvey starts not astoundingly with Kant even though the reason behind this is not a normal one. Harvey finds Kant interesting since he showed a specific sensitivity to knowledge about geography. Even the people who know Kant could be alarmed to know that Kant clearly argued that geography together with anthropology described the possible conditions of all knowledge. This is what Kant referred to as propaedeutic (20).

However, there is a significant tension that comes up between the theoretical attention of Kant to the geography importance as well as his real knowledge concerning it. The author indeed concedes that the geography of Kant is nothing short of a political and intellectual embarrassment (26). Using racist and weird observations, Kant deliberately failed at a cosmopolitanism construction that took into account a very important discourse on the space. 

The Postcolonial Critique of Liberal Cosmopolitanism
Instead of succeeding in that, he constructed space in a complete way where there was to be a freedom meant for every individual that is mature.  It is therefore not a surprise for Harvey to argue that the cosmopolitan world of liberal democratic states of Kant had a big restricted right to go past borders as well as dwell in other nations. In the mind of Kant, the world was full of unclean Hottentots as well as thieving Javanese.

Harvey with the idea of Kant concerning a propaedeutic while ignoring the actual geographic prejudices moves on to the critique of the postcolonial period concerning liberal cosmopolitanism which together with the idea of communitarianism had a promise to improve on the liberal theory through being sensitive to the particularities and specifications of space. 

By taking into relational space contrary to the absolute CartesianNewtonian space concerning liberal theory, theirs is truly cosmopolitanism of sentiments which recognizes the psychological as well as the cognitive operations by which a place comes to get its important relation to identity the way Uday Singh Mehta explains it (construction on Burke) (43).

The author, Harvey argues that these critics regrettably result to representation of the other extreme about liberal communitarian continuum, fetishizing the common to the extent of exclusionary communitarianism or else the local fascism. Furthermore, when post colonialist theory takes for granted spatial entities such as India, itself a colonial invention, they end up perpetuating uncritical spatial definitions (49). But again, neoliberalism is the main target of Harveys capacious critique.

The Flat World of Neoliberal Utopianism
Moving on to current day neoliberal cosmopolitanism, Harvey, using his Marxist lens, critiques the way neoliberalism creates a particular kind of space through an ideological discourse, summed up in Thomas Friedmans famous phrase the world is flat (57).

That neoliberalism produces uneven geographical development is clear, but less clear is the way it uses uneven geographical, anthropological, and ecological developments (including those it produces) as means to promote the universality of its own world project, which has nothing to do with the well-being of the whole of humanity but everything to do with the enhancement of its own dominant forms of class power (65).

The New Cosmopolitans
New Cosmopolitanism, as Harvey terms it, is a response to and an attempt to fix the faults of neoliberalism. Unfortunately, these authors not only do not go far enough they too often end up abetting the neoliberal framework. For instance, their admiration for the European Union as a cosmopolitan project is misplaced, as it is mainly a neoliberal project aimed at increasing economic profits (83). Furthermore, their theories lack practical solutions (92).

This is not due to utopianism on their part, but rather a result of their buying into the flat space of neoliberalism. For instance, David Held is criticized for superficially proposing a layered cosmopolitanism reflective of local, national, and regional affiliations, without making any attempt at understanding how this layering is actually produced and at what scales (85).

Unless the new cosmopolitanisms incorporate a critical discourse on space into their theories, they will fail at implementing their new cosmopolitan projects, concludes Harvey. The contribution of Harveys literature review is not the well-known objections to the theories it treats, but rather his fresh angle of critical geography.

The Banality of Geographical Evils
The author says that the geographical evils banalities resulted to the shaping of the thoughts concerning the entire universe. Consequently, this marked a determination of such cosmopolitan and also in limiting them.

Many people have found the geography according to Kant very fascinating and have stood to the point that there is no justification as to why this geography should be refuted despite being regarded as such an embarrassment. Indeed, it is precisely what makes it so interesting, particularly when set against his much-vaunted universal ethics and cosmopolitanism (87).

The author makes us at a question of how, then, are we to understand the geographical racisms and ethnic prejudices of Kants Geography, the eclectic and a-moral heterotopia of Foucault, and the failures of theorists of all stripes to confront the banal problematic of materialist geographies as opposed to delighting in the conveniently disruptive metaphors of spatiality (83).

Evaluation
The author, Harvey focuses the reader on fascinating limitations of the modern theories of cosmopolitanism as well as alerts us to unplanned symmetries that are in between neoliberalism together with new cosmopolitanism. What is needed is a critical discourse on geography, he reiterates, in order to achieve a cosmopolitanism that rejects the ruses of geographical reason.
Harvey is very much unconvinced about the writing of Kant that the peoples of the earth has come into unsteady degrees into a joint community, and it is developed to the extent where an infringement of laws in one part of the entire universe is felt everywhere. The idea of a cosmopolitan law according to Kant is therefore not fantastic as well as overstrained it is an indispensable complement to the unrecorded code of international and political law, changing it into a worldwide and common law of humanity.

Harvey is confident of there being a better universe than the one existing already. All through this first part of the book, he has shown how limited the theories of cosmopolitanism by other people like Kant are. He has used the already existing theories to put forward the idea that the cry in the entire world for another universe of cosmopolitanism.

He is of the opinion that there is obscurity in the manner in which neoliberalism uses the uneven, ecological and anthropological developments as a way of enhancing universality of a world project of its own. This includes everything neoliberalism has produced. This according to Harvey makes some sense because it is about the development of the dominant forms of its own class of power.

There is a chance of having a better world, the author narrates a possibility of a better cosmopolitan society. There is nothing to stop this from taking place. Many theorists may have been found to give sentiments of lack of hope in the same but Harvey is hopeful of having one. The cry for a better society is possible according to Harveys perspective.