{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011904761904761904, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.779569892473118, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Kabul cosmopolitan: Geopolitical empire from the planner’s viewpoint

This article uses cosmopolitanism as a theoretical lens to explore both the urbanism and the ethics of planning in Kabul. The Cosmopolis arguments of Sandercock is synthesized with the political argument of Mouffe to articulate a concept of agonistic cosmopolitanism in contrast to a concept of globalizing cosmopolitanism. The practices that shape urban life in Kabul resemble what Simone describes as worlding processes in cities of sub-Saharan Africa. Under such adverse conditions, Kabulis demonstrate vital aspects of agonistic pluralism. Conversely, a transnational community in Kabul embodies a less critical, presumptively global cosmopolitanism through the production of a Global Village that encourages socially disruptive land speculation. The value of a more critical, agonistic understanding is then demonstrated through the analysis of an unexpected discrepancy in planning ideals between the national and local planning agencies in Kabul. This analysis suggests a new ethical task for urban planners: to challenge geopolitical empire through a cosmopolitan ethic that embraces the substantive conflicts which come with actual recognition and political inclusion of the Other.