This paper seeks to trace and re-evaluate the convergence between political geography and contemporary political theory regarding the normative ascendancy of the local, contingent, concrete and particular over universal, abstract and general theories of justice. The search for universal norms has been roundly critiqued, principally by postmodern, communitarian and feminist authors, and in part this has paved the way for a recovery of content and context that appeals to political geographers. It is argued, however, that the wholesale rush to what is called here a persistent localism--in the form of the promotion of the claims of particular communities, partial and situated knowledges, the politics of difference--is premature. The dangers and inconsistencies of the latter may be avoided it is claimed by reiterating the minimal universalism contained in Habermas's theory of the public sphere. The theory is discussed and illustrated, compared to more aggressive proponents of universal standards of justice, and argued to be both normatively defensible and potentially geographically sensitive. The paper concludes that the aspiration to universality may be maintained within political geography.
