Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all human
beings belong to a single community, based
on a shared morality.
A person who adheres to the idea of cosmopolitanism
in any of its forms is called a cosmopolitan
or cosmopolite.
A cosmopolitan community might be based on
an inclusive morality, a shared economic relationship,
or a political structure that encompasses
different nations.
In a cosmopolitan community individuals from
different places (e.g. nation-states) form
relationships of mutual respect.
As an example, Kwame Anthony Appiah suggests
the possibility of a cosmopolitan community
in which individuals from varying locations
(physical, economic, etc.) enter relationships
of mutual respect despite their differing
beliefs (religious, political, etc.).Various
cities and locales, past or present, have
been or are identified as "cosmopolitan";
that does not necessarily mean that all or
most of their inhabitants consciously embrace
the above philosophy.
Rather, locales may be called "cosmopolitan"
simply because people of various ethnic, cultural
and/or religious background live in proximity
and interact with each other.
In origin, cosmopolitanism suggests the establishment
of a cosmo polis or ‘world state’ that
would embrace all humanity.
Cosmopolitanism has come to stand for peace
and harmony among nations, founded upon understanding,
tolerance and interdependence.
== Etymology ==
The word derives from the Ancient Greek: κοσμοπολίτης,
or kosmopolitês, formed from "κόσμος",
kosmos, i.e. "world", "universe", or "cosmos",
and πολίτης, "politês", i.e. "citizen"
or "[one] of a city".
Contemporary usage defines the term as "citizen
of the world".
== Definitions ==
Definitions of cosmopolitanism usually begin
with the Greek etymology of "citizen of the
world".
However, as Appiah points out, "world" in
the original sense meant "cosmos" or "universe",
not earth or globe as current use assumes.
One definition that handles this issue is
given in a recent book on political globalization:
Cosmopolitanism can be defined as a global
politics that, firstly, projects a sociality
of common political engagement among all human
beings across the globe, and, secondly, suggests
that this sociality should be either ethically
or organizationally privileged over other
forms of sociality.
== Philosophical ==
=== 
Philosophical roots ===
Cosmopolitanism can be traced back to Diogenes
of Sinope (c. 412 B.C.), the founding father
of the Cynic movement in Ancient Greece.
Of Diogenes it is said: "Asked where he came
from, he answered: 'I am a citizen of the
world (kosmopolitês)'".
In Ancient Greece, the broadest basis of social
identity in at that time was either the individual
city-state or the Greeks (Hellenes) as a group.
The Stoics, who later took Diogenes' idea
and developed it, typically stressed that
each human being "dwells [...] in two communities
– the local community of our birth, and
the community of human argument and aspiration".
A common way to understand Stoic cosmopolitanism
is through Hierocles' circle model of identity
that states that we should regard ourselves
as concentric circles, the first one around
the self, next immediate family, extended
family, local group, citizens, countrymen,
humanity.
Within these circles human beings feel a sense
of "affinity" or "endearment" towards others,
which the Stoics termed Oikeiôsis.
The task of world citizens becomes then to
"draw the circles somehow towards the centre,
making all human beings more like our fellow
city dwellers, and so forth".
=== Modern cosmopolitan thinkers ===
In his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical
Sketch, Immanuel Kant stages a ius cosmopoliticum
(cosmopolitan law/right) as a guiding principle
to help global society achieve permanent,
enduring peace.
Kant's cosmopolitan right stems from an understanding
of all human beings as equal members of a
universal community.
Cosmopolitan right thus works in tandem with
international political rights, and the shared,
universal right of humanity.[1]
Kant's cosmopolitan right is fundamentally
bound to the conditions of universal hospitality
and the right of resort.
Universal hospitality is defined as the right
to be welcomed upon arrival in foreign territory,
but is contingent on a guest arriving in a
peaceful manner.
Kant makes the additional claim that all human
beings have the basic right of resort: the
right to present oneself in a foreign land.
The right of resort is derived from Kant's
understanding of the Earth's surface as essentially
communal, and further emphasizing his claims
on equally shared universal rights among all
human beings.
[2]
Taylor, Robert S. (2010).
"Kant's Political Religion: The Transparency
of Perpetual Peace and the Highest Good".
The Review of Politics.
72: 1–24.
Corradetti, Claudio (November 2017).
"Constructivism in Cosmopolitan Law".
Global Constitutionalism.
6 (3): 412–441.
The philosophical concepts of Emmanuel Levinas,
on ethics, and Jacques Derrida, on hospitality,
provide a theoretical framework for the relationships
between people in their everyday lives and
apart from any form of written laws or codes.
For Levinas, the foundation of ethics consists
in the obligation to respond to the Other.
In Being for the Other, he writes that there
is no "universal moral law," only the sense
of responsibility (goodness, mercy, charity)
that the Other, in a state of vulnerability,
calls forth.
The proximity of the Other is an important
part of Levinas's concept: the face of the
Other is what compels the response.
For Derrida, the foundation of ethics is hospitality,
the readiness and the inclination to welcome
the Other into one's home.
Ethics, he claims, is hospitality.
Pure, unconditional hospitality is a desire
that underscores the conditional hospitality
necessary in our relationships with others.
Levinas's and Derrida's theories of ethics
and hospitality hold out the possibility of
an acceptance of the Other as different but
of equal standing.
Isolation is not a feasible alternative in
the world, therefore, it is important to consider
how best to approach these interactions, and
to determine what is at stake for ourselves
and the others: what conditions of hospitality
to impose, and whether or not we have responded
to the call of the Other.
Further, both theories reveal the importance
of considering how best to interact with the
Other and others, and what is at stake.
Derrida in an interview with Bennington (1997)
summarized "cosmopolitanism",
There is a tradition of cosmopolitanism, and
if we had time we could study this tradition,
which comes to us from, on the one hand, Greek
thought with the Stoics, who have a concept
of the 'citizen of the world'.
You also have St. Paul in the Christian tradition,
also a certain call for a citizen of the world
as, precisely, a brother.
St. Paul says that we are all brothers, that
is sons of God, so we are not foreigners,
we belong to the world as citizens of the
world; and it is this tradition that we could
follow up until Kant for instance, in whose
concept of cosmopolitanism we find the conditions
for hospitality.
But in the concept of the cosmopolitical in
Kant there are a number of conditions: first
of all you should, of course, welcome the
stranger, the foreigner, to the extent that
he is a citizen of another country, that you
grant him the right to visit and not to stay,
and there are a number of other conditions
that I can't summarise here quickly, but this
concept of the cosmopolitical which is very
novel, very worthy of respect (and I think
cosmopolitanism is a very good thing), is
a very limited concept.
(Derrida cited in Bennington 1997).
A further state of cosmopolitanism occurred
after the Second World War.
As a reaction to the Holocaust and the other
massacres, the concept of crimes against humanity
became a generally accepted category in international
law.
This clearly shows the appearance and acceptance
of a notion of individual responsibility that
is considered to exist toward all of humankind.Philosophical
cosmopolitans are moral universalists: they
believe that all humans, and not merely compatriots
or fellow-citizens, come under the same moral
standards.
The boundaries between nations, states, cultures
or societies are therefore morally irrelevant.
A widely cited example of a contemporary cosmopolitan
is Kwame Anthony Appiah.Some philosophers
and scholars argue that the objective and
subjective conditions arising in today's unique
historical moment, an emerging planetary phase
of civilization, creates a latent potential
for the emergence of a cosmopolitan identity
as global citizens and possible formation
of a global citizens movement.
These emerging objective and subjective conditions
in the planetary phase include improved and
affordable telecommunications; space travel
and the first images of our fragile planet
floating in the vastness of space; the emergence
of global warming and other ecological threats
to our collective existence; new global institutions
such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization,
or International Criminal Court; the rise
of transnational corporations and integration
of markets often termed economic globalization;
the emergence of global NGOs and transnational
social movements, such as the World Social
Forum; and so on.
Globalization, a more common term, typically
refers more narrowly to the economic and trade
relations and misses the broader cultural,
social, political, environmental, demographic,
values and knowledge transitions taking place.
=== Contemporary cosmopolitan thinkers ===
A number of contemporary theorists propose,
directly and indirectly, various ways of becoming
or being a cosmopolitan individual.
Thich Nhat Hanh discusses what he calls "Interbeing"
as a way of living one's life in relation
to others; "Interbeing" might easily be compared
to cosmopolitanism.
Nhat Hanh's philosophical beliefs are grounded
in the precepts of Buddhist teachings, which
involve compassion and understanding to protect
and live in harmony with all people, animals,
plants, and minerals.
He further describes what he calls "Mindfulness
Training of the Order of Interbeing" as being
aware of sufferings created by, but not limited
to, the following causes: fanaticism and intolerances
that disrupt compassion and living in harmony
with others; indoctrination of narrow-minded
beliefs; imposition of views; anger; and miscommunication.
Understanding and compassion for others seems
to be achieved by the understanding of others'
suffering and the root causes of suffering.
Therefore, to be responsible is to recognize
and understand suffering, which then leads
to compassion.
It is through this process that others can
be recognized as people.
Other theorists, philosophers, and activists
contend that recognizing suffering is necessary
to end violence.
In Scared Sacred, Velcrow Ripper takes a journey
to different sites of great suffering that
ultimately leads him toward developing compassion.
In "The Planet", Paul Gilroy explores how
the construction and naturalization of race
and the hierarchies produced by difference
shape the hatred of others.
It is the deconstruction of these ideologies
that can lead to the compassion and humanization
of others.
Thus individual responsibility is being aware
of what Judith Butler calls the precariousness
of life in self and other; being a cosmopolitan
seems to be, above all, a social, ethical
enterprise.
In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers,
Kwame Anthony Appiah notices something important
about how social ethics seem to operate: Whatever
obligation one might have to another, especially
a foreign other, that obligation does not
supersede the obligations one has to those
people most familiar to them.
However, as Judith Butler questions, "at what
cost do I establish the familiar as the criterion"
for valuing others?
If one values the familiar more than the foreign,
what are the consequences?
Paul Gilroy offers a possible alternative
to this emphasis on familiarity arguing that
"methodical cultivation of a degree of estrangement
from one's own culture and history ... might
qualify as essential to a cosmopolitan commitment."
This estrangement entails a "process of exposure
to otherness" in order to foster "the irreducible
value of diversity within sameness."
Estrangement, therefore, could lead to de-emphasising
the familiar in ethics by integrating otherness.
For Gilroy, being cosmopolitan seems to involve
both a social, ethical enterprise and a cultural
enterprise.
In "The Planet", Gilroy describes the cases
of Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie; each seems
to exemplify what might be considered Gilroy's
figure of the cosmopolitan.
Both Hurndall and Corrie removed themselves
(geographically) from their home cultures,
presumably both physically and mentally estranging
themselves from their own cultures and histories.
Hurndall and Corrie were both killed in 2003
(in separate incidents) and their stories
might serve as affirmations of familiarity,
rather than models of estrangement.
Gilroy’s model of estrangement might actually
undermine itself through its examples; this
might be construed as a failure of Gilroy’s
theory to address the practical difficulties
of estranging oneself from the familiar.The
Venus Project, an international, multidisciplinary
educational organization created by Jacque
Fresco, works to spread cosmopolitan ideas
by transcending artificial boundaries currently
separating people and emphasizing an understanding
our interdependence with nature and each other.
Some forms of cosmopolitanism also fail to
address the potential for economic colonization
by powerful countries over less powerful ones.
Frantz Fanon, in The Wretched of the Earth,
observes that when nations achieved independence
from European colonizers, frequently there
was no system in place to secure their economic
future, and they became "manager[s] for Western
enterprise...in practise set[ting] up its
country as the brothel of Europe."
When "third world" nations are drawn into
economic partnerships with global capital,
ostensibly to improve their national quality
of life, often the only ones benefitting from
this partnership are well-placed individuals
and not the nation itself.
Further, Mahmood Mamdani in Good Muslim, Bad
Muslim suggests that the imposition of Western
cultural norms, democracy and Christianity
to name only two, has historically resulted
in nationalist violence; however, Appiah has
implied that democracy is a pre-requisite
for cosmopolitan intervention in developing
nations.
Cosmopolitanism, in these instances, appears
to be a new form of colonization: the powerful
exploit the weak and the weak eventually fight
back.Much of the political thinking of the
last two centuries has taken nationalism and
the framework of the sovereign nation-state
for granted.
Now, with the advance of globalization and
the increased facility of travel and communication,
some thinkers consider that the political
system based on the nation-state has become
obsolete and that it is time to design a better
and more efficient alternative.
Jesús Mosterín analyzes how the world political
system should be organized in order to maximize
individual freedom and individual opportunity.
Rejecting as muddled the metaphysical notion
of free will, he focuses on political freedom,
the absence of coercion or interference by
others in personal decisions.
Because of the tendencies to violence and
aggression that lurk in human nature, some
constraint on freedom is necessary for peaceful
and fruitful social interaction, but the more
freedom we enjoy, the better.Especially, there
is no rational ground for curtailing the cultural
freedoms (of language, religion and customs)
in the name of the nation, the church, or
the party.
From this point of view, the Internet provides
a much more attractive model than the nation-state.
Neither is there any just reason for restraining
the free circulation of people, ideas, or
goods.
Mosterín thinks that the nation-state is
incompatible with the full development of
freedom, whose blossoming requires the reorganization
of the world political system along cosmopolitan
lines.
He proposes a world without sovereign nation-states,
territorially organized in small autonomous
but not-sovereign cantonal polities, complemented
by strong world organizations.
He emphasizes the difference between international
institutions, led by representatives of the
national governments, and world or universal
institutions, with clearly defined aims served
by directors selected by their personal qualifications,
independently of any national bias or proportion.
Criticizing the abstract nature of most versions
of cosmopolitanism, Charles Blattberg has
argued that any viable cosmopolitanism must
be "rooted," by which he means based upon
a "global patriotism."More general philosophical
reviews of cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism
are also available.
Carol Nicholson compares the John Searle's
opposition to multiculturalism with Charles
Taylor's celebration of it.
She uses Richard Rorty as a triangulation
point in that he remains neutral about multiculturalism,
but his philosophical analysis of truth and
practice can be deployed to argue against
Searle and in favor of Taylor.
At a conference on "Philosophy in a Multicultural
Context", Rasmus Winther excavated the philosophical
assumptions and practices connected with cosmopolitanism
and multiculturalism.
He develops Bruno Latour's conception of the
philosopher as public diplomat.
== Political and sociological ==
Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) observed the
development of what he called the 'cult of
the individual', which is a new religion that
replaced the Christianity that was dying out,
and which is centered around the sacredness
of human dignity.
This new religion would provide the new foundations
of Western society, and these foundations
are closely related to human rights and individual
nation's constitutions.
A society's sacred object would be the individual's
human dignity, and the moral code guiding
the society is found in that country's way
of interpreting human dignity and human rights.
Thus, rather than finding solidarity through
national culture, or a particular traditional
religious doctrine, society would be unified
by its adherence to political values, i.e.
individual rights and a defence of human dignity.
Durkheim's cult of the individual has many
similarities to John Rawls' political liberalism,
which Rawls developed almost a century after
Durkheim.Ulrich Beck (May 15, 1944 – January
1, 2015) was a sociologist who posed the new
concept of cosmopolitan critical theory in
direct opposition to traditional nation-state
politics.
Nation-state theory sees power relations only
among different state actors, and excludes
a global economy, or subjugates it to the
nation-state model.
Cosmopolitanism sees global capital as a possible
threat to the nation state and places it within
a meta-power game in which global capital,
states and civil society are its players.
It is important to mark a distinction between
Beck's cosmopolitanism and the idea of a world
state.
For Beck, imposing a single world order was
considered hegemonic at best and ethnocentric
at worst.
Rather, political and sociological cosmopolitanism
rests upon these fundamental foundations:
"Acknowledging the otherness of those who
are culturally different"
"Acknowledging the otherness of the future"
"Acknowledging the otherness of nature"
"Acknowledging the otherness of the object"
"Acknowledging the otherness of other rationalities"A
number of philosophers, including Emmanuel
Levinas, have introduced the concept of the
"Other".
For Levinas, the Other is given context in
ethics and responsibility; we should think
of the Other as anyone and everyone outside
ourselves.
According to Levinas, our initial interactions
with the Other occur before we form a will—the
ability to make choices.
The Other addresses us and we respond: even
the absence of response is a response.
We are thus conditioned by the Other's address
and begin to form culture and identity.
After the formation of the will, we choose
whether to identify with the addresses by
others and, as a result, continue the process
of forming identity.During this process, it
is possible to recognize ourselves in our
interactions with Others.
Even in situations where we engage in the
most minimal interaction, we ascribe identities
to others and simultaneously to ourselves.
Our dependence on the Other for the continuous
formation of language, culture, and identity
means that we are responsible to others and
that they are responsible to us.
Also once we've formed a will, it becomes
possible to recognize this social interdependence.
When we have gained the capacity for recognition,
the imperative is to perform that recognition
and thereby become ethically responsible to
the Other in conscience.Cosmopolitanism shares
some aspects of universalism – namely the
globally acceptable notion of human dignity
that must be protected and enshrined in international
law.
However, the theory deviates in recognising
the differences between world cultures.In
addition, cosmopolitanism calls for equal
protection of the environment and against
the negative side effects of technological
development.
Human dignity, however, is convoluted because
it is necessary to first distinguish who has
the right to be respected and second to consider
what rights are protectable.
Under cosmopolitanism, all humans have rights;
however, history shows that recognition of
these rights is not guaranteed.As an example,
Judith Butler discusses a Western discourse
of "human" in Precarious Life: The Powers
of Mourning and Violence.
Butler works through the idea of "human" and
notes that "human" has been "naturalized in
its 'Western' mold by the contemporary workings
of humanism" (32).
Thus, there is the idea that not all "human"
lives will be supported in the same way, indeed,
that some human lives are worth more protection
than others.
Others have extended this idea to examine
how animals might be reconfigured as cosmopolitan,
present the world-over with varying identities
in different places.This idea is reiterated
in Sunera Thobani's "Exalted Subjects: Studies
in the Making of Race and Nation in Canada,"
where she discusses a discourse in which Muslim
people fall into a good/bad dichotomy: a "good
Muslim" is one who has been Westernized and
a "bad Muslim" is one who visibly rejects
Western cultural influences.
Thobani notes that it is through media representations
that these ideas become naturalized.
Individuals who embrace Western ideals are
considered fully "human" and are more likely
to be afforded dignity and protection than
those who defend their non-Westernized cultural
identities.
According to those who follow Beck's reasoning,
a cosmopolitan world would consist of a plurality
of states, which would use global and regional
consensus to gain greater bargaining power
against opponents.
States would also utilize the power of civil
society actors such as Non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and consumers to strengthen their legitimacy
and enlist the help of investors to pursue
a cosmopolitan agenda.Other authors imagine
a cosmopolitan world moving beyond today's
conception of nation-states.
These scholars argue that a truly cosmopolitan
identity of Global Citizen will take hold,
diminishing the importance of national identities.
The formation of a global citizens movement
would lead to the establishment of democratic
global institutions, creating the space for
global political discourse and decisions,
would in turn reinforce the notion of citizenship
at a global level.
Nested structures of governance balancing
the principles of irreducibility (i.e., the
notion that certain problems can only be addressed
at the global level, such as global warming)
and subsidiarity (i.e., the notion that decisions
should be made at as local a level possible)
would thus form the basis for a cosmopolitan
political order.Daniele Archibugi proposes
a renewed model for global citizenship: institutional
cosmopolitanism.
It advocates some reforms in global governance
to allow world citizens to take more directly
a part into political life.
A number of proposals have been made in order
to make this possible.
Cosmopolitan democracy, for example, suggests
strengthening the United Nations and other
international organizations by creating a
World Parliamentary Assembly.
== Political rhetoric ==
"Cosmopolitanism" became a rhetorical weapon
used by nationalists against "alien" ideas
that went counter to orthodoxy.
European Jews were frequently accused of being
"rootless cosmopolitans."
Joseph Stalin in a 1946 Moscow speech attacked
writings in which “the positive Soviet hero
is derided and inferior before all things
foreign and cosmopolitanism that we all fought
against from the time of Lenin, characteristic
of the political leftovers, is many times
applauded.”
In the 21st century the epithet became a weapon
used by Vladimir Putin in Russia, and by nationalists
in Hungary and Poland.
In modern times, Stephen Miller, a Trump administration
senior policy advisor, has publicly criticized
CNN reporter Jim Acosta as exhibiting "cosmopolitan
bias" during a discussion on the government's
new immigration plan.
== See also ==
== Notes
