Max Tallberg & Petri Lahtinen
The present-day world is extremely globalised: this means that the different relationships and structures of economies, cultures and values are increasingly influential across geopolitical boundaries on a global scale. Consequently, geography is becoming less important in decision-making, markets, and various aspects of human development. Nevertheless, in the present-day world, globalisation has not led to a so-called global policy, i.e. a consensus in international decision-making, especially on transnational issues and problems. Instead, political decision-making is still largely tied to the decision-makers of the various nation states and their decisions – whether parliamentary, full-presidential republics, semi-presidential republics, parliamentary republics, parliamentary constitutional monarchies or one-party systems. Furthermore, the globalised world does not reflect the principles of justice or equality: wealth, both material and immaterial, is unevenly distributed, and at the same time there is a large number of people in the world whose basic needs are not being met. In one of our previous texts, we have therefore emphasised how the primary task of international policy should be to ensure that humanly dignified life is guaranteed for all the people of the world.
Cosmopolitanism – or global citizenship – is one useful concept whose potential as a de facto political reform should be seriously considered as a means of finding solutions to the challenges mentioned above. Thus, the human individual would rise above the challenges and limitations of national politics and become the measure of all politics. As a consequence, every individual is entitled to the same rights, opportunities, and access to the factors that make a dignified human life possible – regardless of nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic that defines the human individual. Through global decision-making and cosmopolitanism – understood as a reform of practical politics – the needs of all individuals and communities in the world could be met directly, rather than indirectly through indirect influences within nation states. Understood in this way, cosmopolitanism should therefore be viewed as an international project that is a continuation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights treaties.
Cosmopolitanism should not be viewed solely as a modern phenomenon, since its roots go all the way back to ancient culture. The word derives from the ancient Greek word κοσμοπολίτης, which is formed from κόσμος (world, universe, cosmos) and πολίτης (citizen, inhabitant of a city). The literal meaning of the word is therefore a citizen of the world, even in the historical sense. According to the Greek historian Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Sinope, also known as Diogenes the Dog and Diogenes the Cynic, would have answered the question ‘where he came from’ by saying that he was a citizen of the world. Diogenes can be understood here as having renounced the city-state or cultural background as the primary identifier of social identity. It is questionable whether world citizenship should be counted as some kind of systematic doctrine among Diogenes and the school of cynics he represented. Later, the Stoics adopted the Cynics’ idea of world citizenship. Many Stoics held the view that people always belonged to two communities: first, to their local community and second, to a wider community based on universal humanity. In the more modern era, one of the more central thinkers on cosmopolitanism was Immanuel Kant, who was significantly influenced by the Stoics in this respect. In his essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant extended the concept of cosmopolitanism to morality and law: Kant outlined the concept of the ius cosmopoliticum (cosmopolitan law), which was intended to guide the global community towards an eternal and ever-lasting peace. In his essay, Kant can be seen to have anticipated, for example, a universal declaration of human rights, since his cosmopolitan law was based on the notion of all human beings as equal and equal members of a universal community. However, this notion of a universal community is treated differently by different strands of cosmopolitanism: moral cosmopolitanism highlights the duty to help those who are suffering – whether they are suffering from hunger or other harmful conditions. The least one can do, according to this tendency, is to respect basic human rights and justice. The tradition also highlights the fact that people have duties even towards those unknown to them. Kant’s theory can be partly counted in this category since he considered world citizenship to be based on the requirements of universal hospitality.
The moral approach has also sometimes led to political cosmopolitanism: it argues that the world should create political systems that enable global citizenship, such as international treaties, federal systems, partnerships for peace and international institutions. The main purpose of these agents is to ensure the widest possible range of conditions for living a dignified human life in the present as well as in the future, by safeguarding human rights, preventing violent conflicts, protecting the environment, etc. In some cases, political cosmopolitanism goes so far as to outline the idea of a world state. However, this idea has been subject to considerable criticism for its impracticality and the threat of totalitarianism. Historically, the idea of a world state has also proved to be a failure: after the death of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, for example, who succeeded in giving pan-Arabism its greatest political and social influence, many were disappointed by the inability of pan-Arabism to bring lasting prosperity to the Arab world. Similarly, the political unrest of recent years in major states such as the United States and Russia has demonstrated the problematic nature of central administration over too large a nation-state area. At the same time, around the world, there are regions such as the Basque Country, Corsica and Kurdistan that are still claiming independence for themselves. It is precisely a broad group of actors who would jointly defend universal human rights and sustainable international politics that has been proposed as an alternative to a world state.
The idea has also been put forward that if all the countries of the world were liberal democracies, this would mean an end to wars, greater cooperation and human rights at the global level, and there would be no need for a world state. On the other hand, liberal democracy has become the subject of well-founded criticism in recent years, although many still see liberal democracy as the only justifiable form of political organisation. It must be remembered, however, that the adjective ‘liberal’ not only shapes democracy but also constitutes an ancient form of government in which people are not in power but are mainly content with the material and military benefits that are part of the life of a liberal individual. The ancient scepticism of democracy as a degenerate and corrupt form of government has been largely forgotten and even when encountered it is seen as reactionary, authoritarian and inhuman. It has been suggested that instead of fetishising over liberal democracy, people should cultivate cultures of community, care or nurture and small-scale democracies. As a political project, cosmopolitanism thus seems to require a new political imagination and different ways of organising politics. There are also advocates of economic cosmopolitanism who argue for a single global economy in which free trade would flourish with minimal interference. However, this tendency is mainly favoured by economists; those who are familiar with the philosophy of cosmopolitanism often highlight the international inequalities that this system would lead to. Similarly, many critics of capitalism point out that, in today’s globalised world, it is above all capital and consumer goods that enjoy the freedom of movement, while there are constant attempts to restrict the movement of people.
Among 20th century thinkers, the theories of John Rawls have often been applied to the tradition of cosmopolitanism. In A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls developed the concept of the veil of ignorance and a thought experiment in which the unborn person does not know in advance what society or social class he or she will be born into or what characteristics he or she will possess. In reality, no one can influence what genes one gets or how wealthy a country or family one is born into. Rawls proposed a solution to the problem whereby society would be organised in such a way that differences in wealth and income could only be justified when their existence would benefit the most disadvantaged. Rawls also thought that the differences between rich and poor should be the smallest possible in relative terms, so that differences in wealth would be justified in the system only when the poor received the largest relative share of the total economic whole. This principle of inequality, as put forward by John Rawls, has also often been linked to cosmopolitanism: it has been argued that wealth and natural resources should be distributed equally between countries, so that the weakest benefit most. This would also give every society the same opportunity to develop equitable political institutions and an economy capable of meeting the basic needs of all. But Rawls should not be mistaken for an unequivocal advocate of cosmopolitanism. In his work on international politics, The Law of the Peoples (1999), Rawls rejected the ideas of global citizenship and justice because they presuppose the existence of a state in which all the people of the world would enjoy ‘justice as fairness’, personal freedom (human rights) and at least a ‘minimum income’. Rawls does not bother to discuss the concept of world government that this would require, or any of the problems associated with it, because he rejects the idea altogether.
It is reasonable to ask whether cosmopolitanism is a realistic political project in the present-day world. The main challenges of cosmopolitanism are currently posed by right-wing populism in various parts of the world, whose ideology includes racism, xenophobia and nationalism. However, it is important to note that a cosmopolitan identity need not be in conflict with a national identity. Human existence is inextricably linked to diversity and plurality, which, in the case of this subject, can be expressed in the simultaneous existence and coexistence of several different identities. One might have a strong emotional attachment to the place where one lives, its culture and its environment, but at the same time one may be very interested in the cultures of other countries. Thanks to globalisation and modern telecommunications, people are extremely well-equipped to encounter, discover and come into contact with foreign cultures and their various phenomena. Politically, however, national identity has been an important ideological project, especially in the West, since the Romantic era at the latest, which gave rise to a completely new national experience in many countries. This ideology has therefore played a central role in political socialisation and in various aspirations for independence, among other things. On the other hand, there are also many people in today’s world who do not consider national identity to be important: they can feel at home in many different cultures and easily adopt their practices. A certain attitude of global citizenship is encouraged, especially in current cognitive work and in the academic world.
Alongside individual identity, social psychology and sociology also apply the concept of group identity. It is generally accepted that humans are social animals, yet no definite explanation has yet been given as to why humans adopt group identities. However, it has been observed that in adopting identities, human beings have two needs: the need to identify with groups, which increases self-esteem and a sense of belonging, and the need for their own individual, subjective identity to distinguish themselves from other individuals. Socialisation combines both of these needs. The individual identity of a person is formed in the various social contexts in which the individual participates. In addition to the environment in which they live, individuals naturally take on different aspects of their national identity. Equally, a cosmopolitan identity is acquired through certain experiences, which are primarily related to experiences that broaden one’s worldview. A true cosmopolitan identity is one that is sensitive to the notion of universal humanity – an idea that goes back to antiquity. In the context of justice and equality, cosmopolitanism can be seen as a mode of thinking that does not create a division between us and others. Instead, the diversity of human identities and cultures is recognised as a phenomenon that enriches the human existence.
Some studies suggest that cosmopolitanism as an attitude is by no means uncommon or rare. For example, in the Bayram survey, 32% of respondents strongly identified with it and 42% had a positive attitude and identified themselves as global citizens. 24% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the attitude of global citizenship and therefore did not identify with it. When the Bayram study compared people who identify with world citizenship and those who do not, it found no difference between the two groups in terms of identification with the nation state. Interestingly, those who identify as cosmopolitan actually also identify more strongly with their national identity. Contrary to popular belief, this study confirms the hypothesis that cosmopolitanism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive identities; one can be both a nationalist and a cosmopolitan at the same time, as the Stoics argued in antiquity. The study also found that individuals are capable of coping on their own with a situation in which cosmopolitanism, nationalism and patriotism have conflicting attitudes. Bayram’s study suggests that the adoption of a cosmopolitan identity is somewhat common today. The compatibility between cosmopolitanism and an identity linked to local cultures gives hope that people’s attitudes will enable them to appreciate more the coexistence of different cultures and to move away from inequitable attitudes such as racism and xenophobia, which offend and oppress the dignity of others.
Although from a psychological point of view there should be no major obstacles to cosmopolitanism, it can be argued that the world does not yet follow the principles of cosmopolitanism when it comes to politics. The central starting point is the safeguarding of fundamental rights and needs, and of the capabilities necessary for leading a dignified human life, for all people around the world. Without this, we cannot speak of a globally just and equitable world; the biological and much of the psychological needs of humans are ultimately universal. In addition to guaranteeing basic needs, we have previously emphasised the potential of free movement of people and global basic income in the pursuit of a globally just and equal world. Such concrete political action would be the universal policy needed in a truly cosmopolitan world. At the same time, the potential of cosmopolitanism should be explored not only in the context of securing basic universal human needs and preventing international conflicts, but also in the light of global environmental crises such as climate change. If many people are ready to adopt a cosmopolitan identity, it may be appropriate to raise the potential of cosmopolitanism in the fight against climate change. Global citizens should feel concern and responsibility for the well-being of the whole planet and its future. As the common good and resources of nature diminish, the threat of armed and violent conflicts to secure these resources increases. One of the greatest challenges for the future is to create greater solidarity between people worldwide, as the past era of wealth and abundance, particularly in the West, confronts the realities of planetary boundaries. It is easy to be pessimistic and to think that in difficult times people will turn to thinking only of themselves and their own interests. But what we need alongside that is optimism, a belief in the care and nurturing that exists between people. This is why cosmopolitanism should be seen as a desirable phenomenon, an essential building block in the quest for a better and more sustainable future.
Sources:
Bayram, A. Burcu (2018). Nationalist cosmopolitanism: the psychology of cosmopolitanism, national identity, and going to war for the country. Nations and Nationalism, 2018, Vol. 25 (3), s. 757– 781.
Brown, G. W. & Held, D. (2010) The cosmopolitanism reader. Cambridge: Polity.
Deneen, Patrick J.: Why Liberalism Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2018.
Immanuel Kant: To perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch. Hackett Publishing, 2003.
Miklaszewska, Justyna: “Rawls on Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice.” Teoksessa Uncovering Facts and Values. Vol. 107. United States: BRILL, 2016. 323–335.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism.” The journal of political philosophy 5.1 (1997): 1–25.
Rawls, John: A Theory of Justice. Original ed. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
Rawls, John: The Law of Peoples: with, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999
Tallberg, Max 2022. Uuden ajan kansalainen: Visio paremmasta maailmasta. www.avisionofabetterworld.net.
Taraborrelli, A. (2015) Contemporary cosmopolitanism. [Online]. London ;: Bloomsbury Academic
