In Defense of Cosmopolitan Citizenship

               Although cosmopolitanism is an ancient ideology, it has recently experienced a revival of interest due its appealing representation of a possible alternative to the current state-centric system of global politics. Indeed, in promoting the creation and the reinforcement of global institutions, cosmopolitanism wishes to answer the need to better handle global issues such as poverty, inequality, environmental degradation and the violation of human rights. On an individual level, cosmopolitanism also offers the possibility to identifying otherwise than within the restrictive boundaries of the state. Indeed, the concept of cosmopolitan citizenship embraces the view that a sense of belonging can be extended to a common global community, maintained by shared structures, rights and duties. However, many critics have debated against the idea of a cosmopolitan citizenship; notably by arguing that cosmopolitanism is incompatible with the concept of citizenship, that it imposes culturally bias ideas, and that it draws the attention away from more pressing national issues. The following essay wishes to answer these three particular arguments against the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship and, by doing so, to highlight the contemporary relevance of this concept.

The first critique against the idea of cosmopolitan citizenship argues that this concept inhabits a fundamental incompatibility between cosmopolitanism and citizenship due to the inherent definition of citizenship. Indeed, for the proponents of this view, citizenship is defined by the rights and duties binding individuals to their political community and needing protection and enforcement by institutions (Isin and Turner, 318). For them, the international sphere does not present such a range of rights and duties, nor does it have the institutions to guard and guarantee their application.

For cosmopolitans, however, the concept of cosmopolitan citizenship makes sense within a much broader definition of citizenship. Indeed, citizenship can also be understood in terms belonging and relating to individuals within a community. This definition, as opposed to the more formal and legal version proposed by the advocates of the state-centric view, highlights that people identify with much wider concepts within a political community. For example, people do not identify with the rights and duties that they are subject to under their state. Instead, citizens relate to the fundamental principles of a state such as the liberal ideology and democracy. And, as a matter of fact, these fundamental principles are the ones found at the basis of the cosmopolitan ideology and which have served as the foundation on which was built crucial steps for the human progress such as the creation of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Adami, 45). Furthermore, although they currently have limited power, global institutions, (mostly under the umbrella of the United Nations) have been created for the purpose of protecting and implementing these cosmopolitan rights. The success of the International Court of Justice in responding to crimes against humanity is a good example of how supranational institutions can be efficient in handling major universal issues.

The second argument of the state-centric view in regards to the antilogy of cosmopolitan and citizenship argues that citizenship is also defined by the particular rights of citizens to participate and to have their interests represented in the decisions of the political community to which they belong. Indeed, these critiques argue that the international sphere does not provide such opportunity of representation for citizens of the world, nor do they have the institutions to do so. Furthermore, this absence of representation and participation of citizens suggests a lack of legitimacy for global institutions. Indeed, although the actions and the decisions made by global organizations have consequences on people’s lives, these people are not presented with the opportunity to influence these decisions, neither to be part of such organizations (Isin and Turner, 318).  

Regarding this critique, cosmopolitans argue that globalization, and in particular, the fact that major events can impact the people’s lives across the world, has transformed the ways that people think about politics and has foster within them a desire to participate in global politics (Warf, 279). For example, on February 15^th, 2003, people from all around the world protested against the Iraq War as they felt indirectly threatened by this decision (Tarrow, 17). Furthermore, this recent desire for people to participate in global politics can be seen in the increasing number of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) which provide a means for cosmopolitan citizens to play a role on the international sphere. Indeed, INGOs now constitute a civil society known to have increasingly played a political role in the last twenty years; particularly by covering political lapse from the state-centric system of government such as in the context of environmental protection (“Union”). For example, Greenpeace has been able to influence many environmental protection policies around the world (“Greenpeace”). Furthermore, by providing a means for individuals to be part of the global political process, and by representing people and social movements from all around the world, INGOs also contribute to democratizing and, therefore, legitimizing the political decisions made by the international institutions collaborating with INGOs (“Union”).

Critics of cosmopolitan citizenship also argue that the sense of community, which constitutes another basis of the concept of citizenship, cannot be created at an international level. These critics claim that the lack of a shared history and shared cultural beliefs impairs the construction of a meaningful cosmopolitan citizenship and, therefore, cannot produce a common political ethic which is essential for defining the common good (Isin and Turner, 318-322). Indeed, the infinite diversity provided by the broad range of cultures around the world can impairs the formation of a common sense of community, present on the national level.

In response to this critique, advocates of cosmopolitanism, such as Martha Nussbaum, recognize the role played by education and the media in constructing the sense a community within a state. Indeed, these two forces select particular events and information based on the assumption that they will resonate within the citizens of a community. However, by doing so, they also shape the cognitive map of citizens, their relation with their state, and their compassion of other citizens of the same state. In her essay on patriotism, Martha Nussbaum envisions an education which, instead of being nationally focused in its teaching, would initiate a global compassion within its students (Van Hooft, 25). Furthermore, as events increasingly have global consequences and generate global concern, it is possible to imaging that, in the future, individuals from all over the world will build a common history around important events for humanity, such as the Second World War or the nuclear disaster of Fukushima in Japan.

Now entering the second category of critique from the state-centric view, critics of the cosmopolitan citizenship also fear that the realization of this concept will translate into replacing state sovereignty by a system of global dictatorship which will ultimately promote the interests of global elites. Indeed, although cosmopolitanism believe in the principle of a democratic ideal that wishes to see all members of the global community participating towards a common political direction, opponent of cosmopolitan citizenship believe that the underlying mechanism of such development will promote the universalism of cosmopolitan values and, therefore, the promotion of global elites’ interests (Isin and Turner, 329). For example, although the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank (WB) were originally created to protect the economy of countries affected by the Second World War, these institutions are now widely criticized for reinforcing the current global power imbalance, that is, the supremacy of wealthier countries over the rest of the world, and policies which polarize global economic inequality (Makwana).

Certainly, although cosmopolitans generally do not advocate any means to global governance, the concern that further powerful global institutions, such as the IMF and the WB, can promote the interest of elites remains. However, applying cosmopolitan ideas, such as equality and global democracy, to global institutions would actually promote further distribution of resources and power instead of maintaining the current power imbalance and the overrepresentation of wealthy countries in these establishments (Van Hooft, 163).

On a similar note, proponent of the state-centric view argue that the universal morals which design the logic of cosmopolitan citizenship do not subscribe to the cultural differences that exist on a global scale and stand against the current liberal tradition to cater rights according to preference of different members of a same political community (Isin and Turner, 324). These critics believe that actions from the wealthier countries (usually the ones promoting cosmopolitanism) to realize the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship could influence global politics in a culturally biased manner which would eventually promote their own interests (Isin and Turner, 322).

However, instead of imposing culturally bias ideas, cosmopolitan argue for pluralism. This means that, alike in liberal democracies, their ideology wishes to particularly protect cultural minorities from the tyranny of the majority (Adami, 50). Indeed, cultural diversity exists within nations and is nevertheless accommodated. For example, the Canadian government claims to have built a national identity on the basis of cultural diversity. However, common fundamental principles such as liberty and equality bond Canadian citizens into a common nation. The same logic could then be applied on a global scale. Furthermore, cosmopolitanism generally wishes to focus on already existing similitudes amongst human beings (Adami, 58). For example, The International Bill of Human Rights has demonstrated the opportunity to build strong common grounds from shared universal values, without necessarily promoting in any controversial ideas impeding on nations’ cultural preferences or needs.

Finally, the last category of critique from the state-centric view reproaches cosmopolitan citizenship to diluting individuals’ sense of citizenship towards their respective state. For them, current political movements should focus on the more urgent matter of consolidating and preserving national citizenship (Isin and Turner, 317). David Miller, for example, highlights the importance “to nurture civic virtues within existing national communities” as, according to him, the attention toward the international sphere “loosen the ties” between citizens and their state and, therefore, erodes their sense of a national political community (Isin and Turner, 319). Indeed, over the last forty years, an increasing disengagement of citizens in their national political process has been observed around the world through the lessening percentage of voting individuals (“Voter Turnout”).

In response to this critique, cosmopolitanism proponents argue that citizens are now interested in international events due to the impact of these events on their lives (Warf, 279). Indeed, globalization is undermining national governments’ legitimacy because of their inability to stop global forces such as important economic development (Brown, 53). The cosmopolitan counter-argument is then that it is the overriding phenomenon of globalization that is, in fact, loosening ties between citizens and their respective state – not cosmopolitanism which merely derives from globalization. Finally, cosmopolitans do not wish to see the importance of national matters diminishing over cosmopolitan interests. Instead, they argue in favor of finding a balance between citizens’ duty towards their state and fellow citizens, and towards the human race (Brown, 55). As Immanuel Kant puts it, cosmopolitan citizenship suggests that a “community of humankind [exists] alongside the system of states” – not above it (Isin and Turner, 321).

The current skepticism toward the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship can be understood as a typical conservative reaction in response to the crisis brought by globalization, such as the global economic crisis for 2008. In the past, similar conservative ideas have attempted to prevent the creation of important global institutions and international rights which are now recognized to be important definitions of human progress towards a more just and equal world. Despite these critiques, the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship is, nevertheless, more than ever shaping global politics, notably through INGOs and other global institutions. Indeed, in addition to drastically transforming people’s life and their experience of citizenship, globalization has engendered the desire and the need for citizens of the world to play a role in international political decisions as they increasingly feel concerned by the development of international issues. For them, cosmopolitanism then presents the possibility to respond to these new needs by offering an alternative scheme in which international factors would be more appropriately accommodated and dealt with.

 

Work Cited

Adami, Rebecca. "Intersectional Dialogue - A Cosmopolitical Dialogue of Ethics." Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5.2 (2013): 45-62. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.

Brown, Garrett Wallace. "Bringing The State Back Into Cosmopolitanism: The Idea of Responsible Cosmopolitan States." Political Studies Review 9.1 (2011): 53-66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

"Greenpeace Victories." Greenpeace International. N.p., 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. .

Isin, Engin F., and Bryan S. Turner. "Cosmopolitan Citizenship." Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London: Sage, 2002. 317-332. Print.

Makwana, Rajesh. "Decommissioning The IMF, World Bank and WTO." STWR - Share The World's Resources. N.p., 5 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. .

Tarrow, Sidney. The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.

"Union of International Associations." Changing relationships between International Non-Governmental Organizations and the United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. .

"Voter Turnout." Conferenceboard.ca. N.p., 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. .

Warf, Barney. "Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, And Geographical Imaginations." Geographical Review 102.3 (2012): 271-292. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.