Recently I ran across this website called Eurozine and was intrigued by, among other things, a special “In Focus” section they had on their home page called Cultural Citizenship. Now, the articles on this site are not a brief, easy read. Sometimes, personally, they feel overblown, like when I see sentences such as “Radical pluralism rejected the somewhat conservative premises of the liberal communitarian controversy, and advocated a more transformative view of citizenship that was also more deeply embedded in ideas of radical democracy.”
And when I saw that one of the articles was subtitled “Thoughts in Connection to Hegel”, I visibly winced. I had no problem with Hobbes, or Nietzsche, or Foucault, but the Philosophy of Right nearly destroyed me….twice. It’s not my morning coffee reading, but I think there are interesting conversations in here waiting to be dug out and examined. If you have the patience to pick through these articles, it looks like many are worth the read. And as I work my way through them, I’ll try to post the better, more easily digestible tidbits, like this…
From an article by Per Wirtén entitled “Free the Nation – Cosmopolitanism Now!“
In time, cosmopolitans became a derogatory synonym for Jews, communists, anarchists, pacifists and anybody else who refused to accept demands for ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious homogeneity made in the name of the nation state. The cold war not only effectively divided the world, but also saw to it that cosmopolitan principles were relegated to the level of private daydreaming. Following the downfall of the Berlin Wall however, these perspectives have returned to the international debate…
Please keep reading…good stuff at the end…
Here’s another interesting tidbit from later on that gives you an idea of where this article is headed:
The governments of Western Europe have chosen a path of least resistance to defend themselves against the onslaught of right wing nationalism: stronger borders, tougher police supervision as well as increased emphasis on national and cultural homogeneity. The cosmopolitan tradition has emphasised the connections between race-philosophy, nationalism and the nation – state making up this negative spiral for decades. Bearing this in mind, Europe has to regard the EU and immigration as a chance to liberate itself from the heritage of nationalism and from now on let the politics of the public sphere take the place of nation, race and ethnicity.
But the author then also goes on to recognize critiques of cosmopolitanism, like the danger of, for example, “tendencies of global cultural homogenisation and commercialisation in the name of the major multinational corporations.”
I particularly liked this line, though, describing the ideas of a certain Ghanain philosopher who thinks that
A cosmopolitan patriot must therefore feel a moral and political responsibility that extends beyond the own nation or the own homeland…[that] “we need not treat people from other cultures in a civilized manner in spite of our differences, but we can meet them in a human and civilized way through our differences”
I really like that sentiment. I think it’s write-it-on-a-post-it-and-stick-it-on-the-wall quality. Nifty.
September 13, 2007 at 4:25 am
I found this tidbit from the article referring to Mary Kaldor’s research most telling but not surprising:
“Her most important discovery however was that the cosmopolitans were not always the ones you perhaps expected them to be.”
“As it turned out, those who defended cosmopolitan ideas often lived in small towns and villages where they hid refugees, saving them from ethnic cleansing and paving the way for continued co-existence. Many of them had never gone to university or even once left the place where they were born.”
Then if you read to the end of the paragraph:
“Thus Kaldor very effectively disproved a die-hard and fundamentally false presupposition: that it is always the educated elite that represents the cosmopolitan tradition and uneducated farmers who promote a nationalistic and intolerant agenda.”
Speculating on why this is, perhaps it’s the basic moral ideal that most people believe in “treat others as you wish to be treated”. People who have never left their home countries may not have first hand experience of the way other cultures interact and therefore have no reference or bias to believe that the simple idea of treating others as you wish to be treated should be questioned otherwise. Not that it should. Education can sometimes be a dangerous thing for the wrong mind.
Though the better ideal is ‘treat others as they wish to be treated’ it’s not as widely used.
We are, however, all citizens of the planet and to state the obvious putting up walls is divisive. Nationalism is one such wall that has no place in a cosmopolitan ideal where everyone is acknowledged as being valuable no matter who they are.
September 13, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I loved that part as well, there were a lot of intersting sections to think about in this article. I was also surprised that she found the small-town folks more “cosmopolitan,” but it may depend on the region you’re looking at. I’m not sure that folks from small-town USA or small town Britain (from the impression I get from friends) would really be more foreigner-friendly or cosmopolitan than London or San Francisco. I would guess the best thing to say is we shoudl simply not assume; that depending on the conditions and history of an area, the cosmopolitan types may be very different groups indeed.
September 15, 2007 at 8:41 pm
In a comment above is found the statement:
“Nationalism is one such wall that has no place in a cosmopolitan ideal where everyone is acknowledged as being valuable no matter who they are.”
What in heavens name has individual worth got to do with Nationalism or the cosmopolitan ideal? The worth of the individual goes where ever that person does, and has nothing to do with countries, or governments, or laws. It is a social issue.
Yet another fallacious attempt to associate some obvious moral value to the immigration issue when there is no logical connection.
This country (USA), as others such as Rome, has been involved in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, not because they were viewed as having no worth, but because they were perceived as a threat to our way of life. Frequently, we knew that they were worthier combatants, and the only reason we won was the possession of greater numbers and resources.
Each sovereign nation has the right and power to set up its own laws. If you don’t like that countries laws, don’t go there.
One might point to the people of first or second generation and say that they have no choice. That is the history of what happened here. Our government turned oppressive, and made us second class citizens. So, a number of people, not a vast majority by the way, decided to take on one of the world’s two super powers, sacrificing life and limb under bitter physical conditions, and strong opposition from many of their neighbors.
What do you know, it worked!
You can ignore history, or you can notice that merging comes either very slowly over many generations, or through confrontation. There are no morals involved. In fact moral and religious ideals are what are used to maintain the separation. This is a barren soil to try to work, since it reinforces the distancing, i.e. it is counterproductive.
When a group is perceived to be no threat to the incumbent way of life, and there is an economic advantage to doing so, it will be accepted. Or, the group could try to revolt.
Recorded history is there to show us how to accomplish what we wish. Ignoring it, whining, citing moral or religious obligations, has never worked. First, think about the proven, available tools, and the first steps you wish to accomplish. Then proceed. That is, rather than sharing commiserations, form a plan and carry it out.
I enjoyed our Flower Power revolt here. We took on a world super power, and made significant changes. Maybe you could have one too.
September 20, 2007 at 7:40 am
dmelliott said: “This country (USA), as others such as Rome, has been involved in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, not because they were viewed as having no worth, but because they were perceived as a threat to our way of life.”
If a person or a nation of people are perceived as a ‘threat to your way of life’ how can they possibly be perceived as ‘valuable’ additions to your culture or have ‘worth’? Threats are things that must be destroyed or brought under control. Sounds a lot like Nationalism to me.
When you are talking about human life then morals certainly do play a part in the decisions made. Basic human rights are a moral and social issue that must be brought to the table when laws and decisions about people are made.
The essence of the above comment suggests that it is okay to cause suffering of another people simply because they are a threat to your way of life. I don’t subscribe to that point of view at all.
October 7, 2007 at 5:04 am
I have no idea why TET thought I equated the many people killed with any one able to make a contribution to our culture. First, I did not. Second, of all the Germans we killed very few were, in and of themselves, viewed as worthless, just as a threat because they were their leadership’s support. We were perfectly aware of the great worth the Germans had had for us. For example, they gave us Martin Luther, so we could form a Protestant nation here.
Basic human rights are indeed defensible, as witnessed by the international conventions addressing this. But it is only the very basic human rights. This is all to often the emotional battle cry that is used to cover up the usurping of citizen privileges. If you are not a citizen of a country you have ONLY the rights previously granted by these conventions. Most people who whine this cry are not even remotely familiar with what these rights actually are; they prefer the fantasy of their own manufacture.
This cry is similar to TET’s statement that he is opposed to causing suffering to some one who is a threat. It just is not true. What would he do if some one broke into his house at night? At least I’ll bet his wife hopes it is not true.
Religious-moral arguments for rights is an earmark of Radical Fundamentalism, both Arab and American. It is an attempt to put forth an unarguable argument, and generally appeals to those with only moderate reasoning skill, the extremely naive, or to those whose agenda it favors.
The icon of liberty and rights, the Magna Carta, was created not as a religious or moral statement, but because the English barons saw the King’s acceptance of subservience to the Church in Rome as a threat to their way of life (thereby being indirectly anti-religious), and viewed the lack of Habeas Corpus similarly. They proceeded by force to remedy the situation.
Of course I am nationalistic, and I expect you to be so to, just like Lech Wałęsa, George Washington, and many others. However, nationalism does not mean anybody subjugating anybody. It means the empowerment of knowing that your group is unified and can move forward toward accomplishing its goals, rather than the disempowering apathy that inevitably comes to people in disparate groups.
There is what has actually happened and how things have actually worked in history, and then there is what some think should happen. Unfortunately, reality cares not what any man thinks.
Form power associations, make concrete plans, accomplish specific goals, etc.
Dian Fossey was not killed because she wanted the gorillas to thrive. She was killed because she came into someone else’s country and tried to tell them that they could not have one of their few sources of meat and could not make desperately needed money from ecotourism because of a, quite possibly shared, moral precept: she was a threat to their way of life.
Show yourself to be a nonthreatening, unique value to those around you in their eyes, not necessarily yours, and you will be accepted.