Cosmopolitanism is the philosophy that all humans can come together and relish in their differences. The belief that we are a single community that can coexist with one another and build on the fundamental notion that we are all human beings. To many this may seem to be a farfetched ideal, while to others this is a conceivable reality that only takes an open mind to achieve. However, there is one key issue that may present to be problem in achieving a cosmopolitan world, nationalism. Can we truly accept the other when, to some, their identity is deeply tied to the nation they were born to? Nationalism can be argued to be the root of which drives antisocial behavior and thinking such as xenophobia and/or racism. In are now globalized world,
…show more content…
According to Montserrat Guibernau, there are three forms of cosmopolitanism: cultural cosmopolitanism, philosophical cosmopolitanism and institutional or political cosmopolitanism (p. 7). The cultural cosmopolitan seeks to enjoy the various and diverse cultures of the world (p. 7). Meanwhile, the philosophical cosmopolitan seeks to remedy the injustices of the world (p.7). While, the political cosmopolitan seeks to find ways to create “political institutions might match up to a more cosmopolitan order” (p. 7). By mislabeling cosmopolitanism, it can be mistaken for a way for western cisvilisations to cultivate even more power, and dominate the rest of the world. Guibernau, makes the distinction between two forms of nationalism, democratic nationalism and non-democratic nationalism. He defines non-democratic nationalism as a “tend[ency] to embrace political ideologies infused with authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist ideas. It fosters unequal relations and tends to promote illiberal and undemocratic forms of government” (p. 9). This form of nationalism is certainly not compatible with cosmopolitanism. It seeks not to bring people together in a way which they are interconnected and relish in their differences. Instead, the goal is to dominate and have one prevailing …show more content…
In a democracy, the goal is to create an environment that fairly treats all people living under that governance. Guibernau states, “in the global age all democratic nationalisms ought to incorporate a further dimension to their traditional values. Their concern for the nation and fellow nationals should be accompanied by a clear commitment to the cosmopolitanism values of social justice, freedom and dialogic democracy” (p. 15). Cosmopolitanisms isn’t the belief that all nations should not recognise their autonomy and get rid of their traditions and beliefs. Instead they should all strive to recognise that there isn’t one single form of living. There are merits to all forms of living, and these beliefs around how one should live are constantly being modified and changed; culture isn’t static. Beliefs one holds today will not necessarily be the beliefs that one holds in the future. Brett Bowden, makes the distinction that the conundrum surrounding nationalism and cosmopolitanism is mainly due to the way we think as humans (p. 246). It is not difficult to have live in a society with multiple cultures, and be under the same form of government. The difficulty that arises is the thoughts that you can’t have an inclusive society and feelings of superiority. It is also no conducive to believe that
According to Montserrat Guibernau, there are three forms of cosmopolitanism: cultural cosmopolitanism, philosophical cosmopolitanism and institutional or political cosmopolitanism (p. 7). The cultural cosmopolitan seeks to enjoy the various and diverse cultures of the world (p. 7). Meanwhile, the philosophical cosmopolitan seeks to remedy the injustices of the world (p.7). While, the political cosmopolitan seeks to find ways to create “political institutions might match up to a more cosmopolitan order” (p. 7). By mislabeling cosmopolitanism, it can be mistaken for a way for western cisvilisations to cultivate even more power, and dominate the rest of the world. Guibernau, makes the distinction between two forms of nationalism, democratic nationalism and non-democratic nationalism. He defines non-democratic nationalism as a “tend[ency] to embrace political ideologies infused with authoritarian, dictatorial or fascist ideas. It fosters unequal relations and tends to promote illiberal and undemocratic forms of government” (p. 9). This form of nationalism is certainly not compatible with cosmopolitanism. It seeks not to bring people together in a way which they are interconnected and relish in their differences. Instead, the goal is to dominate and have one prevailing …show more content…
In a democracy, the goal is to create an environment that fairly treats all people living under that governance. Guibernau states, “in the global age all democratic nationalisms ought to incorporate a further dimension to their traditional values. Their concern for the nation and fellow nationals should be accompanied by a clear commitment to the cosmopolitanism values of social justice, freedom and dialogic democracy” (p. 15). Cosmopolitanisms isn’t the belief that all nations should not recognise their autonomy and get rid of their traditions and beliefs. Instead they should all strive to recognise that there isn’t one single form of living. There are merits to all forms of living, and these beliefs around how one should live are constantly being modified and changed; culture isn’t static. Beliefs one holds today will not necessarily be the beliefs that one holds in the future. Brett Bowden, makes the distinction that the conundrum surrounding nationalism and cosmopolitanism is mainly due to the way we think as humans (p. 246). It is not difficult to have live in a society with multiple cultures, and be under the same form of government. The difficulty that arises is the thoughts that you can’t have an inclusive society and feelings of superiority. It is also no conducive to believe that