Three Forms Of Cosmopolitanism

Superior Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Cosmopolitanism demands recognition of all the nations and peoples of the world as basically identical and equal. It demands a vision that transcends the local allegiances within national border and seeks allegiance to the humanity at large which makes the essence of international identity. Nussbaum’s idea of Cosmopolitanism is although criticized on the grounds that nationality and patriotism cannot be substituted by universalism and that it is difficult to imagine others. However Amartya Sen supports Nussbaum’s stand: “The importance of Nussbaum's focus on world citizenship lies in correcting a serious neglect—that of the interest of people who are not related to us through, say, kinship or community or nationality. The assertion that one's fundamental allegiance is to humanity at large brings every other person into the domain of concern, without eliminating anyone” (Sen 114).…

    • 1145 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Education for all allows the whole of society to accept and understand specific expectations to live by. They would be taught about the structure of government, and the role the institution plays in supporting citizen’s natural born rights and their wants. By having education be openly mandatory, it would eliminate racial prejudice, therefore abolishing minority groups. John Rawl’s theory of the veil of ignorance in Justice as Fairness, supports the elimination of sexist, racial and economic discrimination. Behind the veil, there would not be a noticeable difference in traits, only in intellectual capabilities.…

    • 1245 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Human Rights Are Universal

    • 1903 Words
    • 8 Pages

    A human right is a claim that demands respect; dominates; gives structure to systems; is objectively valid; instils duties; and gives humans power to certain freedoms. The term fundamental connotes to legal rights being necessary to form the core root of society. Universal accounts for all people, cultures, religions and countries, where there is an absence of ethnocentrism and discrimination. These three terms put together is showing that human rights dominate over other rights when they can be applied on any human being regardless of disabilities, status or wealth. These rights form the basis through which humans can lead a minimally good life only if applied.…

    • 1903 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In some way, both authors come hand in hand to share some similar point of views. Individuals should come to understand that everyone is equal and have the right to follow their own path. Every single action a human does should not be explicit to please others or to gain the approval of society. One's opinion or action can help change the world for better, yet if one keeps it bottled up then who will hear it. To give to society one shall go out into the crowd and voice their thoughts, just as Fuller and Whitman believed and did.…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The common goal of all people is freedom as everyone wishes to be able to achieve what they want without the government telling them it is not right. With the evolution of human rights, it has been made clear that humans should be as equal as possible and society will function to its greatest ability when the humans live freely. This means that the government intervenes when necessary because of offensive or harmful acts (Rohlf 2016). In positive liberty, the government is there to tell you exactly what to do to not break the law, therefore remaining “free”. Clearly, freedom is a topic of great relevance to our society that has been interpreted through many different lenses.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So the standards of the law, rights and liberties would all be equal to all, no matter their stance in society. With equality there around a society there should also be no inbuilt hate, either political, race, or social wise. In a society where everyone is not required to be inheritably equal there are going to be discrepancies between each class but they should still have the possibilities of moving up in the society. Since there are many ways that one can fall into terrible situations, it would be the job of the government to try to help and maintain this equality even if it is just for a short period. Things such as welfare and food stamps would be supplied but with conditions.…

    • 1326 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Separateness Of Persons

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Rawls and Nozick argue that utilitarianism does not consider that beings are individuals in their own right and “does not take seriously the distinction between persons”. Utilitarianism focuses solely on achieving maximal total utility. In order to do this, it sacrifices an even distribution of utility and ‘sanctions injustice’. It directs us to act unjustly to a few in order to achieve happiness on a larger scale- failing to respect individuals needs and rights. According to Nozick this notion is flawed as “to use a person [for another’s benefit] does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has.…

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While the source illustrates that historical globalization is a critical issue. One perspective may state that the ideological perspectives of globalization and imperialism embraces negativity to a large extent, as it idealizes Eurocentrism and racism, which is drenched in their actions. Accompanied also by the act of stripping away the land of the very people that have been fostered by it. Similarly, one could say that imperialism and globalization embraces a positive side of the argument, as it was an economical exploitation that help propel and aid the nations that it served. And also politically, as it helps root power and government for the imperial power, to allow a word and influence over these nations seen inferior or lacking.…

    • 1043 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He has contrasted this paradigm of hybridity to other two popular views of the cultural impact of globalisation. The first one would be cultural diversity, or differentialism, which is strongly elaborated in Samuel Huntington's (1996) theory of the clash of civilizations, which has further gained importance after the 9/11 terrorist attack in America. Another view of the cultural impact of globalisation is cultural convergence and homogenization, or popularly called McDonaldization. “Hybridization is an antidote to the cultural differentialism of racial and nationalist doctrines because it takes as its point of departure precisely those experiences that have been banished, marginalized, tabooed in cultural differentialism. It subverts nationalism because it privileges border-crossing.…

    • 965 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    For instance, the United States’ melting pot requires individuals to become patriarchal and to acclimate themselves. This is problematic as cultural diversity may not be upheld, and the right to cultural or religious practices may be infringed. Alia Al-Saji sets out the example of “Muslim veiling” as an “ethnic nationalism.” He notes that limitation of the veil to French nationalism or secularism misses how much such discourse are themselves constructed through representations of the veil, not only in the French context but in other nationalist discourses” (Al-Saji, 2010, p.894). In “Nationalism and Ethnicity”, Calhoun observes the nationalist framework and questions “modernization.” He comes to the conclusion that forcing modernization is ultimately good as it allows individuals to have self-determination and anatomy. In that sense, he supports civic nationalism as the state is required to provide all of its populations with equal rights.…

    • 1086 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays