What Does It Mean To Be A Cosmopolitanist?

Humankind would be a better place if we were all just citizens of the world. In Martha Nussbaum’s “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” she argues whether children should be taught in education to be patriotic or cosmopolitan. Nussbaum’s definition of cosmopolitanism is a person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world. Nussbaum begins her argument by raising questions about education and how students ought to be taught that hunger in third world countries are problems of global problems and not the countries problem. She says “We should regard out deliberations as, first and foremost, deliberations about human problems of people in particular concrete situations, not problems growing out of a national

Appiah spends more than half of his introduction describing how complicated the word cosmopolitanism truly is. He keeps revolving around the overlapping idea that we as a people, are not confined to the limits of what our eyes can see. Our strengths, our experiences and our knowledge comes from more than where we were born or how we were raised. We cannot and should not be limited to those

“No flags… something more interesting,” (186) says Julius choosing a stamp at the post office. What he is delivering is Kwame Anthony Appiah’s, Cosmopolitanism, but what this detail delivers to the text is important context to one of the subtle themes of Open City: Cosmopolitanism. With globalization and thus increasing access to different countries and cultures, there is a question of whether or not cosmopolitanism is a desirable outlook to move toward. For Appiah, there are two “strands” of cosmopolitanism– one strand pushes past nationalism in the way it opens up the conception of community. This not only means conceiving of ourselves as citizens of the world, but extending our duties and obligations beyond those immediate to us

So many of the problems we face today as a country and as a world are the result of ignorance and ethnocentrism. The misguided War on Terror, one of the more important examples in our time, is the result of religious and cultural intolerance on both sides. In her essay “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,” Martha Nussbaum argues that to remedy such issues, we should forgo our nationalist tendencies and view ourselves first and foremost as citizens of the world, or cosmopolitans. The majority of her suggestions are well taken, but her belief that national boundaries are morally irrelevant and that patriotism is altogether poisonous may be taking the idea too far, and in a very impractical direction. In this paper, I will argue for a vision of cosmopolitanism more in line with that of Anthony Appiah in his book Cosmopolitanism. His theory of a “rooted cosmopolitanism” takes into account the moral significance of nations and is better suited to a democratic world.

In Martha Nussbaum’s essay, “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism”, she claims that the people of our nation are “appallingly ignorant” of the world, to which I concur. Children in America should learn about the world at an early age. What Nussbaum believes is that an education in which students are taught that they are, first and foremost, a citizen of this world, is one that will assist in the production of men and women that will look at another human being from another nationality and see no difference between each other. This sounds good and all, but what I want to know is how this kind of education would be integrated in todays’ schools, and how it will affect the students. Nussbaum’s idea of a cosmopolitan education, although altruistic in nature, interferes with todays’ time and resource hungry education system. Even if cosmopolitan education were to be integrated in schools, there would be nothing to stop it from having the same complications as a nationalistic or patriotic school.

The influence of Cosmopolitans do acknowledge the fact that many people believe that their culture is being threaten by competition due to worldwide economy. Appiah uses as an example how Asantes farmers have been able to sustain their lives because of cocoa trees and they fear that if there were a downfall due to globalization as it did in the past, then they will have to find another way of sustaining their lives and that might be challenging for these people just as it might be an upbringing to others- as I stated before there are many pros and cons to this idea, just as globalization might bring out many opportunities to many communities, along the way many sacrifices will have to be implemented.

In the pursuit to gain the greatest understanding and respect of human rights projects and global social justice cosmopolitanism is necessary. Looking at cosmopolitism’s roots, features and limits through the lenses of authors Fine, Held and Calhoun to further address the importance of this ideal regardless of its weaknesses. Following the debate of whether critics are right about cosmopolitanisms liberal biases undermining its critical potential will be discussed, to suggest where cosmopolitanism needs adjustments in order to progress. Lastly, this paper will consider the idea that cosmopolitan ideals are more necessary then ever given the resurgence of nationalist and isolationist politics worldwide. Through an overall analysis of

The world is made up of two kinds of countries, there are core countries and there periphery countries. There are also three kinds of people in this world, the countries in which you live in or where you were born, are a big deciding factor in what type of person you are. You are either a global, local, or mobal. The globals typically live in the core countries. Core countries are wealthier countries who provide a platform for success. Some of these countries are The United States, Canada, Australia, and most of Western Europe. A global is somebody who desires fortune and expansion. The opposite of a global is a local. A local is one who most likely lives in a periphery country. Locals don’t normally expand and they see the world as a much larger and scarier place than the globals, because they have less communication with the rest of the world. Locals stay in the location where they were born and raised, and most of the time, they continue what their ancestors have started. The mobals are in between the globals and the locals. The mobals are born and raised in a periphery country, but they make an attempt or take a risk to move to another country. They become immigrants of core countries in search of a better life for them and their families.

In current century, it has become way easier to communicate with one another around the world because of the advancement in technology, making it way easier for us to know what’s going on around the world from our couch with the help of the internet, which is known as globalization. Because of globalization it has become easier to communicate with people which is what Kwame Anthony Appiah emphasizes on “making conversation” and “the primacy of practice”. Appiah also talks about another concept that is cosmopolitanism which means global citizens of the world and how it may either bring people together or draw them apart from one another. Appiah also emphasizes that making conversation doesn’t necessarily mean that it would reduce conflict, Thomas Friedman also agrees with Appiah theory, which is “No two countries that are both part of the same global supply chain will ever fight as war as long as they are each part of that supply chain” (Freidman 173). Does making conversation really solve any problem/conflict? What is cosmopolitanism and does his concept really help apply to the world and how helpful has it been in solving problems? Does meditating into different cultures solve any problems? After 9/11 began a divide between “us” and “them” will that be solved? Being connected to one another does that really solve problem much. Appiah mentions in the interview that even though we may overcome these difference we are being

Appiah’s assertions have to do with something which he deems to be other than globalization: cosmopolitanism. For Appiah, cosmopolitanism goes beyond mere globalization—“a term that once referred to a marketing strategy, and then came to designate a macroeconomic thesis, and now can seem to encompass everything and nothing” (Appiah xiii)—and even multiculturalism—“another shape shifter, which so often designates the disease which it purports to cure” (Appiah xiii)—representing a grudging coexistence and maintained separation between different cultures. Beyond these insufficient terms and concepts, Appiah proposes cosmopolitanism which was coined by the “Cynics of the 4th century BC” and means “citizen of the universe” (Appiah xiv). As cosmopolitanism is mainly an act undertaken by individuals, a cosmopolitan is someone who places their membership to humanity over the loyalty to

In today’s society, different cultures interact with each other every single day in many different environments. There are 195 countries in the world today, with most of them allowing people to freely travel from one to another and for people to emigrate to other countries. Think of how many different races there are in the world. According to the CIA World Factbook, there are six major races in the United States alone. A smaller country like Angola has five major race groups in their country, four of which are not major race groups in the United States. This certainly brings up the question, how should we all live so all of our different cultures can live together in harmony? The book Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah is

“No flags… something more interesting,” (186) says Julius choosing a stamp at the post office. What he is delivering is Kwame Anthony Appiah’s, Cosmopolitanism, but what this detail delivers to the text is important context to one of the subtle themes of Open City: Cosmopolitanism. With globalization and thus increasing access to different countries and cultures, there is a question of whether or not cosmopolitanism is a desirable outlook to move toward. For Appiah, there are two “strands” of cosmopolitanism– one strand pushes past nationalism in the way it opens up the conception of community. This not only means conceiving of ourselves as citizens of the world, but extending our duties and obligations beyond those immediate to us (pg number). One might think of Peter Singer’s famous essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” wherein he argues that we have a great moral obligation to worldwide humanitarian efforts, despite our physical

prevent conquest, people can turn away foreigners. The earth is communally possessed by all humans. One is a guest, or gastracht, where they live, and a visitor, or besurcher, where they travel. Universal hospitality creates a “world citizenship” because everyone is mixing through travel and trading, and that cultural incorporation is analogous to cosmopolitanism.

Cosmopolitanism does have its limits in achieving its aims. It is necessary that one tracks the historical roots of cosmopolitanism to understand what visions it sets out to propose for IR. In Hellenic era, cosmopolitanism finds its meaning when Alexandrian intermarriage took place (Russel, 1945: 220), introducing the concept of ‘mankind as a whole’. Similar notion came into being in Stoicism in which people, apart from their own local identity, are united under a world citizenship (Nussbaum, 2010: 156). Kant, in the eighteenth century, furthered expounded on cosmopolitanism by suggesting a rule of cosmopolitan law and universal liberties (Held, 2010: 3).

In the article “Nationalism, Patriotism, and Cosmopolitanism in an Age of Globalization” author Robert Audi (2009) identifies different levels of nationalism and cosmopolitanism and how they can affect globalization. Audi categorizes nationalism and cosmopolitanism as being extreme, moderate, and minimal.