A Defense of Cosmopolitanism

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism/

Perhaps my first motivation to become politically informed stemmed from my distaste for nationalism.  I respected the work of Orwell, whose allegories and symbolism revealed the silly divisiveness that nationalism produced.  I have since dreamed of a world in which our common humanity is prioritized over differences.  In a philosophical sense, I can identify with the tenants of cosmopolitanism.  In observing the world, I have noticed a paradox: everybody is the same, yet everybody is different.  This is meant to convey that humans have similar underlying interests, but each individual has unique genetics and experiences which shape character and personality.  It is a mistake to characterize people by national identity.  Distinctions like these, I believe, give too much credit to cultural aesthetics.  Cultural aesthetics and national identity become issues when people cling to them and become enemies despite sharing similar human interests.  Aesthetics become an illusion to distract us from unity.  But if a global community is to be achieved, doesn’t that mean that a common culture will be instated?  Does a global culture mean that the ones in power will oppress minority groups into assimilating? Not at all.  A global culture can mean simple tolerance, and perhaps a bit of apathy.  In a global community, an individual should not care how others live their lives so long as that group’s lifestyle does not negatively impact outsiders.  If a sub-group’s activity is impacting outsiders in an undesirable manner, a greater authority should assume responsibility of the situation.  If there becomes an issue of communication due to clashing cultures, it is best to simply recognize that there are different perspectives.  Cosmopolitanism does not have to turn into a monoculture.      

One critique of the United Nations is that it is an ineffective institution that wields only symbolic power.  This is historically true.  Powerful nations have generally been able to circumvent the UN if their objectives could not be met within the institution.  This is an issue from a cosmopolitan perspective.  In order to form a global community, it is necessary for an international institution to have the authority to mandate policy.  Much of cosmopolitan politics consists of navigating around the state to meet the needs of individuals.  The UN, as it stands, makes it very difficult to do this.  Thus, contemporary cosmopolitans have suggested that it would be in Earth’s best interest to move past a system of anarchy between states towards something more centralized.  Some people have even suggested a world state.  While I am certainly not in agreement with a world state, I believe that the status quo cannot continue for much longer if humanity is to survive.  The problems facing the world today are global in scale: climate change, overpopulation, lack of clean water, political corruption.  There is no longer room of a self vs. other complex.  Technology has advanced to the point that state rivalries have the capacity to impact much more that the states in conflict.  Nuclear weapons have the capacity to destroy the planet.  While MAD may be a historically sound reasoning, every theory has its exceptions.  It is short sighted to assume that MAD will hold up forever.  The seventy years that nuclear weapons have been in existence is a short experiment in the greater scheme of history.  Will humanity be able to last 2000 more years with the capacity to destroy ourselves?  A global community is necessary if we are to make advances in neutralizing the threat of global destruction.  I believe in a system of layered sovereignty where local governments still have a large degree of jurisdiction, but a global issue requires a global authority.  I do not know how exactly I would like this system to look.  It is an answer which I will pursue in the future.