Globalization through Cosmopolitanism
Abstract
Cosmopolitanism is a crucial aspect of globalization. It presents the idea that human beings are citizens, not only of a given locality but also of the world. This means that their interactions are not limited to their local surroundings but extend to the world. Cosmopolitanism presents specific challenges, especially in terms of cultural integration. Where culture and belief systems conflict, human co-existence is difficult to achieve. Further, conflict arises from the different values that are adopted by individuals and can even lead to violence. Cosmopolitanism is also evident in the area of civil rights. It guides the values embraced by humanity as a whole and presents the possibility of commonality through agreed international human rights standards. It is, therefore, important to find an approach that will lead to a common understanding of culture and values to enhance human co-existence.
Keywords: Globalization, cosmopolitanism, values, culture, rights
Introduction
Globalization is a key concept that entails the flow of information, knowledge, ideas, products, and services at a worldwide level. It involves a move to universality, making the world as it is a global village (Ritzer and Dean 2; Harris 6; Lule 377). This means that human beings will disregard political and social borders and consider themselves to be a part of a large human community rather than a small group of individuals (Ferguson and Mansbach 17; (Falzon 37). Globalization can be viewed as a progression, with the local space on one end and the global outlook on the other (Held 28; Hannerz (a) 109). Cosmopolitanism goes to the very core of globalization. It involves a reconceptualization of the foundational tenets of civic societies; democracy, citizenship, and political community (Trepanier 211; (Skrbis and Woodward 2). Cosmopolitanism is defined as an ethical approach in which an individual goes beyond the inclination to focus on their immediate community and endeavors to value and create connections with humanity as a whole (Kendall et al. 1; Rovisco and Nowicka 8). Appiah explains that cosmopolitanism can be traced back to the 14th Century and tied to the phrase “citizens of the cosmos” (Appiah 68). The term was paradoxical since citizenship referred to a particular polis or city and, therefore, cynics could not comprehend the idea of an individual being a citizen of the universe as a whole (Calhoun 427). Appiah explains the foundations of cosmopolitanism and proposes that human beings should embrace their different values and perceptions rather than attempt to force their own values on others. In a similar way, Yoshino conceptualizes the idea of cosmopolitanism as it applies to civil rights and proposes a new approach to the civil rights system. There is a connection between the arguments put forward by Appiah and Yoshino. They both analyze how society can integrate various value systems and beliefs to enhance co-existence. They also propose approaches that ensure that individuals are allowed to thrive amid varying ideologies and conceptions of truth. This paper analyzes their works with a view of creating a nexus between the two and explaining how Yoshino applies Appiah’s conceptualization of cosmopolitanism to propose an approach to civil rights.
Towards an Understanding of Varying Belief Systems
The concept of differing values and beliefs is an integral part of both Appiah and Yoshino’s approaches. Appiah explains that there are legitimate differences between human beings (Appiah 73; Delanty 221; Learmount 252). He points out that different perceptions of what is right and wrong usually stem from habit and normative conceptions in society. He gives an example of a parent in a community where spanking children is allowed. The parent believes that spanking is essential as a way of instilling discipline. Another individual who is an outsider will view this as cruel treatment of a child. Yoshino introduces the idea of covering (Yoshino 552; Nussbaum 293). He explains that individuals tend to hide their true selves to adapt to mainstream perceptions. According to him, every human being covers because no individual is entirely within the mainstream. The need to cover arises from the existence of a large number of divergent views on values, morality, and beliefs. This means that what one person considers a norm will differ from what another person views as the norm. Therefore, the two writers present the problem of differing value systems in cosmopolitanism.
A clash of cultures and values is the leading cause of conflicts between human beings. Value systems and beliefs differ between individuals and communal groups. These differences result from racial, religious, ethnic, nationality, and cultural origins (Hooft 5; Valencia Sáiz 168). For example, a Muslim develops an understanding of the role of women that differs from what a Christian believes. As a result, Christians may voice their concerns about how Muslims treat women and insist that they change their beliefs. The conflict arises when both factions believe that their perception is right, and the other party is wrong (Walzer 3). This leads to a confrontation and an attempt to force their values onto the other party. Looking at this from a global point of view reveals several differentiations that hinder globalization. For instance, a woman who has grown within an American setting and has a tendency to dress in a way that would seem indecent and immodest to a Muslim cannot be embraced in Arabic countries that are primarily Islamic.
Both Appiah and Yoshino propose solutions to the issue of differing value systems. Appiah explains that cosmopolitanism has two strands. Firstly, human beings have an obligation to others beyond basic social ties. Secondly, we should value human lives and develop an interest in understanding the values, practices, and beliefs that are held by others (Appiah 69; Arenas-Dolz 165; Van Der Veer 165; Hannerz (b) 102). He emphasizes on the need to respect legitimate differences between human beings. Further, he explains that coexistence does not necessarily stem from an agreement as to values. It arises from tolerance and understanding. The underlying reasons behind a particular value system are usually similar. Therefore, an individual may accept the practices that people undertake as part of human existence without agreeing with their justification. Appiah gives the example of the Dutch society in the 17th Century, where Jews and Christians coexisted, not because they agreed on fundamental values but because they accepted and tolerated each other (Appiah 74). Similarly, Yoshino proposes that civil rights should shift from a focus on differences to common humanity. He gives the example of the case of Lawrence v Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003), where the Supreme Court struck down a statute that criminalized same-sex sexual relations in Texas (Yoshino 555). Instead of addressing the place of homosexuality, the court held that human beings have a right to control their intimate sexual relations (Lund and McGinnis 1575; Barnett 21). The proposed approach ensures that human beings refrain from pointing out their differences and instead interact based on their shared perceptions.
Shared Values as a Point of Convergence
Human beings share some values that are universally accepted. Despite their different beliefs, human beings can identify points at which their perspectives converge (Davis 100). Appiah explains that international human rights laws, even when they are subordinate to national legislation, embody a common perspective by the human race on what should be deemed acceptable (Appiah 80, Nash 1068; Waldron 83). An example is slavery, which human beings have condemned as morally unacceptable on both local and international levels. Yoshino describes international human rights as values that are shared with a broader civilization. He explains that towards the end of their civil rights efforts, both Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X proposed a move from civil rights to human rights (Yoshino 556). This is because civil rights focus on the differences between individuals, whereas human rights embody a united view of human beings.
The Concept of Conversation
Having conversations across different spheres fosters understanding, which enhances human interaction. Both Appiah and Yoshino address the place of conversation in promoting unified humanity. Appiah explains that conversation does not start at a point where individuals agree on principles (Appiah 73). It begins from a situation where parties disagree on values and have differences in beliefs. He explains the need to hold conversations with the aim of understanding the experiences and ideas of others. He opposes the notion of conversing to persuade the other party to agree with one’s perspective. If done well, conversations are valuable in cosmopolitanism. Yoshino explains that conversations help to chart the progress of monoculturalism (Yoshino 559). They involve explaining perspectives and reasons for belief. Yoshino holds the view that the law does not result in complete inclusion and co-existence. It can only go so far. Conversations lead to an acceptance of beliefs and therefore promote civil rights.
Conclusion
Both writings present the idea that human beings are inherently different. The differences are perpetuated by their surroundings and are sometimes innate. This poses a limitation on cosmopolitanism and hinders globalization. Human beings are also largely individualistic. They focus on the expression of their own beliefs and perspectives rather than on the beliefs of others. They are inclined to view their perspective as the only correct position and reject all other perspectives. The authors bring the proposition that human beings should attempt to understand different beliefs and practices and hold conversations that aim at enhancing co-existence. Despite the fact that the two address different areas of human interaction, their thoughts converge in the notion that individuals can promote co-existence through acceptance of different beliefs as they are without necessarily adopting them.
Works Cited
Appiah, Kwame A. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Penguin UK, 2015.
Arenas-Dolz, Francisco. “Constructing Cosmopolitanism in the Digital Age: Challenges and Prospects.” Cosmopolitanism: Between Ideals and Reality, edited by Lorena C. Sanahuja and Francesco Ghia, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015.
Barnett, Randy E. “Justice Kennedy’s Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003.
Calhoun, Craig. “Cosmopolitanism and nationalism.” Nations and Nationalism, vol. 14, no. 3, 2008, pp. 427-448.
Davis, Emily S. “Contagion, Cosmopolitanism, and Human Rights in Phaswane Mpe’s Welcome to Our Hillbrow.” College Literature, vol. 40, no. 3, 2013, pp. 99-112.
Delanty, Gerard. “The Cosmopolitan Imagination.” Revista CIDOB D’Afers Internacionals, no. 82/83, 2008, pp. 217–230. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40586351. Accessed 4 May 2020.
Falzon, Mark-Anthony. “Ethnic Groups Unbound: A Case Study of the Social Organization of Cosmopolitanism.” Cosmopolitanism in Practice, edited by Maria Rovisco, Routledge, 2016.
Ferguson, Yale H., and Richard W. Mansbach. Globalization: The Return of Borders to a Borderless World? Routledge, 2012.
Hannerz, Ulf (b). Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. Routledge, 2002.
Hannerz, Ulf. (a) “Other Transnationals: Perspectives Gained from Studying Sideways.” Paideuma, vol. 44, 1998, pp. 109–123. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40342025. Accessed 4 May 2020.
Harris, Nathaniel. The Debate About Globalization. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2007.
Held, D. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Polity, 2010.
Hooft, Stan V. Cosmopolitanism: A Philosophy for Global Ethics. Routledge, 2014.
Kendall, G., et al. The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism: Globalization, Identity, Culture and Government. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Lawrence v Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Learmount, Simon. Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice. Oxford UP on Demand, 2003.
Lule, Jack. “Globalization and Media: Creating the Global Village.” The SAGE Handbook of Globalization, edited by Manfred Steger, Paul Battersby, and Joseph Siracusa, SAGE, 2014.
Lund, Nelson, and John O. McGinnis. “Lawrence v. Texas and Judicial Hubris.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 102, no. 7, 2004, p. 1555.
Nash, Kate. “Between Citizenship and Human Rights.” Sociology, vol. 43, no. 6, 2009, pp. 1067-1083.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Princeton UP, 2009.
Papastergiadis, Nikos. Cosmopolitanism and Culture. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Ritzer, George, and Paul Dean. Globalization: The Essentials. Wiley-Blackwell, 2019.
Rovisco, Maria, and Magdalena Nowicka. The Ashgate Research Companion to Cosmopolitanism. Routledge, 2016.
Skrbis, Zlatko, and Ian Woodward. Cosmopolitanism: Uses of the Idea. SAGE, 2013.
Trepanier, Lee. “The Postmodern Condition of Cosmopolitanism.” Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Globalization: Citizens without States, edited by Lee M. Trepanier and Khalil Habib, UP of Kentucky, 2011.
Valencia Sáiz, Angel. “Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism and Ecological Citizenship.” Environmental Politics, vol. 14, no. 2, 2005, pp. 163-178.
Van Der Veer, Peter. “Colonial Cosmopolitanism.” Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice, edited by Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen, Oxford UP on Demand, 2003.
Waldron, Jeremy. “Cosmopolitan Norms.” Another Cosmopolitanism, edited by Seyla Benhabib, Oxford UP, 2008.
Walzer, Michael. Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. U of Notre Dame Pess, 1994.
Yoshino, Kenji. Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights. Random House, 2011.