Comparing Two Pathways to Tolerance and World Peace - Essay Example

? Comparing Two Pathways to Tolerance and World Peace Martha. C. Nussbaum begins her treatise on “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” with a citation of Rabindranath Tagore’s novel, The Home and The World, in which the hero exclaims “I am willing to serve my country; but my worship I reserve for Right which is far greater than my country. To worship my country as a god is to bring a curse upon it.”  According to me, this statement forms a reflection of Tagore’s intention to create the Santiniketan community that promoted the ideals of cosmopolitanism that worked against the ethnic forces of Hindu Nationalism. Nussbaum’s theory formed the basis of the theory of the contemporary cosmopolitan theory, in which she argues to lay more stress on “the contemporary cosmopolitan stoic education”, rather than “Parochial National Education”. Proponents of nationalism in politics and in education frequently make a weak concession to cosmopolitanism. 1 This article stands against the theories of Richard Rorty and Sheldon Hackney in her debates about cosmopolitanism. She quotes ‘Diogenes’ in her article who propounded the idea of “being a world citizen” that somehow seems better and more open that to limit oneself to one’s home and one’s country. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs, and give its fundamental ingredients, reason and moral capacity, our first allegiance and respect. 2 According to Nussbaum, stoicism must be an inspiration to educate the Americans, which is far better than taking a much narrower path to merely limiting one’s knowledge only to one’s country. 1 Nussbaum, Martha, “Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism,” For Love of Country (1996): 5. 2 Nussbaum, Martha, “Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism,” For Love of Country (1996): 7. Nussbaum argues: I believe… that this emphasis on patriotic pride is both morally dangerous and, ultimately, subversive of some of the worthy goals patriotism sets out to serve — for example, the goal of national unity in devotion to worthy moral ideals of justice and equality. These goals, I shall argue, would be better served by an ideal that is in any case more adequate to our situation in the contemporary world, namely the very old ideal of the cosmopolitan, the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world. 3 Nussbaum’s article that was published in 1992, lays its faith in Contemporary Humanism which is starkly different from the Italian Humanism of Petrarch. She stems cosmopolitanism on one side and the spirits of nationalism and patriotism on the other. She intermittently refers to the idea of the Stoics of non-conformity to any religion, class or creed and though this is not a convenient act, it shall be relatively easier to bridge the barriers between nations. According to the Stoics, being born into a nation is by far accidental and hence recognition of another human being must be on the basis of reason and morality. Nussbaum further contends the cosmopolitan education is more beneficial to us where we can learn more about us. One of the greatest barriers to rational deliberation in politics is the unexamined feeling that one’s preferences and ways are neutral and natural. 4 Her dogma is to tread the international route to address and solve problems that are international; she gives the example of India’s pollution and population problems. 3 Nussbaum, Martha, “Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism,” For Love of Country (1996): 4. 4 Nussbaum, Martha, “Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism,” For Love of Country (1996):11. Speaking of boundaries, Nussbaum talks about how boundaries bind rather than liberate. The question of boundaries arises in almost all aspects of human race like; race, gender or class. These aspects only grow stronger as we approach and address these very boundaries that we have created for ourselves. This is the reason why there is no place for boundaries in the theories of Nussbaum. World citizenship also happens to liberate people from political deliberations and this by far was the strongest liberating idea. Nussbaum believed in differences that brought about commonality, she refers to the ‘structural functionality’ of humans in the world by quoting Marcus Aurelius. Nussbaum’s theory seems highly structured and very vivid in illustrating the uses of lending oneself to internationalism. It is thus very romantic to make oneself believe that the world is indeed one’s oyster. It also tends to lean towards moderate attitudes towards humanism at times. It is very functional and can be employed within the parameters of various political and sociological theories. However, in hindsight, Nussbaum is not very clear on the exact nature of stoicism that she is talking about in reference to the article. Her interpretation of stoicism begins to clear towards the end of the essay when she begins to speak about the three grand advantages of internationalism. This also leads to the argument that the debate about National-Cosmopolitanism is rather archaic. Her debate refuses to go beyond this paradigm which is contemplation and deliberation of the Western Intellectual Thought. Despite this fact, Nussbaum does raise considerable debate as well as vivid discussion about cosmopolitanism a theory that was almost forgotten post the late nineteenth century. The idea of International Cosmopolitanism is relatively new and her concerns genuine. One looks at Michael W. McConnell’s “Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons”, with the point of view of the self, and identity, we inherently we know that we are looking right within ourselves for any of the questions portrayed in the essay. It begins with the line that says “We do not suffer from excess Patriotism”. To a commoner it may sound like a regular sentence that is perhaps a bit arbitrative, however, as we read further into the essay we find a clear emancipation act of the country that we are born in. It is clear that he is basically trying to reduce the lofty promises of internationalism to where it all began; in the self and in our immediate surroundings. McConnell’s argument is quite ratified since he presents historical evidence of Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism not being at odds, in fact he says that it is rather unfair to tell a child, for instance that he/she may receive moral sanction only if one can consider oneself as a citizen of the world. He portrays the idea of ‘root’, that’s the analogy he is trying to build by the word ‘platoon’ and hence the title. It is only when one is attached to one’s ground that one can fly openly; a platoon is nothing but the beginnings of the various other lines of openings that one can discover with time. Effective cosmopolitism is therefore a by-product of moral education in a great tradition. 5 McConnell Argues: A student who cares not a whit one’s own cultural accomplishments is unlikely to find much value in the accomplishments of others. A student who has no religion is unlikely to respect the religious commitment of others. One who knows no heroes in his own land, will feel nothing but contempt and but contempt for the naivete for those who honor heroes elsewhere. Before a child learns to value others must learn how to value. 6 5 McConnell, Michael, "Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons,” For Love of Country (1996): 80. 6 McConnell, Michael, "Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons,” For Love of Country (1996): 80. McConnell’s arguments in the essay don’t seem to be any more than an extension to the idea that has been out forth by Nussbaum. McConnell refers to the Aristotelian idea of hierarchy of attachments and refers to these attachments as only natural. It is only natural to think of attachment in the form of love for another human being and not refer to humanism; since it is not the first emotion that comes to us naturally. Love cannot be directed towards humanity, it can be directed only towards real people, with whom one can have real relationship.7 Both the arguments are rather radical and have formed unmistakable judgments, wherein it needn’t be that way. Looking for a median, one can state that despite the truth behind Nassabaum’s Cosmopolitanism, and about being the citizen of the world, is a very romantic idea. But what she really argues is about integrating the world into one; on the other hand McConnell’s argument too heads the same direction. The paths are different leading to the same direction; hence the arguments are rather futile, especially if they go in the direction of criticizing each other’s points of view. In such a case, tolerance to either view by seeking a median would be great, since it is only aiming at bringing about a sense of nationalism which cannot really go wrong. In this case, one can safely assume that although both the points of view aren’t entirely right, but as one fills in the gaps in the two theories, one realizes that they aren’t entirely wrong either. 7 McConnell, Michael, "Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons,” For Love of Country (1996): 81. McConnell’s essay is a reflection of his mind that believes that a true soul that has enough patriotism for one’s own country will only be able to spread the wings to other, once he/she has realized the potential in oneself. The key to moral education is to fuse the sentiments (especially love) to a teaching of the good. 8 On reading both the essays the one thing that can be pointed out is that the two debates aren’t entirely as opposed to each other. Looking at a third dimension, both the theories of Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism argue about maintaining natural coherent order in society and this can be achieved through tolerance. Tolerance; as defined by the Merriam Webster is: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. If one hypothetically seeks to apply Nussbaum’s theory of a cosmopolitan education to tolerance, it is obvious that moral education lies in boundlessness, which means to seek peace and harmony by way of accommodating oneself first and then others into the ambit of World Tolerance. 8 McC8onnell, Michael, "Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons,” For Love of Country (1996): 79. Stoics too, have advocated the tolerance ethic by stressing on world citizenship, on the basis of linguistics, ethnicity, historically and through gender. On the other hand I have already emphasized that McConnell’s arguments in “Don’t Neglect The Little Platoons” is merely an extension of what Nussbaum propounds. Especially, since McConnell’s concentric circle around an individual moves inwards, and Nussbaum’s circle moves outwards. This nevertheless leaves considerable space to accommodate both the theories within each other, especially, because they do address social bindings like community, family, nation and others. The path of tolerance in both the cases does look idealistic, especially when McConnell refers to accepting an Alien into one’s community, but one can safely assume that both the theories do take different radical paths to the same goal. Bibliography 1. McConnell, Michael. "Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons.” For Love of Country (1996): 1-14. 2. Nussbaum, Martha. “Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism.” For Love of Country (1996): 78-84. Read More