Cosmopolitanism Must Be Left as an Individual Choice - Essay Example

write an essay which looks forward to what forms a cosmopolitan society AND/OR social science might take in the future Thesis ment: Cosmopolitanism Must Be Left as an Individual Choice With the advent of cosmopolitanism during the last decades, it is quite difficult to determine placement of nationalism over liberalism and if there must be a dividing line between the two. The concept of cosmopolitanism both defy and yet at a closer perspective, strengthen these two ideals being that cosmopolitan is signified as a character that has adopted a mixture of cultures or is representative of various, and probably, all countries. Several arguments have been raised as to its impending threat to liberalism as well as nationalism as governments around the world "accommodate" the influx of various nationalities and ethnicities that make a "cosmopolitan" to their cities. Cities, basically major ones are the model location for cosmopolitanism. New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Los Angeles as well as London are basic examples of "cosmopolitanized" cities around the globe embracing an eclectic mix of people with various cultures and traditions in a seemingly harmonious way. But this does not mean that there are no concerns being raised. In fact, elsewhere, discrimination still permeates even in highly cosmopolitan cities like New York where "cosmopolitan" lifestyle has been a trademark as against "other" cities. There exists a stark idiosyncrasy on perception of being a "cosmopolitan". Either one has embraced and integrated the word to one's own lifestyle or "tolerate" the existence of this culture, if it may be considered as such. The United States, for one, in trying to protect and allow all the Constitutional privileges of its citizens, which at present vary in their "origin" or nationalities has its scholars and thinkers argue on which must come first: the individual which is associated with liberal rights, or the group which also exercises their rights to organize as provided for by their liberal rights. Barry (2002) aptly argued in his "Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism" book that "What we might find out by experience is that institutionalizing group representation offers opportunities and incentives for political entrepreneurs to whip up intragroup solidarity and intergroup hostility in the pursuit of power. And indeed this has happened all over the world virtually every time group representation has been introduced." Backed with empirical case studies as well as theories that made his presentation and argument not only convincing but powerful, his insights explored in depth religious and educational issues such as the case of Sikhs in Britain, Amish, and Quebec separatism. Without neglecting the rights of the members of minority groups, he calls to attention the reader to the concept of universal rights as "(universal) rules define a choice set which is the same for everybody; within that choice set people pick a particular course of action by deciding what is best calculated to satisfy their underlying preferences for outcomes uniform rules create identical choice sets, then opportunities are equal," (Barry, 2002). This goes to say that individual rights come first before group or collective choices. He implied that "rule and exception" approaches to public policy must encompass a universality that is applied equally among all citizens to remove the danger of protectionism and that the best way to help the least advantaged is by avoiding politics of difference and guaranteeing the full benefits of citizenship. Barry went on to add that "within a liberal state all groups are free to deploy their energies and recourses in pursuit of culturally derived objectives on the same terms." Likewise, The Wilson Quarterly (1995) quoted Dr. Samuel Johnson, who famously said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Liberals were hailed to have gone further by embracing "all humankind " scoring on patriotic pride as "both morally dangerous and, ultimately subversive of some of the worthy goals patriotism sets out to serve [] the goal of national unity in devotion to worthy moral ideals of justice and equality," (The Wilson Quarterly, 1995). In fact, it is widely believed that cosmopolitanism is nothing new and that the Greek cynic philosopher Diogenes was the first known to have declared he was "a citizen of the world." Cosmopolitanism philosophers such as Nussbaum advocates that individuals must "think of ourselves not as devoid of local affiliations, but as surrounded by a series of concentric circles. The first one is drawn around the self; the next takes in one's immediate family; then follows the extended family; then, in order, one's neighbors of local group, one's fellow city-dwellers, one's fellow country men - and we can easily add to this list groupings based on ethnic, linguistic, historical, professional, gender and sexual identities. Outside all these circles is the largest one, that of humanity as a whole." Nussbaum further espouse recognition "of humanity wherever [] undeterred by traits that are strange [] and be eager to understand humanity in its 'strange' guises" Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer, as quoted in The Wilson Quarterly (1995) argued that obligation and loyalty "can encompass all men and women. Do we not sense, though, whatever the inadequacy of our principled ethical arguments, that we owe more to our family members than to others The greater closeness of bonds to one's country and countrymen need not mean denigration and disrespect for othersthere is a meaning to boundaries, in personal life and in political life, as well as a practical utility." Northeastern University professor Stephen Nathanson added "It is possible to love obe's country without hating other countries, being an enthusiast about war, limiting one's concerns to one's own country, or believing in mindless obedience and support," (qtd., The Wilson Quarterly, 1995). Opposing views that come from all direction dissecting every angle of the cosmopolitan view have, by and large, been of note and will continue to be so as more varied groups of nationalities and ethnicities merge together in one city, and various cities around the globe to commence a cosmopolitan way of life. There may be endless disputes as to which ideals are of more weight, or politically correct and generally acceptable. Cosmopolitanism itself has evolved, as previously argued that Diogenes used the "citizen of the world" in a limited context of a cynic owing no obligation to a world that does not ask for it (Harris, 2003) and to the Romans' use of cosmopolitanism as a way of embracing peoples from all over to add up its lack of population, to a more modern social and political concept of humanity belonging to a single moral community encompassing moral, economic and political relationships between individuals of differing origins. But the more modern concept usually implies vast global experience that may have been acquired through travel or scholarly means, adding sophistication and worldly to it. In fact, it has come to be closely identified among "city elites" although egalitarian thoughts advocate a humanity embedded on it as much as can be viewed through Barry or Nussbaum's words. Conflicting views within cosmopolitan advocates are also present. There is the persistence of "which comes first" but most logical views encompass not tolerance but subjectivity, and Barry's contentions come as profound, and better fit for exercising social and even political integration. The notion, too, that individuals would always be in favor of those closely related to him like the immediate family is heavily weighing the cosmopolitanism ideals, although clashes of thoughts would always permeate all kinds and forms of cultural or traditional progression, and of course, regression. It is therefore believed by this researcher that Barry's argument weighs best in consideration for further and future debates, political or otherwise: that an individual is free to exercise his rights elsewhere without encroaching on the rights and privilege of another, and that minority groups must not champion the limited group belief to encroach on anybody else's rights and privileges. Laws and rules must be implemented equally among all citizens of a particular cosmopolitan area depending on the nation or state, or country where that city belongs to: socialist China's Hong Kong, pseudo-democratic's Singapore, and liberal New York of the United States. People who have chosen to live in a certain area must choose to adopt the laws already existing within that area, or, they are free to leave; for it was the individuals who came at their own will: this, I believe must be espoused by cosmopolitan advocates. It is simply too selfish for a certain group or individuals to impose upon an already existing set of mores, or rules, or traditions that could encroach or affect adversely the lifestyle of people who did not choose to be minded upon. Tradition, if it entails a bias on nationalism or patriotism, is also a right, an inheritance by birth, and must not be taken away so as to accommodate "aliens", no matter if they already filed for citizenship or not. The aliens in the cities of the United States or elsewhere, new citizens or not, may exercise their own set of tradition and culture as long as no individual have been stripped of her or his own rights in the process. Cosmopolitanism is welcome. But it must not be imposing, nor its advocates have the right to demand from "other" people to adhere, or even make apparent their own set of culture because there are aspects of lifestyle that are basically a choice. Otherwise, cosmopolitanism defeats its own meaning. There must be a free exchange and sharing of ideas, principles, beliefs, culture and tradition in all cosmopolitan areas. The absorption must be left on each individual and not force-fed on him or her, that must be the ideal of cosmopolitanism. Reference: Amit, V. and Rapport, N. The Trouble with Community. London: Pluto. 2002. Barry, Brain. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity. 2001. Cohen, A. "Personal Nationalism: A Scottish View of Some Rites, Rights and Wrongs." American Ethnologist, Vol. 23. 1996. Harris, Lee. "The Cosmopolitan Illusion." Policy Review. 2003. Jackson, M. The Politics of Storytelling: Violence, Transgression and Intersugjectivity. Copenhagen Museum Tusculanum Press. 2002. Nussbaum, Martha. "Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism." Boston Review. Oct-Nov. 1994. Phillips, D. Looking Backward: A Critical Appraisal of Communitarian Thought. Princeton University Press. 1993. The Wilson Quarterly. "Citizens of the world, unite." Vol 19, Spring. 1995. Walters, Colin. "Cosmopolitanism takes a hard-left jab." The Washington Times. August 24, 1997. Read More