The Communitarian and Cosmopolitan Views of Citizenship - Essay Example

COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE COMMUNITARIAN AND COSMOPOLITAN VIEWS OF CITIZENSHIP Table of content Introduction .. 2 Roots of citizenship .. 2 Implications and application of citizenship .. 3 Comparison between cosmopolitan and communitarian view . 3 Conclusion 7 References 9 Introduction Citizenship has been described as membership or sense of belonging to a society, community, a city or a town and has been expanded to include a country and the globe in general. Citizenship is that membership that grants an individual the right to participate in the political activities of that particular entity. The one holding these rights of membership is therefore considered to be a citizen of the entity. However the concept of citizenship implies that one has responsibilities and duties towards other members of the entity. Citizenship is different from nationality as nationality defined the legal status of belonging to a nation while citizenship on the other hand defined the political rights of an individual in a society. Nationality is therefore defined in terms of place of birth while citizenship is defined in terms of the rights that have been acquired that enables one to participated in the decision making process of the nation. Citizenship can be acquired and at the same time it can be lost. Therefore it can be defined as when a citizen is legally allowed to live in a country. (Pike 2000, p. 82) Roots of citizenship It has been shown the principle of citizenship arose from the concept of creation of social orders. The concept of citizenship can be traced to have been developing from the Greek civilization when there were efforts to define what could be considered as national citizenship and global citizenship. If we take a close look at the Marshall's work on successive emergence of civil, political and society right in citizenship, there is a clear evidence that citizenship arose from the need to have social order. In this definition we will find the citizenship has been used as a market of membership in the polities raging from the pre-modern city states and empires to the current status of global citizenship that has been well applied all over the world. (Heater 2004, p. 42) The concept of citizenship can be traced to many years ago when there were efforts by the Greek philosophers to define the concept of citizenship. Though it was by then limited to only the state, it has been expanding to include the view of global citizenship. But there were also efforts by the Greek philosophers to try and define the concept of global citizenship. For example Greek Cynic philosopher Diogenes replied many people that he was a citizen of the world. There have been many philosophers since then who have expressed that their citizenship belongs to the world. Implication and application of the citizenship Citizenships has bee applied well in the modern societies. It has been used to define membership to a nation. In this case it has been successfully used to define citizens and outsiders or foreigners. Citizenship has been used to define who belongs to nation and those who doesn't belong. Those who are considered as citizens are given the rights to vote in that particular nation while those who are not citizens though living in a nation are not allowed to vote. Therefore it has been used to define political rights that are given to individuals. Citizenship has become one of the most controversial issues in the modern world. There have been conflicts of foreigners living in a nation and the issue of immigrants and their status has not escaped the world either. Citizenship has implied to mean the actual number of those who legally allowed participation in the affairs of a country. Cosmopolitan and communitarian view In the view of cosmopolitan's paradigm, cosmopolitan citizenship is defined in terms of freedom. In this case it is seen as way in which the capacity of individual to look into the possibility of personal choice within the social system is considered as the ultimate object that concerns the envisaged overarching political system. In this case there are efforts by the political class which in this case represent the government of the day to control the citizenship and impose some standards on them. (Ulrich 2006, p.97) Cosmopolitan view has an outlook of a free individual in the society who is granted the rights to live according the standards of life in view of the international standards. Arguably democracy becomes the central tool that is used by the political class in order to give such freedom. The control over ones life then leads to the recognition of the fact that there is a close relationship between the choice bearers and choice makers. This become the pivot point of democratic reflexivity which gives the need to have institutions to recognize democratic rights of individual at all the levels of political life even in the global arena using the mechanism of public accountability. (Martha 1997, p. 74) Democratic participation in the process that sees the process of self-regulation in the political actions has been seen as one of the most important political tool which enables the maximization of possibility of individual choice and therefore the world welfare condition. Therefore the political tool that is used in the world has an effect on the construction of global citizenship at home and in the international arena. In the view of cosmopolitans citizenship is therefore perceived as global rather than communal. A cosmopolitan citizen is the one who has the view of the whole world and not just the view of the community. Cosmopolitan views the international arena as a public sphere and therefore an arena of governance in its own rights. Therefore they try to view the world as a public place that is beyond the control of states or that should be beyond the control of state. In the view of citizenshiop they tend to apply the same principle where they see citizenship in terms of global. Cosmopolitan view the world institutions as stronger than states. In this regard, these world institutions are supposed to control the operation of the states. (Appia 2006, p.230) In eh same way citizenship should be taken as global rather that nationals or communal. The world should be a democar4tic place where each and every one in the world had the right to travel to any state or any region without the necessary restriction that are always imposed on those who want to travel. On the view of the cosmopolitan, human rights should be taken as standards in the world. As a global citizen one should have the same rights that are enjoyed by others. The principles of universality that has been fronted for economic gains should be extended to global citizenship. There have to be the same laws that are acting on all individuals in the whole world. They see human rights as something that should be fixed for all people in the world and not just applied to some individuals alone. On the basis of interaction, cosmopolitan view it in terms of single humanity in which everyone has equal moral worth. This is because human being shares the same capacity to reason and therefore they are not different from one another. Cosmopolitan citizenship is based on the notion of the globalization which has been taking place at unprecedented rate and has affected all the sectors of our life. There have been more increased calls for states to act in accordance with the requirements of the global community. States have become more open to the scrutiny of the whole world and each nation is judged by the way it respects human rights. It is led by the moral consideration of goodwill in the foreign policy that aims at eliminating all the barriers that limits the interaction of communities with one another. (Archibugi 2003, p. 71) There have been many ways in which global citizenship has been well applied. For example the signing of the Kyoto protocol has been seen as one of the recent call for the world to have a global outlook at effect of the environment. The upholding of the UN charter on human rights is another example that exemplifies the way in which nations can play a crucial role as global communities. This view of citizenship by cosmopolitan is different from the view of communitarians. Communitarians try to understand the world and it occupants differently using the social values. They view citizenship in term of social cultural identity which they postulate to be the main reason that should be the guiding principle for human relations and interaction. Communitarians believe in giving power to the human society through a reasoning which should be based on moral principles. It is through the values of cultural identity and human capacity to reason and associate with one another that communitarians believe in the principles of international community. In view of citizenship they tend to view international citizenship as arising from the state citizenship. Therefore they view state citizenship as been central to global citizenship. In this case state citizenship is considered as crucial in determining the global citizenship. While the cosmopolitan advances for citizenship based on democracy, communitarians propose for a more liberal view of citizenship. They argue that democracy can be questioned on the ground that there is lack of political accountability on the issue of global democracy. Communitarians argue that state citizenship can be the best way that can be used to instill control of the society rather than the global arena. (Joseph 2000, p. 53) Communitarians also argue that human rights and justice which are principle tools of citizenship are more specific on each culture rather than when it is globalised. They are considered as culturally specific and therefore difficult to apply across borders. Communitarian holds that the diversity and plurality of communities and the values of heterogeneity are important to sustain and should not be polarized through the idea of global citizenship. They also hold to the fact that this diversity helps to define who we are and how we relate with one another. They are important features in maintaining our global identity as nationals and as citizens. (Zakaria 2006, p. 21) Therefore in view of global citizenship, communitarians believe that each nation is sovereign and must hold to its own rights. There should be a respect of national sovereignty which is more important in helping to create identity in the world. It respects the determination of the citizens who make a nation in their efforts to manage their own state which holds same principles. This is because separate communities which in this case are nations remains as the basic building blocks in the international relations. In these states, there are various political institutions, government, electoral systems, rule of law and the constitution that defines the citizenship to those nations which should be well respected. In this case they delineate from a universal of human right since they are specific to each nation and they act as the social fabric that holds the community together. In this regard the culture of the people is considered to be superior in defining human rights. What can be considered as human right in one society can be differently interpreted in another society (Putnam 2001, p. 63) Conclusion Citizenship is an important context that is used to define the membership to an entity that can either be a community, a nation or the international community. In this respect, citizenship has been applied in indicating those who have the rights to participate in the political process of the nation or the state. Cosmopolitan and communitarian have opposing view on the issue of citizenship. While cosmopolitan view citizenship as global, communitarian view it as national. Cosmopolitan argue for the need to have a global working system that opens the political boundaries. On the other hand communitarians hold the important of retaining the power of states ad the building blocks for the international community. References Appia, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism. London: Penguin Books Archibugi, D. (2003). Debating Cosmopolitics. London: Verso Heater, D. (2004). History of citizenship. New York University Press Joseph, C. (2000). Culture, citizenship and community. Oxford University press Martha, N. (1997). Cosmopolitanism. Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 5(1) Pike, D. (2000). In the global classroom. Toronto: Pippin Publishing Putnam, F. (2001). Communitarians. Harvard Business School Ulrich, B. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision. Cambridge: Polity Press Zakaria, F. (2006). The communatarianism. London: Sage Read More