Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism - Essay Example

? Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism Presented Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism Nussbaum in her article “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” acknowledges that Americans have become ignorant of the rest of the world. To her, students have to be taught more about what lies beyond their borders in putting more emphasis on a cosmopolitan education. Such learning should equip students with the knowledge that above everything, they are part of the citizens in a large world, in instilling in them a new perception that will reveal commonality between them and other humans in other countries, in what would lead them to be more like the city dwellers.1 Moreover, she believes that students have to know problems that lie beyond their borders, such as hunger, pollution, war, and the implications that these problems have on a global scale, and to the global ecology. On the other hand, McConnell in Don’t neglect the Little Platoons agree to the fact that moral education is needed in schools, but it such learning has to start with affection towards those close to us, and then spread outwards. According to McConnell, humanity is too abstract at large. Therefore, the strong patriotism in U.S citizens and its affirmation of universal norms of justice should not be viewed as to oppose cosmopolitanism, but have to be treated as a positive step towards it. Therefore, there is need for children to learn to love the good; religion would play an active role in facilitating this learning. Therefore, though the two writers had similar sentiments, their differences were on how cosmopolitanism had to be approached. The former advocated for an outward -Inward approach, while the latter advocated for an inward-outward orientation. McConnell elaborates that established communities offer an essential ingredient, which is critical in defining a person’s identity, laying the foundation for a mutual trust, and an increased rate of willingness to adhere to a set of principles that have been agreed upon by a group of people. 2Therefore, while referring to the strong American citizen attachment and loyalty, McConnell argues that the patriotic attachment should not be viewed as sui generis, for the loyalties and affections in a country have to be derived first from closer attachments at home, with communities providing a unifying focus to the ethical and moral life of individuals. In other words, McConnell asserts that without having a solid attachment and establishing stronger bonds through understanding those closer to you, one cannot purport to extend such understanding and loyalty to those far away from home. Similarly, Nussbaum a proponent of world citizenship agreed to this assertion by McConnell. Nussbaum agrees on the assertion that it was reasonable and good for one to be identified with a particular family, religion, political party, or any other body that offers a sense of belonging to ensure one achieves true identity and is able to appreciate others.3 Personal identity therefore according to the two writers comes first in promoting any type of citizenry. The difference between the two writers is portrayed in the way they approach the issue of cosmopolitanism from two different perspectives. Nussbaum believes that there are many benefits in embracing cosmopolitan education for the local concerns at home. Therefore, American students by critically examining the world, they would be in a better chance to learn about their own country and other undertakings, such different child rearing approaches, and that a two nuclear parent family does not function as a pervasive style of children rearing in the current world.4 Nussbaum explains the many advantages achievable in cosmopolitan education, and which can be used in formulating a better life for the American children, and help them become more responsible adults who have a deeper understanding of problems in other countries, and who can stand up for the sake of humanity globally. In other words, one has to learn many other things before one is in a position to judge the actions of others with understanding.5 Nussbaum implies that a truly dedicated cosmopolitan teacher is the one instilling his/her students with the belief that no single culture or country is above all, or superior to others, while at the same, time such a teacher when given enough time and situation would be at ease to identify the culture or country that would have more priority in class time, if the aim was to present the children with a shallow historical education. However, McConnell finds fault in this approach, and though he agrees with the validity of Nussbaum’s need for cosmopolitan education, he insists that this approach is morally wrong.6 McConnell views explains that would be wrong to first teach children to recognize their identity as citizens of a greater “world of human beings” with no differences, before the children recognize their identity and pride as citizens of United States. McConnell explains Nussbaum’s approach as being more destructive than constructive, and one that is more likely to undermine moral education. Such moral education is mostly routed in certain moral communities linked together by blood, or other close factors; substituting this with a bloodless wild type of moral imagination. Children are thus better rooted deeply within moral and citizenship in their own communities, and the learning goes outward to the country, and then to the entire world of humanity. McConnell’s view is supported by Aristotle and Burke’s argument regarding patriotism and cosmopolitanism, which explained that human affection have to start close at home, with wider circles that represent this patriotism and cosmopolitanism growing out, but are dependent on closer and more natural ties.7 If children are taught first to be citizens of the world before they embrace their identity as citizens of America, such children will never be cosmopolitans, nor patriots, but will end up being lovers of abstraction and ideology; they will tend to be intolerant of the flaw-ridden cultures and individuals that exist all over the world.8 McConnell views the problem from the sense that no child has ever been taught to focus on being part of world, which is a rather abstract topic. Moreover, since humans share income on the aspect of rational being, this basis would be too abstract to base affection between divergent groups of people, but will succeed in making the same children more skeptical and cynical regarding their loyalties. Such an approach as suggested by Nussbaum would not likely result to any moral community; its basing in abstraction would be confusing and a distraction to the children. This sharply contradicts Nussbaum’s cosmopolitan citizen whose first allegiance is not to a single power or government, but to moral community that is deeply concerned with respects for humanity a large.9 Moreover, the abstraction negated by McConnell is deeply rooted in Nussbaum’s argument in that as she argues, being members of the human community, any cosmopolitan has a duty not to act according to local cultures or other individualistic or patriotic dictates when, such values and behaviors are contradictory to universal standards of human behavior. The abstraction in this case is that, Nussbaum stresses on the importance of teaching children to be affectionate to a larger world, to which they are only related by being rational beings. She denies the importance of deeply rooted moral and values that are well cultivated across communities, where a child can learn his identity and then spread these values outward; this is the main argument by Burke and Aristotle. A child cannot know that which is unknowable without first basing their little knowledge on what is at hand, and then develop this as they grow towards the larger cosmopolitanism. Moreover, Nussbaum in respect to American education system explains the Socratic ideology of self-examination has to be integrated in any liberal education to teach children about self-reflection in finding their identity, in a larger world. However, American education has sacrificed this self-examination in favor of more subject-centered passive approaches in learning.10 The U.S learning approach is thus presented to be radical, subversive, and socially corrupting, which lead to political expediency, blind patriotism and economic efficiency; factors which have made the Americans to forget about others in the larger world around them, and the problems facing them. McConnell replies that the American culture adheres to the universal norms related to natural justice compared to the pride an honor of a particular race or nation.11 The American prosperity in self-criticism and recognition of present and past moral blunders stands firm from the American traditions, which makes it a moral society that has already embraced cosmopolitanism from the rich mix of cultures in the country. Moreover, religion is of critical importance according to McConnell.12 A student with no religion cannot find it important to respect the religious affiliation of others; similarly, a student with no culture or sense of belonging cannot find it possible to respect the identity of others. McConnell argues that such values are already grounded in American moral teachings, making Americans ahead of others towards Cosmopolitanism. McConnell’s argument regarding Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism is more practical compared to Nussbaum’s. For example though Nussbaum argues that the goal so producing world class citizens has to oppose the spirit of identity politics, which dictates that ones affiliation is with their local group based on religion, sexuality, ethnic or any other narrow classifications. The multicultural education is presented as being anti-humanist as if to deny the idea of common interests and understandings, but a good education has to be based on humanity and the value of humanity itself. Such education has to emphasize on the commonality among people and not lead students towards patriarchal and political blindness. However, though McConnell does not oppose such argument, his approach is more appealing and practical compared to Nussbaum’s approach. To McConnell, cosmopolitanism has to be the product of an effective moral education based on a greater tradition, implying religion and national traditions have to be put into consideration. Teaching the issue of morality and universality beyond the borders of these traditions will result in cynicism; if children are not able to appreciate their own achievements, it would not be practical they will appreciate the achievement of others. Cosmopolitanism in the approach of Nussbaum is a case of abstraction, and does not offer any practicality that may be achieved. For example, a child has to understand and know his or her own cultural and religious background, to find it possible to appreciate and recognize the orientation of others. Therefore, the abstraction of being a citizen of the world before one is a citizen of a particular community from which they learn morals and values through close attachment would be an abstraction far from practicality. It is though appreciating what one has that one is able to recognize and appreciate the differences in others, towards appreciating the values of a universal humanity, only attached by the commonality of being rational beings. McConnell therefore offers a more practical approach than Nussbaum. Bibliography McConnell Michael W., Don’t Neglect the Little Platoon, In M. Nussbaum & J. Cohen, For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, Boston: Beacon Press, 1996. Nussbaum Martha, Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, In M. Nussbaum et al., (Eds), For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, Boston: Beacon Press, 1996. Read More