Why is Cosmopolitanism Such a Contested Concept - Research Paper Example

Why is cosmopolitanism such a contested concept? Introduction Cosmopolitanism has been a contested term ever since its coinage. This has been a concept that evaded definition and invited diametrically opposite understandings. On the one side, this concept was believed to represent universal integration of humanity and on the other hand it has been criticized for being classist and colonial. Nowicka and Kaweh (2009, 51) have defined cosmopolitanism as “associated with an essentially moral view of the individual having allegiances to the wider world.” From the definitions of the term, it is clear that a universal human experience beyond physical boundaries is proposed. It is associated with a global moral value system and a feeling that the whole world is each individual’s community. But the concept has been contested more than being accepted, from the beginning of its evolution itself. Pollock et al. (2002, 2) have defined cosmopolitanism by evoking nationalism as an opposite paradigm. Pollock et al. (2002, 2) have discussed “home, boundary, territory and roots” as distinct marks of nationalism and have observed that nationalism is facing a wind of change caused by deterritorialization brought about by “migration, mediatization and capital flows”. From this description, it becomes clear that for a city or nation or the world to become cosmopolitan, it will have to let go of its notions of “home, boundary, territory and roots”(Pollock et al., 2002, 2). But such a total wash out of one’s identity, a concept developed through centuries, will always be indigestible to a majority of people. It is this element that has given rise to many conflicts regarding the idea of cosmopolitanism. Of all the conceptual frame works that govern the modern humans, the most powerful has been the concept of nationality and citizenship. And language has been a greatly binding factor in this regard. So, a call to break free of all these identities, which give people a sense of security, will only be minimally heeded to. Again the problem is that it is only the idea of nationalism that provides a reason for existence for cosmopolitanism. So it becomes clear that separate from nationalism, cosmopolitanism has no existence at all. This kind of weakness as an idea, and the corresponding ambiguity in meaning, has been the other reason why the concept was not accepted as theoretically sound. Binnie (2006, 222) has described this nature of the concept by saying that “it is an oppositional term evoked against all that is fixed, parochial and especially national.” But again the contradiction appears that “a cosmopolitanism worthy of the name, would have to give space to the very nationalism that the term is invoked to counter” (Brennan, 1997, 25). Though cosmopolitanism has a history beginning from Diogenes and the Stoics, it was Immanuel Kant who mined out this idea from ancient history to present it in a contemporary form (Nussbaum, 27-43). The social and global changes that brought about cosmopolitan societies have been listed as: The proliferation of connections between societies, the growth of power structures outside national frame works of accountability; the proliferation of global risks (of an ecological, political, economic, epidemic, criminal, and terrorist character) that have no respect for national boundaries; the increasing movement of people across national frontiers and the resulting heterogeneity of the populations in modern societies; growing numbers of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers; and the increasing importance of the international political and regulatory bodies” (Fine, 2007, 5). What is evident from this list is that there are certain negative and positive aspects of cosmopolitanism. These negative aspects have been rising out of the complexities of the modern world situation and these have been the root causes for the very concept being questioned. For example, it was the circumstances made possible by cosmopolitanism that enabled the proliferation of terrorists as well as global economic risks. The nature of connections that are established between individuals, groups and communities within a cosmopolitan culture has no uniformity at all. Such connections have equal possibility of being based on friendship or conflict. This being the given situation, the validity of cosmopolitanism as a singular entity is being questioned. Hooft (2010, 5) has talked about both the ethical and institutional aspects of cosmopolitanism and has pointed out that the suppositions put forth by ethical and institutional cosmopolitanism fall short of their purposes. This is further explained when Hooft (2010, 5) says that, “in arguing that there are universal values (which are a basic argument of ethical cosmopolitanism), one is not arguing that all values are universal; some may be culturally specific.” This contradiction nullifies the concept itself. The acceptance of culturally specific values into the realm of this argument will, for sure, put forth the need of different communities to practice their culturally specific value systems even within a cosmopolitan culture. In that case, the cosmopolitan culture will just get reduced into an umbrella under which different cultures have taken shelter by compulsion. It will loose its relevance as a socio-cultural entity. Secondly, Hooft (2010, 5-6) has also described how critics view the projection of the propagator’s values to the universe, as is done by cosmopolitans, as an act of hegemonizing. This contention is explained by citing the example of Christian crusades and Columbus’ explorations where,: Christian cosmopolitanism […] illustrates the promotion of a world view, whilst the colonial or imperial project from Columbus onwards was also a cosmopolitan project of bringing the rest of the world under the Western value system and sphere of influence (Hooft, 2010, 6). As almost all of the cosmopolitan discourses are dominated by the Western world, it is feared that cosmopolitanism is growing into another tool for establishment of hegemony in the hands of its propagators. As it is evident from the interventions that were recently made by United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, the establishment of Western laws and value systems have been claimed as the establishment of universal justice. It is this kind of risk that always get associated with notions like cosmopolitanism and this is also why the concept is contested. Examining the “Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition and International Potlatch” of Seattle city, Lee (2007) has drawn attention to the contradiction in celebrating the cosmopolitan nature of the city by introducing the cultural lives of ethnic minorities and at the same time showcasing such cultures as some thing different and curious from the mainstream. This has been the major internal contradiction that we encounter in any discourse on cosmopolitanism in a specific situation. Abbas (2002, 215) has discussed the case of Shanghai of 1920s, as a cosmopolitan city to show that there is always an internal tension in the culture of the city between nationalism which is also a product of anti-colonialism, and cosmopolitanism. It is this inherent conflict which posits anti-colonial nationalism in the opposite camp that plays as one major factor in making cosmopolitanism a contradictory term. This is because what is defined as cosmopolitanism has been criticized as colonialism in disguise. And it is observed that this is why China changed Shanghai from a cosmopolitan city to an industrial production centre (Abbas, 2002, 216). These two examples, one from a developed country and another from a developing country show the two faces of cosmopolitanism which the critics think equally biased and discriminatory. In Seattle, cosmopolitanism turns into patronization with a bias against the ‘orient’ while in Seattle, the same concept becomes an extension of colonialism. Carter (2001, 170) has revealed yet another contestable aspect of cosmopolitanism as the fact that “morality is developed and understood originally in relation to immediate communities” alone. So in a cosmopolitan situation, there can be contradictions in how different groups view morality. The culture-specific values also will find it difficult to survive in such an ambience. But all the priced value systems of humans being embedded in culture, any notion of a set of new values become invalid. Another problem with the concept has been that “it can appear emotionally insipid, given the psychological difficulties of identifying with unknown people in distant lands” (Carter, 2001, 170). Earlier it were the “market sites” that have been considered as the hot beds of cosmopolitanism (Hall, 2008). Later, the refugees and migrants began to constitute a major portion of the world cosmopolitans. In these two historical situations, it becomes highly doubtable that members of such a cosmopolitan culture, who had come from different cultures, regions and continents, are able to identify themselves as members of a common culture. Hence, the concept is highly abstract though it is having a great influence on the globalised world (Carter, 2001, 170). Another contradiction that emerges from the concept of cosmopolitanism is that in majority of instances, it is found to represent an elite class alone (Nowicka and Kaweh, 2009, 51). Binnie (2006, 221) has aptly revealed that “there are always cosmopolitan winners and losers.” This statement represents the common notion that exists regarding cosmopolitans, which is that they are “elite professionals in high status occupations, members of […] the capitalist class” (Binnie, 2006, 223). The core of this problem is that cosmopolitanism is often viewed as an acquired skill and thereby brings to the surface the questions of “education, knowledge, skills and cultural capital” (Binnie, 2006, 223). Here, Binnie (2006, 226) has also reminded his readers that “class is not just a matter of income; it is being increasingly defined through culture.” This kind of a societal situation makes cosmopolitanism, a tool of discrimination, in the hands of privileged classes. There has also been criticism raised that, though the concept demands an obligation to every one on the part of an individual, this obligation ends up as “a lack of specific obligation to any one” in reality (Carter, 2001, 171). This happens because of the enormity of the obligation which thereby becomes impossible to fulfill (Carter, 2001, 171). The next argument against cosmopolitanism is that by professing a universal obligation, the ideology of this concept frees the individual from any responsibility to the “immediate community” (Carter, 2001, 172). Thus cosmopolitanism, in the wrong hands, can become a tool to evade responsibility towards “family, neighbours or colleagues at work” (Carter, 2001, 172). Cosmopolitanism has also been criticized with regard to its approach to sexuality as well. Sexual minorities have been experiencing ghettoization inside all cosmopolitan cultures (Binnie, 2006, 230). This is why this phenomenon has been viewed as “sexist and classist” (Binnie, 2006, 235). Barnett and Cavanagh (1996, 75-76) have also contested the concept for being a destroyer of personal and community identities. The questionable nature of cosmopolitanism has been discussed in association with the ethical values and the world view from which they come from (Dower, 2010, 6). The threat of homogenization is always there, in such a universal application of a particular set of values. It is noted that even the world view from which the prescribed values come from, get projected to the so-called cosmopolitan culture. And finally, the cosmopolitan society is left with a mono-culture which greatly resembles the culture of the most powerful in the society. The problematization of cosmopolitanism, as knowledge, is another area in which the very idea is contested. It has been only certain group of people who learn the methods of behaviour to become a cosmopolitan, considered as cosmopolitan by the majority. In such a situation, again the class, cultural and colonial aspects of cosmopolitanism comes into play. For example, it has been noted that “Puerto Ricans and Liberians field a larger knowledge of the United States than North Americans do of Puerto Rico and Liberia” (Brennan, 1997, 3). This fact shows that it is the previous colonizer who is in an advantageous position in a cosmopolitan world, rather than the previous colonized. The cultural hegemony continues. Only thing is that the bias of the system is masked by the sophisticated term, cosmopolitanism. The concept is often found to become a justifying factor for the established capitalist social order. But the real cosmopolitans of modern times have been the victims of displacement caused by economic, social or cultural reasons (Pollock et al., 2002, 6). It has been also observed that “too often, in the West, these people are grouped together in a vocabulary of victimage, and come to be recognized as constituting the “problem” of multiculturalism, to which late liberalism extends its generous promise of a pluralist existence” (Pollock et al., 2002, 6). This promise, more than often, has failed to materialize. So this is also a matter of choice. When it is by force that an individual is made a cosmopolitan, the very concept looses its meaning and validity. But that is the real case with the contemporary world. It is the financial backward ness, political unrest, and conflicts that drive people away from their native lands, and become forced cosmopolitans in alien lands. With this kind of refugees, there is no sense in attributing cosmopolitanism to them. Apart from this asylum-seekers and the refugees, it is only a highly elite group from all over the world who get opportunity to be part of cosmopolitanism. In view of the continuing exploitation of the developing world by the developed world, this elite group is found to act as agents of this change. Hence, these people cannot be said to represent the spirit of cosmopolitanism. Thus, the two groups discussed above are found to be equally not in a position to stand with the values of cosmopolitanism. The conflict of logic that follows cosmopolitanism at its each step ahead has prompted researchers and sociologists to give a more flexible definition to the concept. Pollock et el. (2002, 8) have put forth the view point that cosmopolitanism has to be addressed in plural (cosmopolitanisms), because there have to be interpretations of this concept based on “conceptual and historical situations” and only then, it can be applied to different such contexts. This is one solution for addressing the alleged biases in the traditional concept of cosmopolitanism. But the rejection of a monolith named, cosmopolitan culture, and the replacement of it with a conglomeration of different cosmopolitan cultures, will make the term, cosmopolitanism redundant with nationality-based and community-based cultures. Falzon (2009, 37) has argued that “cosmopolitanism in practice” is nothing but the “dialectic between opposing models of social and spatial organization” to show that ethnic groups can attain cosmopolitan status even when they are basically communalistic. This interweaving of community and cosmopolitanism will give rise to questions of politically correct degrees and ratios in its practice. Here also, the logical validity of the concept will be highly questionable. But with these new attempts to project the humane aspect of this concept, the declaration of Breckenridge (2002, 1), “cosmopolitanism is yet to come”, can be accepted as a slogan of hope for humanity. But until the emergence of such a flexible and all-encompassing version of the concept of cosmopolitanism, the term will remain contested by many. References Abbas, Ackber, 2002. “Cosmopolitan Descriptions: Shanghai and Hongkong”, In Cosmopolitanism. edited by Carol Appadurai Breckenridge. 215-216. Durham: Duke University Press. Barnett, Richard and John Cavanagh. 1996. “Homogenization of Global Culture”. In The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn to the Local. Edited by Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith. 75-76. San Francisco: Sierra Book Clubs. Binnie, Jon. 2006, Cosmopolitan Urbanism. 221. London: Routledge. Brennan, Timothy. 1997. At Home in the World: Cosmopolitanism Now. 25. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Carter, April. 2001. The Political Theory of Global Citizenship. 170-172. London: Routledge. Dower, Nigel. 2010. “Questioning the Questioning of Cosmopolitanism” In Questioning Cosmopolitanism, edited by Stan Van. Hooft. 3-6. New Delhi: Springer. Falzon, Mark-Anthony. 2009. “Ethnic Groups Unbound: A Case Study of the Social Organization of Cosmopolitanism”. In Cosmopolitanism in Practice. Edited by Nowicka, Magdalena and Maria Rovisco. 37. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Fine, Robert. 2007. Cosmopolitanism. 5. London: Taylor and Francis. Hall, Stuart. 2008. “Conversations with Pnina Werbner”. In Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism: Rooted, Feminist and Vernacular Perspectives. edited by Pnina Werbner. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Nowicka, Magdelana and Ramin Kaweh. 2009. “Looking at the Practices of UN Professionals: Strategies for Managing Differences and the Emergence of a Cosmopolitan Identity” in Cosmopolitanism in Practice. edited by Nowicka, Magdalena and Maria Rovisco. 51. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nussbaum, Martha C. 2010 “Kant and Cosmopolitanism” In The Cosmopolitanist Reader. Edited by Garret Brown and David Held. 27-43. Cambridge: Polity Pollock, Sheldon, Homi K. Bhabha, Carol A. Breckenridge and Dipesh Chakrabarthy. 2002. “Cosmopolitanisms”, In Cosmopolitanism. edited by Carol Appadurai Breckenridge. 215-216. Durham: Duke University Press. Shelley S. Lee, "The Contradictions of Cosmopolitanism: Consuming the Orient at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition and the International Potlatch Festival, 1909-1934," The Western Historical Quarterly Autumn 2007 (28 Nov. 2010). Read More