Law and Governance

The Cosmopolitan Ideal: Content and Actors

The Cosmopolitan Ideal: Content and Actors

25-26 March 2008

REPORT ON THE DISCUSSION Co-organized by The Triglav Circle and the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and hosted by the Bren Center for Environmental Science and Management , University of California, Santa Barbara

Introduction:

The Triglav Circle was created to pursue the normative work undertaken by the world conferences convened by the United Nations in the 1980s and 1990s, notably the Rio Summit on Environment and Development and the Copenhagen Summit on Social Development. The institutional foundations of the Circle were laid by the United Nations Seminar on Ethical and Spiritual Dimensions of Social Progress held in Bled, Slovenia, October 1994. The seminar was a step in the preparation for the World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen, March 1995. In January 1996, nine of the Seminar participants drew up a constitution for the Triglav Circle. Since March 1998, the Triglav Circle, Inc., has been incorporated as a non-profit organization. As of May 2001, the Circle has functioned as a non-governmental organization having Special Consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations [ECOSOC].

The founding objective of the Circle is to realize the core messages of the Social Summit articulated in the Copenhagen Declaration:

Our societies must respond more effectively to the material and spiritual needs of individuals, their families, and the communities in which they live.

We are committed to a political, economic, ethical, and spiritual vision for social development that is based on human dignity, human rights, equality, respect, democracy, mutual responsibility and cooperation, and full respect for various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of people.

Critical political, social, economic, and environmental issues confronting the world call for a broadened socio-political vision that gives priority to human dignity and to the public good. The Triglav Circle seeks to promote an approach to international relations and public policy grounded in moral and spiritual values that are to be expressed in ethical norms and behavior. To this end the Circle aspires to enrich the discourse on global problems with cultural, philosophical, and spiritual perspectives.

The Circle regularly seeks other groups with whom to convene gatherings on values that underlie current economic and social transformations. These gatherings provide opportunities to refine ideas and offer a wellspring of inspiration and intellectual support for building compassionate and responsible societies. Through seminars, research, and collaboration with national and international groups, participants add their voices to many others who strive for more humane progress, while preserving the noble and diversified heritage of humanity, and the integrity of the natural environment.

Two years ago, in March 2006, a joint meeting of the Triglav Circle and the Orfalea Center took place at the University of California, Santa Barbara, on the subject of The Global Civil Society. The report of this meeting states that: “We considered part of the global civil society-those organizations, movements and individuals, who are working for a more just, more respectful of human dignity, and more peaceful world order. The manifestations of this work are very visible. A great many causes-from the protection of the environment, to gender and racial equality, and the abolition of the death penalty-are advanced through the efforts of these organizations dedicated to the betterment of the human condition. “[To see this report go the Triglav Circle web site: www.triglavcircleonline.org and follow links from Activities to white papers.]

Ideas, however, about the contours of a desirable world community or about paths towards a better world order remain to be discerned. The intellectual vision and political project that ought to sustain the creative enterprise of those dissatisfied with global conditions and the spirit of the time still begged articulation. The meeting of March 2008 was therefore to consider the design of “the cosmopolitan ideal.”

What follows is a narrative interweaving ideas discussed at this meeting. This narrative does not include three excellent presentations the first two on religion and politics, and on Gandhi by Mark Jurgensmeyer, Director of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies and the third on “Climate Change and the Factor of Four” by Ernst von Weisacher, Director of the Bren Center for Environmental Science and Management. It is intended that the final report will be linked to these presentations.

I Why the search for a cosmopolitan ideal?

Humanity is at risk of destroying itself. Atomic and other weapons with capacity to obliterate the human species are still being developed and the circumstances under which they could be used are both secretly and openly considered. A large number of atomic stations are as unsafe as was Chernobyl. Environmental catastrophes related to global warming and to various forms of disrespect for nature are impending.

Thus, the issue of human survival is all too relevant. It is a question underlying the contemporary work of many artists, novelists, and poets and it is question being raised by philosophers and scientists. The book published in 2003 by the British Astronomer, Sir Martin Rees entitled Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century, is a prominent example of an informed, sober, scientific inquiry, the conclusions of which are nevertheless rather pessimistic. But this is not to say that waiting passively for doomsday is the only option. Choices are still open to humankind. And, in any case, one ought to think and act as if the future was dependent on such choices.

All the more so, because a plausible theory holds that from “the” beginning the universe was shaped in a way that made the existence of human beings possible. There are different explanations for this unity, from the perception of “chance” to a “special intention” inherent in the creative purpose of the universe-and, here, religion is not in contradiction with science-but the critical point is that human beings appear to be needed for the universe to “exist.”

This line of thinking suggests that the universe was made to greet, or create human beings. There is necessity for the creation of humankind, as a sort of mirror. Without human beings, “reality” would only be a combination of elementary particles. The universe needs us because we give sense to the universe. Therefore, we human beings are important and we should do everything we can to continue our journey. The possibility of the existence of the world depends on our existence. And Man has the freedom and the responsibility to choose either suicide or survival.

Overcoming of the risk of humankind’s demise ought to be the primary and compelling reason for a change of course in the current management of human affairs and for the building of a cosmopolitan society. Additional reasons, which are more commonly expressed in the public discourse include:

  • The world is being “globalized” through technologies of communication and information, but this movement lacks the cultural, moral, and political “glue” necessary for the emergence of a global community; hence the numerous conflicts, the violence, the systemic imbalances and the “clash of civilizations” that characterize the post-modern world; concocting this glue requires significant intellectual investment.
  • In more political terms, the power of some governments and of global corporations supported by them have reached unprecedented levels and there is urgent need to balance such power with more democratic forces; a form of global governance has to be invented.
  • From another angle, global achievements and opportunities, as well as global problems and threats, demand global institutions and processes. At present such institutions and processes are being developed in an anarchistic manner while a much more an ambitious and overall grand design is needed, at least as a guide.
  • Still in political terms, the world has entered a post-Westphalian era, where States are no longer the main locus of public authority and the main pole of loyalty. A new political architecture involving the “local and the global” is of urgent necessity.
  • In cultural and social terms, the dominant Western ethos is running into an impasse; excessively materialistic, lacking a moral compass, deprived of spirituality, it is both aggressive and self-indulgent- the way forward has to be through a renaissance of the human spirit.

These reasons stem from dissatisfaction with the current state of the world and from a desire to mold the future according to preferred values. Dissatisfaction with present conditions and normative visions of the future are traditional motives for the construction of utopias and political ideals. In the distant past, terrors and cataclysms such as the Great Plague that stimulated the invention of “other worlds” were attributed to God’s punishment or to maligned and mysterious forces. In the 19th century, the socialist utopists as well as St Simon and Fourier wanted either to extend the miracles of science to all or to create a perfect world order, or to bring back an idyllic and mythical rural community. The reasoned judgment, based on scientific observation, that a change of course is imperative because humankind is in a process of self-destruction, is not, however, familiar ground for these utopists of earlier times. They could not imagine an atomic bomb or global warming. And they could not imagine that threats to human survival could be simply the products of human inventiveness and industriousness.

This extraordinary development-the realization that humankind might commit suicide-has to have profound influence on the motivation for and conception of a cosmopolitan ideal. A prior question, however, is the extent of people’s realization of the dangers that the future holds. The concept of a “cosmopolitan ideal” runs counter to current public opinion. Nationalism, religious fanaticism, and other terrible simplifications that feed rejection of the ‘Other’ and violence reflect “the spirit of the time.” Information communicated by the mass media tends to feed appetites for quick judgments and hasty solutions. Emotion rather than reason is in fashion.

At the same time, the sentiment that the world is on a dangerous path is widespread. And, expressions such as the “global village” or the “human family,” while remaining vague must somehow impact mentalities. What is unquestionably weak is the general public’s understanding of the concrete changes that are needed, and therefore the willingness to implement them. Nevertheless, the political economic and social “terrain” of contemporary society ought not to be considered as resolutely hostile, or altogether inimical for the growth of a cosmopolitan ideal and society.

In any case, the realization that apocalyptic events are possible-even likely, if a change of course does not occur rapidly, imposes the necessity for a close link between conceptual and practical aspects of the cosmopolitan society. It is the real world, the world of today that has to be changed through concrete measures and institutions. The issue and the challenge are not to imagine a perfect world but to prevent the disappearance of the only world humankind knows. The immediately “practical” has to be both the outcome of far-reaching conceptual work and the ground for feeding such reflection. This is a necessity, a very demanding imperative. The elaborations of ideal schemes for the organization of the world are not usually driven by such an imperative of practicality. But, to unite the ideal and the immediate, the conceptual and the practical, is indeed a categorical imperative if the first and compelling reason for the search of a cosmopolitan society is to secure the future of humankind.

 

II The foundations of a cosmopolitan ideal

This unity of the conceptual and the practical would seem to be the cornerstone of the foundations of a cosmopolitan society. In this time of rampant anti-intellectualism there is some danger in the insistence on the practical and the concrete. The temptation to by-pass patient and arduous reflection is often irresistible when “win-win” and “quick-fix” solutions are offered to decision-makers and when citizens are fully occupied in work and consumption. It is therefore necessary to re-state that a change in mindset is a pre-condition for a change in policies, especially, of course, when such change is against the dominant current. But, numerous brilliantly innovative intellectual constructions have remained ineffective for lack of anchors in the realities of the moment.

A cosmopolitan ideal has to rest on Reason. The search for a cosmopolitan culture and a harmonious world is not new. Through a long sweep of history, it has been rational thinking that has promoted and defended cosmopolitanism. Rational thinking is the opposite of emotionalism. But this does not mean that emotions, sentiments, and passions should be eliminated from the human psyche. To the contrary: sentiments such as benevolence and the sense of justice are indispensable movers and shapers of reason when this faculty is applied to the solving of social and political problems. And, the movement for the protection of the environment has gained much visibility and momentum from many individuals’ passions for nature. Another recent example is the conclusion of the landmine treaty; it would not have been possible without the mix of cold determination and emotional vigor displayed by organizations of the civil society.

If Reason needs to be moved by sentiments, it also needs to be enriched by knowledge gained from various sources, including but not exclusively scientific rationality. There are important roles to be played by intuition, imagination, mysticism, as well as artistic and poetic comprehensions of reality. It is often observed and deplored that instrumental rationality has, in the course of the 20th century, come to dominate the social sciences and the manner by which issues of the organization of life in society have been apprehended. Typical of this trend has been the separation of economics from political and moral philosophy and the ensuing quasi-monopolistic position of this “science” in the alleys of national and international power. Instrumental rationality represents a mutilation of Reason, rather than an excessive use of reason. Only a truncated Reason can dismiss intuition or poetic imagination as irrelevant forms of knowledge. A cosmopolitan ideal-including the contours of a cosmopolitan society, have to be imagined and constructed with contributions from physical scientists, social scientists, philosophers, visionaries, poets and artists.

The necessity to ensure the integration of different disciplines and different perspectives on human destiny raises the question of the rapport that a cosmopolitan project might have with the idea of truth. The very idea of a cosmopolitan ideal is in contradiction with relativism. Is it also incompatible with the interplay and coexistence of several conceptions of truth? Can there be a fruitful conversation among various “truths” and can such conversation lead to practical decisions? Enlightened promoters of the notion of public religion in a pluralistic and multi-cultural world hold that it is possible and indeed desirable for peoples with “true” and different beliefs to coexist harmoniously. Then, pluralism would not have to mean relativism or vague syncretism. Crucial for such reflection is the rejection of the notion of an enemy. The truth of the other does not have to be perceived as a threat to “my” truth. For openness is a sine-qua-non condition for a cosmopolitan world society. Also, a reflection on truth and cosmopolitanism ought to be mindful of the pedagogical virtues of processes and aware of the recurrent temptation to conceive an ideal for the world as a comprehensive and rigorously articulated scheme. Imperfections, lacunae, even apparent inconsistencies leave room for freedom of interpretation and creative growth.

In discussions about a cosmopolitan ideal and world society, the use of the word “balance” tends to be extensive. Self-interest and the general interest or common good need to be balanced, as do the interests of nations and regions at different levels of economic development and political power, and the various cultural and religious perspectives. Compromises have to be found between national sovereignty and international law, between the private and the public sector, and also between rights and duties, or between freedom and social justice. Furthermore, the search for balance extends to the philosophical realms, where neither pragmatism nor idealism, but a mix of both, should provide the framework for a cosmopolitan worldview. Questions arise: Under which conditions could this legitimate concern for balance be compatible with choices that have to be made if the cosmopolitan ideal is to be more than a mere addition of compromises? And, does a perspective for a desirable future of humankind cease to be convincing, mobilizing, and useful if it is a collection of balanced compromises? Is universalism only a pot-pouri-a melting pot, or is it a creation of genuinely imaginative, caring and generous minds?

These questions gain added pertinence when conversations about a cosmopolitan ideal reject various forms of dualism and evoke the need to “go beyond” dichotomies. For example, doubts are expressed about the separation of the public and the private, the religious and the secular, the individual and society, the material and the spiritual, soul and body, the heart and the mind, the actual and the ideal, essence and existence, the religious and the scientific, and God and the Universe. All forms of Manichaeism, a philosophical attitude attributed to the Greeks, are rejected. Advocated are various avatars of holism. Only when obviously complementary and even indispensably linked, as Yin and Yang, are opposites considered positively. This perspective represents an evolution of Western thought that is obviously very significant and cursory remarks on this change would not do it justice. But, from the viewpoint of the elaboration of a cosmopolitan ideal, it would seem that rejection of dualism and dichotomies would have to be made compatible with shared understanding of the morally right and wrong, the just and the unjust, and the safe and the dangerous. Some would say that the central distinction that ought to define the cosmopolitan ideal is the distinction between a culture of life and a culture of death. And the notion of entropy and its application to the socio-economic realm sheds some useful light on this type of issues.

The values that are often mentioned as giving meaning and orientation to a global cosmopolitan society are in the realm of the benevolent and even the altruistic. Considered by the dominant political culture as “soft” values they include a culture of decency, the centrality of human dignity, popular participation in the affairs of the City accompanied by the accountability of those in a position of power, the satisfaction of human needs instead of the pursuit of greed, the Golden Rule of “not doing to others what you would not like the others to do to you”, compassion and empathy, and kindness. Kindness is a discreet almost humble quality of the heart and mind, usually associated with serenity and wisdom. It is said that persons of prayer and wisdom from Buddhist or Confucian traditions offer only two words, “be kind”, to those who consult them about how to conduct their lives. And those who are in charge of programs and people, those who have a direct responsibility in the management of human affairs, might wish to put on their desk the following motto: “Be kinder than necessary.”

To put a bridge between such soft values and the “real” word of politics and business, it is useful to meditate on the full implications of kindness, or human decency, or human dignity- were these qualities be taken seriously. These qualities are virtues, a word rarely uttered in current debates on the state of the world. Should not cosmopolitan idealists proclaim that the virtues of benevolence and moderation, revered by all time-honored religions and philosophies, are pre-conditions for a safe and common future? One cannot do anything without affecting others and the world. Doing one’s duty as a person is to express the beauty and the harmony of the world. It is to express the order of the cosmos, which is a moral order. It is to reflect the divinity of the universe.

It has also been known for a long time, perhaps since human beings first gathered in a society, that happiness accompanies generosity and altruism. Giving, not so much “things” but attention and care is a source of happiness, defined as a state where the self is in harmony with nature and the world. The act of being kind is a path to happiness. And the same is true for learning. But the injunction “be happy”- or for that matter “be spiritual” or “be virtuous” leads only to self- absorption and frustration because life brings the gifts of joy and serenity only to those who seek nothing for themselves. Perhaps then will it be appropriate for the cosmopolitan ideal to remain silent on the “pursuit of happiness” and to emphasize only the values and virtues that would make the world a safe and pleasant place to live in.

This idea leads to the question of the coexistence, in a cosmopolitan world order, of these “soft” values and unassuming virtues with the values and virtues that sustain the current world economy and its major component of global capitalism. The issue of the type of economy suited to a cosmopolitan society is discussed briefly in the next section of this report, but it is clear that the basic tenets of the market economy are almost unanimously accepted, at least by those who have an audible voice in the global arena. The freedom to have an economic activity, the freedom to work, produce, create, sell and trade is fundamental to being human in a free society. Nothing here that a-priori conflicts with human decency, kindness, and generosity.

But economic freedom leads, at least currently, to unlimited expansion, concentration of power, a mix of fierce competition and monopolistic practices, and the domination of the economy by financial forces that have little concern for what is produced, for whom, and with what effects on the environment. Greed and selfishness are “normal”, even lauded features of human behavior. Moreover, social institutions and human relations are increasingly subjected to the logic of profitability and competition. This development is called the marketization of society and currently globalization propagates these values, from the West to the whole world. Being silent about these developments, while advocating the values and virtues mentioned above, would mean that the cosmopolitan ideal “accepts” a balance between acquisitiveness and generosity. What sort of “balance” will it be? Would silence about greed – parallel to silence about happiness- accompanied by precise campaigns of information and pressure to establish, for instance, an anti-monopoly regime at the global level, be more likely to be more effective than denunciations? Also, would it be possible to nuance and enrich the notion of competition?

A cosmopolitan ideal is defined by its language. Most particularly, should the word “progress” be part of it? It is a word born in the Western culture and loaded with connotations of scientism, cultural imperialism, and even colonialism and military conquest. It implies a linear vision of history. It reflects the Promethean syndrome which continues to burden Western civilization and destroy the ecology of the Earth. The language of the cosmopolitan ideal should be emancipated from its Western origins. Or, words should recover their true meaning. For example, “welfare” means “All will be well”.And in the word “cosmopolitan” there is “cosmos” and “polis”: this implies the elaboration of a corpus of universal laws.

On the other hand, words are necessary and in a number of domains of human activity there is not only change but progress, in the sense that suffering and hardship are lessened. Suffice to mention the condition of women in a number of societies, or the risk of loosing one’s child. What is certainly important, if the word progress is to be retained, is that its content should be thoroughly revisited and redirected. It should also be recognized that progress is generally accompanied by changes which are often ambivalent in terms of their benefits and costs for the well-being of people and the sustainability of their way of life. And, regress occurs. An inventory of the regressions that took place since the mid-1980s would certainly provide elements for the foundation for the building of a cosmopolitan society.

Perhaps above all the language of a cosmopolitan ideal should be simple and modest, avoiding any jargon, including the jargon of the international and corporate milieus. Derrida gave a last lecture at the University of Santa Barbara, California, a few months before his death. The title of his lecture, a sort of “last word” was “How to live together well.”

III Elements for the elaboration of a cosmopolitan ideal

A few remarks are in order in four domains of social life which are also major areas of concerns – education, culture, the economy, and the environment – and regarding three institutions of power – the state, the media, and religious institutions.

Domains of social life of particular interest to a cosmopolitan ideal

The critical importance of education is a leitmotiv of any conversation on the state of the world and the ways to improve society. It would not be fair to contend that most governments neglect education. In terms of enrollment ratios in primary schools, secondary schools, and universities, and in terms of equality between girls and boys, there has been “progress”. But there are problems with the quality of education, with the status of the teachers, and with the place assigned to learning in modern societies.

The tendency to treat education as a commodity has to be resisted. In the perspective of building a cosmopolitan society, great attention ought to be given to the content and methods of education, especially at the primary level. A lot is acquired, or lost forever, in the early years of the formation of the child. A child can perfectly understand what it is to be a good person, and the meaning of respect for others. A child, if properly taught, has no difficulty comprehending that loyalties to the family, the village or the town, the sport team, the nation and the world are totally compatible. Today there are new ways of opening mental horizons to encompass appreciation and respect for the beauty of the world. Aldous Huxley, for example, had much to say on an Ecological Utopia. The Platonic Academia taught, with equal importance, philosophy, mathematics and music. The aim was human harmony, in which aesthetic values and moral values were kept together. Also, the debate on education and cosmopolitism should not neglect the experience and resources accumulated by UNESCO.

What would be the contours of a cosmopolitan culture? Is such a “thing” even desirable? Beginning with languages, is it not cultural diversity that ought to be promoted and protected from the multiple aggressions of a mediocre and leveling modernity? Languages are disappearing at a very fast rate and this is an impoverishment that humankind can no more afford than the equally rapid loss of bio-diversity.

Ironically, it is often in the name of “progress” or “development” that destructive decisions are made and imposed. It is argued that if cultural pluralism is now recognized by the dominant West, cultural equality is not. And equality of cultures and civilizations is seen as a requirement for a cosmopolitan ideal. Such a notion of equality of cultures is perhaps best intelligible when approached in the negative: nobody should have contempt for another culture; nobody, and certainly no institution, should rank cultures. And, on the positive side, cultural curiosity and interest is an attitude that can be usefully encouraged; and everybody has the freedom to praise or criticize his own or other cultures. Beyond this, equality of cultures has no more meaning than equality of individual talents, or equality in physical ability. Would the notions of cultural openness and curiosity, including for one’s own culture, past and present, be more useful to promote than the difficult concept of cultural equality? And, could the implications of the refusal to treat culture as a commodity be fully drawn, as they should be for education?

With all the difficulties and ambiguities of the concept of cosmopolitan culture, it remains true that peoples of the world have “to live together”, and if possible “well” together, and that this requires, today more than ever, considerable and purposeful efforts. If the expression “universal values and norms of behavior” is considered too grandiose or too “Western”, would human decency, or cultural decency be more “universally” palatable?

To give content to this notion of decency, and to anchor a debate on its absolute and relative requirements, is there a better basis than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the corpus of legal instruments that ensued and is still being developed by the United Nations? Cultures evolve, but a cosmopolitan society needs some moral markers, and also a significant corpus of international law.

The restoration and protection of a healthy environment has recently become one of the strongest reasons for global thinking. It is an issue involving science, culture, politics, and economics to mention the most obvious disciplines of this multi-disciplinary subject. In the last few decades, there has been enormous progress in expanding awareness of the problem and in actual changes in policies and behavior, but negative trends in major aspects of the environment have not been reversed and are now threatening the very survival of the human race. It is therefore no longer a “sector” of activity, a “domain” of reflection and research, a “mandate of an agency, ministry or international organization. Rather, it is all that, plus it is an imperative dimension and objective of all human endeavors. Through the apparently most piecemeal and humble actions to protect and respect humankind’s environment, it is the order of the cosmos which is to be restored.

But such restoration requires, with considerable urgency, a revolution in mindsets. “Development”, “progress”, and “levels of living” have to be redefined. Disasters such as the consequences for millions of people of the melting of the ice-mass of Greenland are immanent. Such a revolution and redefinition, however, have the best chance to occur if reflection and information are accompanied by immediate concrete measures. In the critical domain of energy, the addition of well-known innovations – from “passive houses” to “solid-state” bulbs, efficient refrigerators and hybrid cars – would yield considerable savings. The challenge, which is perfectly accessible, is to redirect technological innovation and to revisit the terms of the current definition of productivity. Would such concrete reforms and changes in mentalities be facilitated by the creation of an international agency with decision making powers over issues of the environment comparable to the powers of the W.T.O. on matters of trade?

Conversations on the desirable advent of a cosmopolitan society generally assume that the type of world economy that would sustain this society would operate according to the basic principles of the market economy. These are freedom of entrepreneurship, private property, and respect for contractual arrangements. Such a “platform” of agreement, however, papers over considerable differences. The “consensus” on the world economy and on global capitalism conveyed by the media with a global reach and by a small but extremely influent cosmopolitan business elite is grossly misleading. Apart from the “correctible” failures of global capitalism – such as increases of inequalities within and among countries, indecent financial retributions of its managers, lack of productive investment and excessive dividends, situations of oligopoly and monopoly – there are features of the system that are subjects of radical questioning. Can global capitalism be ethical? Can it avoid a concentration of power that has many common features with feudal systems of the past? Can a global economic culture of growth through rapid obsolescence of goods and services be sustained?

In national economies, capitalism became socially acceptable and made a contribution to the common good when trade unions were strong enough to convince the state that it had to intervene to force some balance among the divergent interests of the actors. The crisis at the end of the 1920s and early 1930s, also played a major role in taming capitalism and restoring the equilibrating role of the state over the functioning of the economy and the distribution of its opportunities and benefits. In the globalized economies of today and tomorrow, under which conditions could social movements, organizations of the civil society, and perhaps international trade unions play the roles performed by unions and opposition political parties in the past? Which institutions with global responsibilities will replace or rather supplement the state in its function of provider of public goods and regulator of the market economy? Moreover, through which conjunction of forces would tax-havens and others scandalous features of global capitalism be suppressed? Globalization, as a general movement of openness and communication among peoples, has to be put at the service of a cosmopolitan ideal. Drawing distinction between a healthy and regulated world market economy and predatory and wild global capitalism ought to be a major task in the elaboration of a viable cosmopolitan society.

Institutions of power and a cosmopolitan society

Debates on globalization and the future of the world commonly evoke three centers of power: public institutions, including nation states and intergovernmental organizations; private businesses and corporations, including the mass media; and the global civil society, which embraces non-governmental organizations and religious institutions. The remarks below relate to the state, the media, and religious institutions.

Nation states are said to be losing their capacity to guide, control and eventually improve the lives of their citizens. A number of decisions affecting the territories and the populations under their responsibility are taken by public and private powers external to the national government. The most powerful liberal democracies, appearing to lead the globalization movement, are in fact in a symbiotic relationship with their private corporate sector. Their political autonomy is only apparent. At the same time, peoples continue to look to their government for protection and the provision of the legal and administrative facilities without which life in a society would hardly be possible. At the same time also, states continue to violate the rights of the people under their jurisdiction. Thus, from the activities of transnational corporations to the “right of intervention” progressively codified under the auspices of the United Nations, national sovereignty is battered from multiple directions. If, however, a global cosmopolitan community is to be organized under the principle of subsidiarity, states should be reinforced and democratized rather than weakened. Would it be possible to address the resurgence of nationalism that is currently affecting the world by offering to people an attractive ideal of a world community that would be both democratic and efficient?

The media with global reach do not have a favorable image in circles debating the state of the world. From the spreading of images of violence to the reduction of political debates to meaningless sound-bites, they are accused of promoting a sort of anti-culture. They are not accountable to anyone, except the shareholders of the corporations controlling them. They are doing a “corporatization” of the world. Freedom of information is a very relative concept and practice when a few persons control what has become a lucrative “industry”. In a few decades, television networks which were, at least in some affluent and influential countries, under a semi-public status and therefore free from both the tyranny of profitability and advertising and the tyranny of political subordination, have become privatized. And yet, media with their enormous power could make a tremendous contribution to the building of a peaceful, cultured, and creative world community. Sometimes, the development of information and communication through Internet is seen as a sort of “compensation” for the negative role of the media. Perhaps, but this is not sufficient reason to abandon the idea of reconciling freedom of information with responsibility towards the common good.

Established religions, their centralized or decentralized systems of authority, attract considerable attention in the same intellectual and “cosmopolitan” circles preoccupied with a “common future”. The first reason is that, at least compared, with the decades following World War II, religions, with the exception of Europe, are increasing their members. The second reason is the development, within established religions, of beliefs and practices which are grouped under the label of fundamentalism. It is ascertained that such religious renewal, or fervor, stems from a global rebellion against the alienating forces of modernity and globalization and from a sort of “retribalization” of peoples. A triple search is at work: the search for a sense of identity, a sense of accountability, and a sense of security, which is also a sense of belonging to an organized and caring society. This search is seen as reflecting the deficiencies, or even failures, of the Westphalian secular state. Religiosity and fanaticism also reflect the failure of modernity to recognize the spiritual needs of people. Modernity has treated with contempt the traditions, rituals, and habits of the mind and heart that were invented – or “revealed”- in the sweep of human history to provide some answers to the great mysteries of nature, life, and death. Modernity has been arrogant, instead of being respectful and compassionate. And religion has been and is being used by politics.

If the cosmopolitan ideal is to represent Hope, while being driven by Reason, a number of signposts will have to be kept in view by those reflecting on the place of religion in human endeavors. Religion is not an irrelevance, or a threat. It is an aspect of the human condition. But one has to recognize that all the great world religions have the dual potentiality of being peaceful or aggressive, respectful of other faiths or philosophies or intolerant. The freedom not to belong to any religion is as fundamental a right as the freedom to practice one’s religion. And, the alternatives are not religion or no religion. Spirituality is not to be identified with religion. To be spiritual, that is to recognize and live by this irreducible part of the self that might reflect a powerful principle and presence, is not necessarily to be religious.

Additional thoughts on seeking cosmopolitan ideals

  • To be part of a great movement is the source of a very nice feeling.
  • The elaboration of a cosmopolitan ideal has to be a collective endeavor, but it has also to be the product of prophetic minds.
  • There is in the world a dire need for ethical leadership.
  • The search for a cosmopolitan ideal forces each individual to confront fundamental questions.
  • It imposes a new reading of the social contract.
  • It also helps, or should help, to break down taboos that, in a number of countries – including some liberal democracies – stifle political debate.
  • The Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) is a force in the elaboration and implementation of a cosmopolitan society.
  • The Merchants and the Heroes, depicted by Werner Sombart, a century ago, and the Merchants and the Guardians, evoked recently by Jane Jacobs, are archetypes that are apparently seductive and always misleading.
  • Gandhi had a cosmopolitan vision and created a new form of politics. His message has not lost its relevance and appeal. He was a prophet and a shrewd and determined practitioner of the art of politics.
  • One should remember that the search for a peaceful and harmonious world society is not a luxury for imaginative minds, but a necessity for the survival of humankind.

Contributed Papers/Articles

Back To Top