Cosmopolitanism as a political philosophy is fraught with difficulty. It is a stance I passionately believe is worth pursuing. I first of all need to be clear by what I mean by cosmopolitanism however:
Cosmopolitanism is not coherent theoretically: When people speak about cosmopolitanism, they often mean different things. The first cosmopolitan in recorded history was Diogenes of Sinope. He considered himself a citizen of the cosmos and constantly acted in ways that questioned cultural convention. This included debasing coinage and back-chatting Alexander the Great. It this sense he was a metaphysical rebel, questioning the shared assumptions and meanings that allow our lives to function. On the other hand, cosmopolitan can be a way to defend empire building. If one assumes a universal morality, or that there is Good and Evil in the universe – a powerful country or multi-national organisation, can defend intervention on the basis that it is gifting civilization to the savage or converting the ungodly.
These two versions of cosmopolitanism cannot co-exist theoretically. Diogenes’ orientation is questioning and wishes to undermine the foundations of conventional morality. The empire building orientation, however, does not see moral foundations as based on social or political convention but on a universal law. The danger of the second stance is that the metaphysical basis becomes unquestionable, at least in the mind of the meta-physician.
Diogenes’ can help one make a distinction between Internationalism and the more original version of cosmopolitanism. Many Internationalists may consider themselves cosmopolitan. It does not follow that all cosmopolitans consider themselves internationalists. The current international order is made up of various conventions. One such convention is that a country will not become involved in the internal dynamics of another country, unless legally sanctioned to do so, through organisations such as the United Nations.
With the invasions of Iraq, for instance, much of the political discourse focuses on the legal basis for going to war. That the legal frame work exists at all is rarely debated at all. Likewise, politicians in Northern Ireland are not very forth coming, in regards to the Scottish Independence debate. If pressed, both Nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland will say that the decision is up for the people of Scotland. Yet, the final decision of this referendum could have a massive impact upon the very future and foundation of the Northern Irish State.
We therefore see that the rebellious form of cosmopolitanism will trespass current political norms, such as getting involved in the internal affairs of another territory. Not only can the convention of political borders be questioned but the normalisation of law making bodies and how political debate is framed.
To be a cosmopolitan in the original sense, means being able to question and challenge processes of normalisation that channel our behaviours and thought.
Gadfly Politics 