– “ubi bene ibi patria” –
Here are some inspirational thoughts and definitions related to the title of this blog.
Cosmopolitanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The word ‘cosmopolitan’, which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês (‘citizen of the world’), has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy. The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, do (or at least can) belong to a single community, and that this community should be cultivated. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. The philosophical interest in cosmopolitanism lies in its challenge to commonly recognized attachments to fellow-citizens, the local state, parochially shared cultures, and the like.
Kosmopolit (german wikipedia definition):
Ein Kosmopolit bzw. Cosmopolit (v. griech.: kósmos = Welt + polítes = Bürger), auch Weltbürger genannt, ist ein Mensch, der seine Identitätstärker mit seiner Zugehörigkeit zur Menschheit als Ganzem verbindet als etwa mit seiner Nationalität. Der „Kosmopolitismus“ kann somit als politischer Humanismus verstanden werden. Erstmals soll der Philosoph Diogenes von Sinope den Begriff verwendet haben. Ursprünglich aus seiner Heimatstadt vertrieben, antwortete er damit auf die Frage nach seinem Heimatort.
In Encyclopædia Britannica Online “cosmopolitans” are a social group with a distinct view on cultural globalisation:
Another global subgroup comprises “cosmopolitans” who nurture an intellectual appreciation for local cultures. As pointed out by Swedish anthropologist Ulf Hannerz, this group advocates a view of global culture based not on the “replication of uniformity” but on the “organization of diversity.”
Robert J. Shiller wrote a nice commentary called The new Cosmopolitans in which he describes a new kind of cosmopolitanism that derived from globalisation and increased communication. However, he also warnes from a new divide in society.
As globalization proceeds, with the help of ever-faster communications, faster travel, and more powerful multinational corporations, a new, cosmopolitan social class seems to be emerging. These citizens of the world are developing loyalties to each other that cross national boundaries.
(…)
In the twenty-first century, the new information age creates opportunities not just to be cosmopolitan in spirit and orientation, but to forge strong connections with other cosmopolitans. The cosmopolitans have shared experiences: they are directly communicating with each other across the globe. Many cosmopolitans around the world now also share the English language, the new lingua franca.
The term “global village” was first popularized in the late 1960’s by Canadian communications maven Marshall McLuhan in response to the already powerful communications media of that day. But McLuhan could not have anticipated the cosmopolitan class, because he could not have anticipated the immense development of direct interpersonal communications media that allow cosmopolitans around the world to form friendships.
The cosmopolitans tend to be increasingly wealthy, and their wealth helps mark them as cosmopolitan. Thus, economic inequality is felt differently in today’s world. Perhaps it is accepted resignedly, as the cosmopolitan class is too amorphous and ill-defined to be the target of any social movement. There is no spokesperson for the cosmopolitan class, no organization that could be blamed for what is happening.
I fear for the future. How will the cosmopolitan class behave as their role in the world economy continues to strengthen? How unfeeling will they come to be about the people who share their neighborhoods? Most importantly, if resentment by the locals emerges, what political consequences will result?
