Shiran Zecharya
GVPT200
Blog #5
Cosmopolitanism
in an Era of Globalization
The past decade has allowed citizens from all parts of
the world to feel both the blessings and burdens of globalization. The phenomenon
has physically changed global politics by means of increased trade,
interdependence, growth of the mass media, greater cultural acceptance
and widespread technological innovation. As a result, new generations of
citizens have begun to embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook on international
politics where they are more willing to engage and sympathize with The Other
and actively endorse the idea that all people are “citizens of the world” and that
it is their duty to defend the rights of all people, not just individuals that
live within the confines of their nation’s boarder.
A growing number of critics, however, censure
cosmopolitanism because they argue that it favors more powerful nations over
less influential ones. Skeptics believe that more powerful nations such as the
United States, China and Germany would have more say in the terms of the unity
and global citizenship that cosmopolitanism entails than less influential
states. This account, however, fails to take into consideration the fact that
cosmopolitanism is not always a political ideology and formula for world order,
but a shift in the way citizens of the world perceive each other. This change
is a result, not of a newly unified world that skeptics of cosmopolitanism and
internationalism depict with no political boarders, but a world where
acceptance, understanding, and cooperation flourish throughout these boarders.
While the overall impact of globalization may be difficult
to assess, the effect of cosmopolitan mindsets is not. Society, as a whole,
must learn to embrace this generation’s thirst for cooperation and desire to help
all people of the world. As individuals, we must continue to deny excuses of
patriotism and what is in our “national interest” as justification for taking a
blind eye to the misfortunes and suffering of others, we must castigate all
those who continue to use these excuses in the 21st century, because
they are steering humanity away from progress and mutual understanding and
toward divisiveness and brutality, and we must begin to adopt a more holistic
definition of what makes us humans and abandon our nationalistic
predispositions.
I agree that we shouldn't ignore the suffering of others because it is in our national interest. But, accomplishing this is not such an easy goal. In my opinion, globalizing our industries causes exploitation of labor in third world countries. Therefore, in order to bring change, and put aside our national interest of producing cheap products, there has to be strict implications.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that cosmopolitanism is something that should be accepted in the 21st century because the United States is known for intervening in most government affairs and also because the opportunities to help countries that need it are countless not just politically but also socially. We tend to only use other countries for their resources but when it comes time to aid them we run away unless helping them benefits us and I believe this way of thinking is too much along the lines of a realist and that is not what the world needs in today's day and age.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that cosmopolitanism is ideal, I don't believe it is realistic. In order for cosmopolitanism to exist, it would first have to start with the people and leaders of nations. This is impossible because there will always people with self-serving intentions and corrupt motives. Even if the world were able to achieve some sort of new understanding of one another where they all cooperated peacefully, there would always be room for rebel groups or influential actors in the global community to arise and try to rule this new world. Cosmopolitanism would be ultimately the best way to achieve world peace, however like Yasemin said it would not be easy, and even once it is obtained it may be difficult to maintain.
ReplyDelete