Is Cosmopolitanism the Path To World Peace?

World peace; the concept every beauty pageant entrant speaks vehemently about; and every decent person yearns for. Is it as unobtainable as we make it out to be, or is there something within the constructs of our conflicting societies that is preventing its reality?

With the establishment of nations and borders, insiders and outsiders, and the ardent nationalism (evident in the strong response evoked whereby geographical borders come under threat) associated with this, it can be argued that many of us have become socialised into a sense of complacency that this is the way society will be structured seemingly forever. Yet in a world where humanity is ostensibly being torn in two by self-fulfilling ideas involving 'clashes of civilisations' and where fundamentalists are seeking to re-shape the world according to religion, one must begin to look at differing, more accepting approaches to interpreting society as a whole.

Arguably inconsistent with the model of nationalism, is the fourth-century Greek notion of cosmopolitanism; a means allowing individuals to transcend their social location origins to be 'at home in the world'. More than just a mere concept, cosmopolitanism is a state of mind; a mode of interpreting, and then managing meaning, whereby individuals are shaped on their desire to engage and reciprocate socially, politically and culturally.

In this era involving multifaceted methods of self-definition, nations can be seen as becoming less significant, while utilising blends of culture, religion and politics (which already transcend state boundaries) is elevated to new levels of importance. This explains why worldly cosmopolitans can appear as such a threat to nations. Displaying a lack of loyalty or affiliation to any particular state, the cosmopolitan represents a certain 'citizen of the world' pedigree. Cast as 'bad nationalists', 'bad patriots' and elitist, the cosmopolitan often evokes imagery of rich free-floating nonchalance, detached from all loyalties and obligations.

Yet these criticisms fail to acknowledge the valuable traits of the cosmopolitan; on a personal level in terms of character-building and social fulfillment, and on a global level in regards to macro-understanding and an appreciation of one's wider social responsibility. The cosmopolitan ethos is founded around the admission that human knowledge is of course fallible, and that individuals ought to engage in candid discussion - not necessarily concluding in agreement - in order to understand other individuals and cultures. The notion of relativism, in the sense that truth is relative (i.e. not absolute), and varies amongst people and across time, is particularly relevant here. It is believed that difference and disagreement contribute to mutually enriching dialogue, and that it is via this acceptance of 'the other' and that 'our way' may not be the only "right" way - this tolerance, merged with recognition of human fallibility - that brings forth a beautiful openness to difference.

Indeed racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and other such irrational fears often spring from plain ignorance. Many jump to swift conclusions in their evaluation of other cultures, without taking the time to understand their background. The uniform stereo-typing of Muslim women can be likened to perceiving all American women as Baywatch bikini-clad girls. The irrational fear many have of women sporting burqas promptly overrides any justifications for such garments, such as the consideration of modesty. Consequently cosmopolitanism can be perceived as a quest that begins with listening, is broadened with knowledge, eventually resulting in the obtainment of understanding. It is hoped that this quest will ultimately lead to careful evaluation that is unprejudiced by ignorance, untarnished by incorrect pre-conceptions, allowing individuals to partake in productive cross-cultural and cross-identity exchanges. From the perception of learning and acceptance as central pillars in the cosmopolitan model, comes a sense of social responsibility towards all humans, and to the wider community as a whole. Whilst resigned to the fact that people worldwide live their lives in varying fashions, this ideal recognises a commitment to providing baseline resources to society as a whole, ensuring each have the resources to live a life of dignity and significance. Global concern is accompanied by a moral acceptance of these responsibilities, and essentially forms the basis of the fundamental concept of morality.

This highly regarded concept of knowledge and cross cultural exchange further rebuts the argument that cosmopolitanism is purely for the privileged mobile elite. The idea that the cosmopolitan essentially relies on one's thirst for knowledge, listening skills, and aptitude for intelligent discussion, suggests that one may become cosmopolitan without the aid of travel.

Modern communication technology is enabling anyone with access to the necessary equipment to become part of the global village, allowing everyone to easily partake in cross-cultural communication; evaluating civilisation from the comfort of their own home. Additionally, those that do have means to travel are not automatically cosmopolitan. Without engaging and reciprocating, they are nothing but mere tourists. Thus anyone has the potential to be cosmopolitanism. All you need is an active mindset, and one that recognises that cosmopolitanism isn't just for the privileged elite.

So would it be such a terrible thing if everyone were cosmopolitan? I think not. Cosmopolitanism, in its moral format, highlighting responsibility on a personal, community and global level, is certainly an admirable trait. That said, you'll rarely find a cosmopolitan who attempts to convert you to their ways; part of the cosmopolitan's quest for knowledge springs from the understanding that they do not have all of the answers. Indeed the cosmopolitan can be summed up someone who is, 'humble enough to think that they might learn from strangers, [though] not too humble to think that strangers can't learn from them. If everyone held this view, perhaps 'world peace' could become more than just a flimsy notion preached by beauty queens.

Rachel Flitman