The History of Cosmopolitanism

The stoics and Christianity

 Cosmopolitanism begins with the stoics and the word stems from the combination of
cosmos and “polis” which is city as they don’t have the same geographical view of
the world as we have today
o It is important to note that only few people are part of the “polis” (Not
women , slaves, children, craftsmen) which creates a homogeneity
o Everyone who speaks differently is barbarian (sound like “baba”) and these
people do things differently too
 As people become more exposed to other cultures, the interaction needs to be
conceptualised. We can no longer have the “polis” as our only frame of reference
o Stoics wanted to help everyone no matter who they were and even
considered slaves as equal
o Diongenes was one who considered himself as a “citizen of the world”
o This was mainly a moral cosmopolitanism, serving everyone as best as
possible and the best service requires political engagement
 There is a clash between morality and practicality (how does this look if you live in
the Polis?) How do you practically help everyone? Loyalty to who? Your clan or the
world? Hospitality to your own or going abroad to do it? Does everyone need help?
Do women need help? Slaves? This is where the difference between stoics and
philosophers come in (Aristotle etc)
 Stoicism infuences Roman empire and Christianity
o Create a people who share belief in Christian God (new idea of
cosmopolitanism within community)
o Can it accommodate others who don’t subscribe? Can It truly be
disconnected from political entity
o Paul becomes critical in this (raises justice and hospitality above law of land)
o Christians propose new society without differences (Romans: no Jew nor
Gentile…)

The Enlightenment and Kant

 Enlightenment changes the picture, Thomas Hobbes assumes that the natural state
of all human beings is to be at war with one another and we need social contract to
surpress our evil
o Emmanuel Kant believes that we are just heading towards perfection
o Both share the idea that we need to leave our natural state and head
towards a civilisation however Kant believes that we need to free ourselves
from the state of war
o Talks about perpetual peace- but very contradictory
o Criticised because at the end of the day, the politician does not care for the
musings of the political theorist
o Perpetual peace is a bone of contention between realist and idealist
philosophers.
 Kant believes that his philosophy must transcend political realism
o However he believes that if we continue to uphold the notion of the glorious
state, his musings will appear pedantic and irrelevant
o He believes the state is an individual and thus you cannot incorporate two
states and reduces a moral person to nothing (war)
o This goes against his golden rule which is to treat a human being as a means
to an end
o However it comes down to whether or not states are reasonable beings- if
they aren’t then Kant’s philosophy does not apply
 Kant is against having standing armies as they are an incentive to war and can cause
debt which creates war
 Also believes that there should never be credit
 Every state should be republican makes the argument for republican institutions
over democratic- he believes that they are the only basis for civil constitution
o For Kant it does not have to be democratic (as we assume today)
o There are three forms of state, autocracy, aristocracy and democracy
o Republicanism separates executive power and the legislative
o If not then it is “despotic”
o Democracy is a form of despotism as people form a “one” against those who
do not agree
o Enlightenment does not always mean democracy
o There can be no peace with democracy
 “examples of good government prove nothing about the form of
government”
 Believes that existing alongside one another causes war between one another (like
Hopps)
o He argues that by organising ourselves into states we overcome our nature of
war, but also argues that we just transfer our nature in a political level
o Contradiction in that individuals have rationalised themselves- do we really
need the state to do it?
 Savages and civilised nations
o Savages prefer ceaseless combat over lawful constraint
o Even though we move into a state, we glorify a state that does not concern
them
o Difference between European savages and American savages is that the latter
eat their victim (not true)
o And also, dsiregards the fact that modern warfare causes far more casualties-
have we really advanced?
 He says that the perverseness of human nature still continues on but has just been
veiled- we have not moved on!
 He thinks that we will move to a league of nations
o To maintain this however- you need a Leviathan- to maintain the security of
the mega nation
o He has a “third definitive article for perpetual peace”- Kant sets the ground
for Asylum seekers, hospitality grants the stranger a right to stay within a
certain territory without becoming subject to it
 o Hospitality is not philanthropy bit a right. Everyone has the right to be
treated not as a enemy when they come into someone’s borders.
o Need an agreement to let this person stay for a certain amount of time
o Talks about common possession of the earth
o But surely this is the attitude that the “savages” have?
o Goes against his whole idea of a teleology as nation states do have
possession of the earth.
o But then also says that civilised nations are no better than savages
o However he implies progress from the savages!
o Talks about how there is more or less an agreed idea of human rights and
that we do have a global community in the world
o The whole world turns to watch when rights are flaunted
 While the bible tells us to love our neighbour- according to Hobbes- our neighbour is
a constant threat. Who then should we show hospitality to?
o All men who can reciprocally influence each other must stand under some
civil constitution, otherwise it is right to ask someone to remove themselves
o In the case of states, this becomes problematic

Kant and natural order

 Kant in “idea for a universal history from a cosmopolitan point of view” concisely
expressed his point of view from the future talking about the development of the
past
 History is a regular movement away from its natural brutish state
o Telos is this perpetual strive and antagonism which forces man upwards
towards rationality
o Man improves his facilities through antagonism to nature and with fellow
man
o Antagonism creates lawful order among men
o Our unsociability is dammed by the fact that we all need to survive
o Without our desire to dominate and rule, we would never progress
 Nations can only get security for themselves by forming a league of nations
o Similar to the Amphictyonic league
o Surely even this needs some sort of higher power?
o Even if we achieve this perpetual peace between nations, we still have the
antagonism which drives history
 Romanticism is focussed on the past whereas enlightenment on the future
 The antagonism within nature leads us to create a “universal civic society”
o If we lose the antagonisms then we lose history
o But Kant says that as long as we don’t reach it, we don’t need to be worried
about it
Marxism
 50 years after Kant
o Also a child of the enlightenment- bases concept of history on antogonimsms
but antagnoisms are different
o Romantic in that he looks back
 o Telelogically unfolding along axis of antagnoisms
o The antagonisms are along the lines of class
 Marx also has a Telos for history- the end point to which we are headed
 Kant believes the league of nations has been achieved
o The bourgeois revolution served as such
 For Kant- international al trade is how to “get there” whereas for Marx it is
exploitation
 Marx considers the bourgeoisie to have severed all their ties to their natural state
(Dissimilar to Kant’s war against all)
o The bourgeoisie has through exploitation, created cosmopolitanism
 We now want everything from everywhere
 Intellectual property becomes universally available
 Narrowmindedness become impossible
 From national and local literatures we have a world literature
 The bourgeoisie invented the nation and then transcended it
 Marx would only see world literature as a reflection of the base
 The cosmopolitanisation of the bourgeoisie leads to an equaliising effect – maybe
the same for literature?
 As there was the idea that cosmopolitan bourgeoisie undermined the nation, the
word cosmopolite was a swearword
 Franz Fanon also believes this is he believes that it causes the bourgeoisie to work
with the coloniser and not the colonised
 The bourgeoisie have extended themselves into all nations, the working class have
not and not been able to organise themselves across border lines
 We need to understand that although cosmopolitanism and nationalism are different
(opposing) they developed together
 Both are the fertile ground for either nationalism or literature to grow