If we are going to have a meaningful discussion of the conceptual coherence and practical effect of ‘global citizenship’, we need to look more deeply into the theoretical debates upon which the concept rests. The debates for and against global citizenship are nothing new, as we noted in module one. In the fields of philosophy and politics, these debates have raged from the time of Greek city-states through to contemporary debates on globalization. Through all of this, similar questions are consistently asked: Are my rights and obligations restricted to my family? My city? My state? My fellow human beings? Connected to such interrogations are questions of community: to whom do I have fellowship? Who is the ‘other’? What demarcates the inside from outside? Is there a sharp division between the inside and outside or do I have a range of rights/responsibilities that extend from my immediate family to all of humanity? Who establishes the rights and obligations of the communities that I belong to? By what legitimate authority are such rights and obligations established?

Many interesting thought experiments have emerged from such debates. Consider John Rawls’ idea of the ‘original position’ whereby the rights and obligations of society are arrived at behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. He argues that if we were to decide on the rules of society not knowing what position we would ultimately occupy in that society, we will tend towards more equality. We will make rules which mitigate the risk of being one of the most vulnerable members of that society. This resonates with Immanuel Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ whereby moral principles are argued to be absolute and not dependent on ulterior motives.

These are intriguing ideas that force us to confront our own biases; to confront why we are willing to allow the lottery of life to decide who is privileged and who is disadvantaged; to confront why we justify the sacrifice of some for the greater good. However, these debates have for the most part remained the providence of philosophical discussions. Practical political debates, on the other hand, are much more likely to focus on questions of citizenship, the state, and the nexus between power, authority, and legitimacy. However, many argue the force of contemporary economic, political, and cultural globalization requires us to move beyond thought experiments and philosophical debates. It is argued that we need a more robust engagement with the practical and political implications of rights and obligations at the global level. And that is the objective of this module: to explore the theoretical foundations that underpin much of the debates on global citizenship. We will begin by looking at four contentious issues that frame much of the debates on globalization and, by extension, global citizenship: the permeability of borders, the appropriate locus of authority, the normative value of community, and their respective claims on justice. Next, we will look at the two positions that emerge from this: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism.

There is little debate that quantitatively globalization is a reality: the world is more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. In terms of communication and transportation technology, the world has become smaller. Places that seemed exotic and remote 30 or 40 years ago have now become routine destinations for backpackers and even family vacationers. Today’s wealthy explorers now speak of traveling to outer space as their predecessors spoke of traveling from Europe to Asia, Africa, or Latin America 200 years ago.

Migration has become less alienating with cheap flights to visit home and advances in telecommunication allowing families to stay connected through video chats and cell phone calls. In terms of economics, global supply chains and multinational corporations have brought new products at lower prices to more people than ever before. The percentage of those living in extreme poverty has been sharply reduced albeit with a commensurate increase in inequality both in and between states.

Goals Politically, we have seen the rise of an increasingly dense set of international organizations and networks that have sought to coordinate the implications of globalization. Some are universal, like the United Nations (UN) or the World Trade Organization (WTO). Others are regional, like the European Union (EU), Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Some represent specific interest areas, like the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).   Beyond state-based organizations, we have also seen the rise of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like Oxfam or Greenpeace that seek to represent civil society groups.  Culturally, we have seen the diffusion of ideas, meanings, and values around the globe. This can occur by personal contact

through travel and migration or the explicit packaging, sale, and consumption of cultural products like books, tv, music, video games, and movies. Hollywood blockbusters can be seen in almost every country in the world while Bollywood and Anime are reversing the flow of cultural exports back to the West.

However, while it is generally agreed that globalization is a quantifiable fact, there is less agreement on whether this is a good thing, whether the benefits outweigh the costs. For proponents, globalization represents a positive narrative of economic opportunity, of the opportunity to realize universal human rights, and of the potential to transcend a world-history defined by environmental degradation, conflict, colonialism, and imperialism. For opponents, globalization represents a negative narrative of economic coercion, threats to the values of particular communities, and new forms of economic, political, and cultural imperialism.

In order to make sense of these two opposing positions, it is useful to look at four conflicts that define their differences: the permeability of borders, the appropriate locus of authority, the normative value of community, and their respective claims on justice.

( Figure 2-7: Source: https://pixabay.com/en/flag-geneva-un-3369978/ Permission: CC0 1.0 Public Domain. Courtesy of konfernezadhs. Figure 2-8: Source: https://pixabay.com/en/adult-african-african-american-3641205/ Permission: CC0 1.0 Public Domain. Courtesy of rawpixel. Figure 2-9: Source: https://pixabay.com/en/hollywood-sign-los-angeles-hollywood-1598473/ Permission: CC0 1.0 Public Domain. Courtesy of 12019. Figure 2-10: Source: https://pixabay.com/en/bollywood-movie-cinema-india-1687410/ Permission: CC0 1.0 Public Domain. Courtesy of Tumisu. Figure 2-11: A world of individuals. Source: https://pixabay.com/en/social-media-faces-photo-album-550767/ Permission: CC0 1.0 Public Domain. Courtesy of geralt. Figure 2-12: A world of Borders (Korean DMZ). Source: https://flic.kr/p/7u7VhQ Permission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of james Cridland. )

Justice

It may seem odd that we are starting with cosmopolitanism instead of communitarianism. Communitarianism is older, rooted in narratives of history and community, even to primordial claims on the importance of blood and soil. But in many ways, cosmopolitanism, or at least the rhetoric of cosmopolitanism, has become the norm. The idea of progress is equated with universal rights and the weakening of borders to allow the free movement of goods, finance, and people. In its most utopian form, cosmopolitanism is a story of overcoming conflict, overcoming inequality, and of empowering all peoples to achieve a meaningful life. But as we heard in the Ted Dialogue, there is a growing disconnect with globalism. It is argued that the story of globalism is bereft of particular meaning; that in trying to be everything to everybody, globalism lacks the deep attachment that motivates people to sacrifice for the general good. We will touch on this more extensively in the next section. But it important to note here, that this means that we are seeing a resurgence of communitarian ideas. To make sense of this new chronology, we are starting with cosmopolitanism rather than communitarianism.

To begin, it is important to note that contemporary cosmopolitanism as an ideological position is not homogenous. There are a number of distinct variants. For example, strict cosmopolitanism requires decisions to be made according to need and to strip away any preference or privilege associated with community. In other words, if your 10$ could help your child buy a pair of shoes without holes in the toe or feed 50 children in a conflict zone, the choice is clear: help the 50 children and thereby do the most good for the greatest number with the resources at your disposal. However, this is a pretty harsh metric and many would argue sets an unreasonable standard. Others advocate for a more moderate cosmopolitanism which argues we do have a duty to provide aid to those in need regardless of who they are or where they are from. But this moderate position also recognizes we have special duties and obligations to those closest to us. But we can use the four dividing lines introduced in the last section to find some commonalities that hold true for most variants of cosmopolitan thought. On the issue of border permeability, all variants of cosmopolitanism seek more openness regarding the movement of goods, finance, culture, and most importantly people. Stricter versions of cosmopolitanism reject borders at all. From this perspective, states and borders are without moral value as they simply reinforce the privilege of the elite. More moderate versions of cosmopolitanism accept the necessity of borders but advocate for more permeability. From this perspective, borders should only be as thick as is absolutely necessary. Think about the European Union, where the internal borders of the 28 member states have been removed but they can, and have been, put back in place when necessary.

On the issue of where political authority should reside, cosmopolitans argue that there must be some form of global polity based on their claims of universal community. Again, there is variance in the cosmopolitan school. Some advocate for a world government, that has the political authority to tackle issues that are transnational in nature – global environmental degradation, global crime syndicates, transnational terrorism, economic interdependence, et cetera. Other cosmopolitans are skeptical of such a world government because they believe it has great potential for tyranny. They instead advocate for a more robust state-based organization, for example, a United Nations with teeth. What both positions require is locating meaningful political authority at the global level.

On the issue of community, cosmopolitans advocate for the fellowship of all humankind as being the only one with moral intrinsic worth. Such membership is universal – you belong because you are human. Any other membership, from the family you are born into through to religious association and national citizenship, are for the most part an accident of birth. Cosmopolitans argue that if you agree that most of the benefits that define your quality of life are a result of winning the genetic lottery, how can you morally justify the current set of economic and political structures that maintain your privilege? On the issue of justice, advocates of cosmopolitanism argue that individual rights are intrinsic to being human. That the state is often the primary perpetrator of these rights being violated. That some form of a global polity, with defined and enforced rights/responsibilities, is necessary to give substance to questions of justice.

As noted in the previous section, varying forms of cosmopolitanism have held the high ground in academia and in the progressive narrative of how we can achieve a more peaceful and equitable world. However, much like the critiques of global citizenship, we saw in module one, many people have been very skeptical of this narrative. The three most robust criticisms of cosmopolitanism center on three broad critiques: equating cosmopolitan ambitions with a world state, questioning the possibility of realizing the cosmopolitan ideal, and questioning whether that ideal is even desirable. The first critique is the least robust and some may even consider it a bit too much of a straw man argument. As we discussed in the previous section, there are some who do believe a world state is necessary to achieve cosmopolitan ideals, but the majority believe that is not only unnecessary but could even be detrimental. A world state is difficult to imagine in practice given the diversity of the world’s population and the seeming ineffectiveness of the global institutions that do exist. However, a world government is a convenient target for anti-cosmopolitan thinkers. It invokes memories of tyranny, imperialism, and of domination; think of British Imperialism or the Nazi’s Third Reich.

Yet many if not most cosmopolitan thinkers do not advocate for world government. Rather they seek some form of global polity that would likely work through multilateral or multilevel governance. The second critique is more robust: the difficulty in achieving cosmopolitan ideals. This critique comes in two forms. Some argue that we lack the institutional structure necessary for fostering and maintaining identification with community above the state. What institution could reasonably have the legitimate authority to establish and maintain a global polity? The second variation of this critique reasonably points out that in the anarchical world we live in, it is highly unlikely that states will cede the degree of sovereignty necessary to create institutions of global governance with teeth. And without teeth, what is the purpose of such institutions? The third critique focuses on the power inequalities inherent in global politics and argues that even if possible, cosmopolitan ideals would be undesirable. Far from the narrative of progress, of peace, of prosperity, these critics assert that cosmopolitanism would entrench the current inequalities. The western developed world will continue to reap the lopsided benefits of economic globalization. It will use cultural globalization to reinforce the narrative of western exceptionalism. It will use political globalization to provide legitimation for this exercise in coercion. All the while, we will experience increased environmental degradation, increased inequality, and increased push back by those who see the costs outweighing the benefits – including transnational terrorism, global crime syndicates, and an increasing resistance to keep the system going. As should be apparent by now, the criticisms of cosmopolitanism are also heterogeneous. However, most of them can be reconciled within the communitarian rebuttal to cosmopolitanism.

Most communitarianism thought begins from the critique of the universality that defines cosmopolitan ideals. They argue that these universal ideals alienate the deeply human need to belong to a community. Communitarians argue that we cannot know who we are, what we want, nor even how to make such judgments without community. Community is the embodiment of shared history, it is the source of identity, and it deeply informs practices by normatively defining what is right/wrong and good/bad. And again, while there are differences between communitarian thinkers, we can use the four dividing lines introduced in the first section to find some commonalities that hold true for most variants of communitarian thought. On the issue of the permeability of borders, all communitarian thinkers seek to defend or reassert national borders. These sovereign borders not only provide protection for citizens by keeping bad things out, but they also create space for communities to develop and nurture their own values. They create space for the particular nuance of each community.

Think of some of the differences between Canada and the US, health care for instance. In general, Canadians have a deep affinity with their single-payer, universal health care system. Americans on the other hand, have a deep affinity with individual choice absent government influence. Which of these health care systems is right? It is easier to answer questions of efficiency or of cost. But right? What is the metric by which we make such decisions? The same holds true for discussions of gun control or of the relative benefits of a presidential versus a parliamentarian form of government. Communitarians argue such determinations can only be made through the collective lens of community.

On the issue of where political authority should reside, communitarians are deeply suspicious of any attempt to establish a polity above the state. They are deeply skeptical of the idea that enough universal values exist to establish an equitable and just political order, especially anything approximating a world government. Absent such universal values, any global polity would by necessity mean the imposition of one group’s values and norms over another.

On the issue of community, communitarians both assert the primacy of existing national and subnational communities while being deeply suspicious of assertions that a global community exists. In terms of national and subnational communities, communitarians argue that these are not neutral placeholders of atomistic individuals. These are the constitutive communities that both shape us and in turn, are shaped by us. In so doing, communities are placeholders of meaning, values, and identity. They are instrumental to our sense of being. In terms of the purported global community, communitarians argue this is a hollow heuristic. Beyond a philosophical argument of belonging to a common fellowship, what does cosmopolitanism offer in terms of creating a sense of shared belonging? Who is willing to sacrifice in the name of cosmopolitan ideals? Perhaps more importantly, who is being asked to sacrifice in the name of cosmopolitan ideals? Finally, on the issue of justice, advocates of communitarianism argue that it is defined by the freedom of self-determination. Communities require fairly impermeable borders in order to create the space for particular societies to seek their definition of the common good, of the good life. Conversely, any attempt to impose external or supposedly universal values is deeply unjust.

This module has sought to begin establishing a deeper theoretical look at the concepts of globalization and global citizenship. We first sought to establish some of the primary dividing lines between the proponent and opponents of globalization: the permeability of borders, the appropriate locus of political authority, the normative importance of community, and their respective claims on justice. We used these dividing lines to inform two essentialized positions on globalization and global citizenship: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. It is noted in this discussion, that for some, borders are seen as an obstacle in both maximizing the benefits of global processes and in finding solutions to global problems. These obstacles include impinging on the free movement of goods, capital, and people as well as confronting environmental degradation, trans-national terrorism, and organized crime. Yet, for others, borders provide protection from outside threats and perhaps more importantly allow communities to protect particularistic identities, values, and sense of belonging. We also noted, that for some, we require political authority above the state in order to deal with the contemporary global realities of economic, political, and cultural processes. Yet for others, they rightly point out that the requisite institutional structures for political authority simply do not exist. Moreover, if they did exist, they question the desirability of such a global authority as it is likely that they would replicate the current manifestations of global inequity. We next noted, that for some, the only morally unquestionable community is the global fellowship of all human beings. It is the only community in which there is no arbitrary belonging and therefore devoid of inherent inequality. For others, the very idea of a global fellowship of human beings is devoid of meaning. They argue it is simply the product of ivory tower academics who posit a theoretical connection between everyone while ignoring the very real histories, norms, values, and identities that constitute meaningful connections. Finally, we note, that for some, global justice is best realized by empowering individual rights while for others global justice is best realized by empowering national self-determination. From this discussion, we set out two essentialized positions on globalization and global citizenship: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. Cosmopolitanism, in all of its varying forms, argues for more open borders, meaningful political authority at the global level, a recognition of the global community, and the promotion of individual freedom. Communitarianism, in all of its varying forms, argues for less permeable borders, questions the legitimacy of supranational authority, adamantly insists on the importance of particular communities, and the promotion of the right to self-determination. We are going to build on this discussion in the next module by introducing one more theoretical lens: the English School. The English School seeks to understand how our contemporary world can contain both greater and lesser degrees of shared values, norms, and identities at the same time: how both a cosmopolitan logic and a communitarian logic can be at play concurrently.

The permeability of borders is one of the most significant divisions between the cosmopolitan and communitarian positions. For cosmopolitans, thick or hard borders are an artifact of an older time. They were a function of the time when states were able to control the flow of people, goods, capital across their borders. Cosmopolitans argue that the state is increasingly unable to do so. And if they could, it would be a step backwards since the contemporary processes of economic, political, and cultural globalization are fostering more prosperity and the means to contend with their externalities. For communitarians on the other hand, thick borders are a primary defence against ‘the other’, against economic coercion, against political intrusion, and against cultural imperialism. They are a means to protect localized histories, values, norms, and identities.

Both cosmopolitanism and communitarianism highlight the importance of community. For communitarians, community refers to the local and particular. Community is a product of shared history, of shared norms, and of shared identities. Community is constituted by shared meaning and thick bonds of belonging. For cosmopolitanism on the other hand, the local and particular form of community is simply arbitrary. By what justification can one claim the pride or own the shame of being born to particular communities? However, the universal fellowship of human beings constitutes a completely non-arbitrary community. It this universal community to which reciprocal rights and obligations have meaning. Therefore, while each position privileges community, they differ on the scale and scope that gives community meaning.

Cosmopolitans argue that the costs and benefits inherent in the processes of globalization require political authority above the state. How can we harness the benefits and the regulate the neo-imperial impulses of global trade, global finance, and global supply chains without supranational political authority? How can we combat environmental externalities that are not constrained by borders? Or the threat of trans-national terrorism? Or globally organized crime syndicates? Communitarians on the other hand, question both the possibility and desirability of locating political authority above the state. They question the possibility of supranational political authority given the lack of institutional structures that could possibly support it. They question the desirability of supranational political authority given the deep inequality present in those global institutions that do exist. Communitarians question whether global forms of political authority would be any less coercive, any less hierarchical.

Both the position of defining global justice as individual rights and defining global justice as national self-determination are part of contemporary liberalism. When global justice is defined through the empowerment of individual rights, it is advocating freedom from state based violence, community imposed values, and the imposition of norms/values from the group. When justice is defined through a defence of national self-determination, it is advocating for the right of communities to decide upon their own rules, their own definition of the common good, their own means to achieve it. Ultimately, they are arguing that defining the good life is subjective, it represents historical contingencies and any attempt to external or supposedly universal values is deeply unjust.

Both forms of cosmopolitanism argue for more open borders, meaningful political authority at the global level, a recognition of the global community, and the privileging of individual freedom. Strict cosmopolitanism requires decisions to be made according to need and to strip away any preference or privilege associated with community. It is a naked cost-benefit analysis made on impersonal calculus. If action x will help 10 people while action y will help 100 people or will help 10 people more dramatically, the just policy is to help the greatest number or to help those who will benefit more. However, this is a pretty harsh metric and many would argue sets an unreasonable standard. Others advocate for a more moderate cosmopolitanism which argues we do have a duty to provide aid to those in need regardless of who they are or where they are from. But this moderate position also recognizes we have special duties and obligations to those closest to us. Decisions need to balance the privileged duties owed to those closest to us and the universal duties owed to everybody.