The cosmopolitan conquest : finding cosmopolitan change in the era of globalization

(1)

?

The Cosmopolitan Conquest

Finding cosmopolitan change in the era of globalization

Joeri van den Ende (10573666) Supervisor A.F. Voicu Second Reader: Dr. A.M.R. De Dijn

June 2017

University of Amsterdam Master Thesis Political Science

(2)

(3)

2

1 Introduction

1.1 Cosmopolitanism: an ideal to conquer

There is a widespread agreement that effective political answers to a bewildering amount of global problems are ineffective. While the amount of global issues appear to rise in extensity – think about climate change, the seemingly everlasting occurrence of military conflict, unwanted migration patterns and the widening global socio-economic inequality between people inhabiting this earth - the solutions found by states and other actors appear to be ineffective to say the least (Held, 2010: 293; Barber, 2013: ). The world entered the period of globalization, best described by McGrew:

“an historical process involving a fundamental shift or transformation in the spatial scale of human social organization that links distant

communities and expands the reach of power across regions and continents” (McGrew, 2014: 20).

These fundamental changes bring about the era of globalization, a new period in human history were effective answers have to be found to ever growing global issues (Held, 2010: 293). Solutions have to come up that can extend the world as a whole.

In finding these solutions, the correlation with cosmopolitanism is often made. It often regarded as “one of the keywords of our times”, and when the intention behind cosmopolitanism is understood, it is easy to understand why (Benhabib, 2012: 17). The philosophical world-view, rooted in ancient thought, claims that human-beings belong to a moral community of mankind, that brings about moral obligations to all of us, without reference to race, nationality, gender, ethnicity, culture, religion, state citizenship or any other form of political affiliation (ibid., Shapcott, 2014: 200-1). Taking this into consideration, the belief that cosmopolitanism is a philosophy for the era of globalization sounds plausible (Brown & Held, 2010: 13). By accepting the human unity, cosmopolitanism crafts a powerful belief that humans have to solve global issues together.

The title of this thesis – ‘The Cosmopolitan conquest’ – already gives away that there is a problem within the belief that cosmopolitanism is the best possible solution in the era of globalization. How beautiful this cosmopolitan ideal may sound, the political reality makes this initial idea an unattainable utopia. The Westphalian state system, where sovereign

(5)

4

nation-states are the primary units of political rule, significantly constrained the philosophical ideal of cosmopolitanism (Jönsson et al. 2000: 73). While cosmopolitan norms, the form of human rights, are a powerful new moral body, the idea that human belong to a community of mankind in the first place subordinated through the invention of the Westphalian state system. The reason why cosmopolitanism is so high on the agenda in the era of globalization, suggests that the thought has more to offer than an addition to the Westphalian state system. ‘To conquer’ means “to overcome a problem”; and this thesis is interested in how cosmopolitanism could potentially flourish in the era of globalization beyond the influence of the Westphalian state system (Waite, 2012: 147).

1.2 Research questions, sub questions

The research question that is of central concern in this thesis is: how can we rethink

cosmopolitanism beyond the sovereignty of nation-states. To be able to disentangle both

concepts from one another, it is first required to define a theoretical lens. As section 1.2 will thoroughly explain, a suitable lens is a combination of social constructivism and critical theory, best described as ‘critical constructivism’. Once this perception is taken, it is time to get into the actual analysis of cosmopolitanism. Chapter two attempts to understand in more detail where cosmopolitan views consist of, what etymology of cosmopolitanism originally entailed and how cosmopolitanism is defined within this thesis. It allows us to analyze how this original perception of cosmopolitanism became affected by the invention of the Westphalian state system in chapter three.

These essential insights in cosmopolitan though offer a framework wherefrom it is possible to understand why it is necessary to rethink the way cosmopolitanism is perceived in the era of globalization. Having obtained insights about the fundamentality of change, the limits of the sovereign nation-state, the paradoxical logic between the nation-state and cosmopolitanism and the inability to improve our thinking about cosmopolitanism, the research question of this thesis can be answered in chapter five. In this chapter, the argument is made that the ‘glocal cosmopolitanism’ revives the initial logic behind cosmopolitan thinking that requires a decisive break with the logic of sovereignty as currently promoted by nation-states. The current modern perception of cosmopolitanism has no clear endpoint; while it is projected as ‘a grand march towards universalism’, it is fundamentally questionable that such an objection will ever be met.

(6)

5 1.3 A critical constructivist approach

In order to understand this critical constructivist approach of this thesis, a small background on International Relations (IR) is useful. The contemporary paradigm of the Westphalian state system is responsible for the current definition of what political rule entails (Ruggie, 1993: 149-50). Through three important historical contributions – the social contract, the Peace of Westphalia and the Enlightenment – this paradigm was constructed (Jönsson et al. 2000: 73). Following the separation of internal and external affairs, brought about by the social contract, IR came up as a discipline that wanted to understand the causes of war and what conditions are necessary to bring about peace (Smith, 2013: 1). Traditionally, two views were dominant,

realism and liberalism. Whereas liberalism believes in international progress through

cooperation and institution-building, realism denied any of such possibilities as states were embedded in a belligerent international system, where survival and self-help were essential. During the 1980s and 1990s new explanations to IR came up, with constructivism as the most influential (and most important for this thesis). Constructivism challenged the dominant paradigm of the Westphalian state system, as a socially constructed perception on what political rule entails (Fierke, 2013: 187). It brought new insights to the discipline of IR in three ways. First, that there is not a single objective reality of international relations, but that it consists of differences across contexts (idem: 189). These insights brought about the perception that political, social and historical beliefs and views matter, instead of presenting the world as a fixed and natural community of nation-states (Smith, 2004: 505). Second, that International Relations are driven by social dimensions, such as rules, language and norms that shape the perceptions on politics (Fierke, 2013: 189). And lastly, that IR is a social construction that is affected by agency and interactions (ibid.). This allowed constructivism to be an innovative addition to understanding international relations (Onuf, 2016: 116).

Constructivism offered fruitful insights in how the Westphalian state system constructed the way political rule is perceived. The follow-up question is where these insights lead to, which is a point of contestation within constructivism. Within constructivism there are two positions,

conventional and critical constructivism (Cho, 2009: 76). The former category sees

(7)

6

the understanding of the Westphalian state system through history, ideas, norms and beliefs (idem: 76, Slaughter, 2011: 20). This category sees constructivism as an addition to the already existing structure of international relations. It helps to explain how the world works, and brings new insights to the Westphalian paradigm of political thought. The latter category of critical constructivism1_{deviates from this position. Whereas constructivists are agnostic of}

change in the way the Westphalian state system works, critical constructivists criticize this position vigorously (Hopf, 1998: 180). These insights must be considered of a greater, ontological value, as they bring important weaknesses within this Westphalian paradigm (Onuf, 2016: 128; Slaughter, 2011: 19). Therefore, critical constructivism thinks that these insights about the nature and origin of the Westphalian paradigm should lead to follow-up questions and investigations on how these could contribute to future political change.

Thus critical constructivism is an important approach to investigate cosmopolitanism in this thesis for three reasons. First, precisely the observation of constructivism that the dominant Westphalian paradigm is socially constructed, allows us to perceive it as an “open and malleable” concept, which is an important starting point in understanding how cosmopolitanism became affected by it invention (Cho, 2009: 88). Second, due to the acceptance that the current socio-economic and political system is socially constructed, it emphasizes to challenge these propositions through historical investigations that improve the understanding of the status quo (Hoffmann, 1987: 237). Third, critical constructivists have a normative utopian view about how institutions could look potentially be transformed (ibid.). This utopianism is however combined with a down-to-earth understanding that the current system and understanding is path dependent and that changing this will take considerable efforts and time (idem: 137-8). As cosmopolitanism is often regarded as a utopian thought itself, an approach that has the maneuverability to align this utopianism with the actual political system is important.

In sum, constructivism came as an innovative answer to the conservative perception of what politics entails, brought about by the Westphalian state system. These are fruitful insights to the extensive history of cosmopolitanism. By using critical constructivism as the theoretical approach a bridge between understanding the defects of the Westphalian state system on the

1_{Critical theory and critical constructivism are closely related, Hopf (1998) uses these interchangeably. Without}

going into too much detail, I will focus, and use, critical constructivism as it makes the specific reference to International Relations and its understanding of the Westphalian state system paradigm, whereas critical theory is used within other realms of social science as well.

(8)

7

one hand, and potential political alternatives beyond the Westphalian state system are possible, on the other hand.

1.4 Outline

To be able to investigate the research question – how can we rethink cosmopolitanism beyond the sovereign nation-state – the following outline is applied in this thesis. In chapter two, a better understanding of cosmopolitanism is created by focusing on the original position and rationale of Stoic cosmopolitanism. Chapter three questions how this original position on cosmopolitanism became affected by the invention of the Westphalian state system. This requires us to understand the historical transformation that the Westphalian state system brought about through the invention of the nation-state. This is a useful step to be able to analyze how cosmopolitanism was transformed by this invention, predominantly through the work of Immanuel Kant. Chapter four turn to the contemporary situation to question why it is necessary to rethink the way cosmopolitanism is perceived in the era of globalization. Ultimately, these insights allow us to identify how these bottlenecks can be overcome by answering the research question – how can we rethink cosmopolitanism beyond the sovereign nation-state. A form of glocal cosmopolitanism appears to be the most effective answer to this reconsideration of cosmopolitanism in the era of globalization.

(9)

8

2 Defining Cosmopolitanism

To be able to rethink cosmopolitanism beyond the nation-state, it is important to figure out what cosmopolitanism originally entailed. As the next section will point out, cosmopolitanism has two components – ‘cosmos’ and ‘polis’ – making it necessary to inquire them separately to understand the rationale behind cosmopolitanism. In three steps this chapter has the aim to better understand what cosmopolitanism actually entailed, both contemporarily but more importantly how the thought emerged as part of Stoic cosmopolitanism. The first step is to define cosmopolitanism and understand how universalism is represented in cosmopolitanism, not only within its ancient roots, but also in contemporary views. This enables us to come up with a set of standards to measure the actual quality strength of cosmopolitanism in the remainder of this thesis. The second step is to understand what ‘polis’ actually meant. The most profound place to do so is Aristotle’s The Politics, to understand the rationale behind the polis in itself, but also its position in Stoic cosmopolitanism. The third step is to understand how this element of the polis can be understood beyond Stoic cosmopolitanism, by linking it to cities. This finally leads to a workable set of characteristics for cosmopolitanism, useful for the remainder of this thesis.

2.1 Understanding the universalism in cosmopolitanism

The distinction of cosmopolitanism in two parts – cosmos and polis – allows us to understand the rationale behind each of these elements separately. This section focusses on the former component; the universalism in cosmopolitanism. Before being able to do this, it is useful start with a Stoic understanding of what cosmopolitanism entails. Stoicism was a philosophical school of Greek and Roman philosophers. Whereas cosmopolitanism originally emerged under Cynic philosophy, the Stoic turned it into the popular philosophy that is still appreciated nowadays (Nussbaum, 1997:6; Harris, 1927: 1). The Stoics believed in a cosmopolitanism, where humans inhabit two ‘worlds’, something best described by Seneca:

“Let us take hold of the fact that there are two communities— the one, which is great and truly common, embracing gods and men, in which we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our citizenship by the sun; the other, the one to which we have been assigned by the accident of our birth” (Seneca, in: Heater, 1996: 22).

(10)

9

As Seneca shows, these two ‘worlds’, where the local confines of the polis and a universal community of mankind, accommodating all human beings under the same moral standards (Held, 2010: 40). Whereas the former element will be discussed in more detail in section 2.2, the latter requires additional understanding. This universal community is comprised by elements common to all human beings, who are most importantly due to their equal worth of reason and human nature (Held, 2010: 40). Stoicism offers a fruitful starting point, but it might be useful to perceive cosmopolitanism in the contemporary times as well.

The acknowledgement that cosmopolitanism is of use in the era of globalization requires us to understand this Stoic view in a contemporary context. Contemporary views on cosmopolitanism predominantly arose after the end of the Cold War in 1989 (Archibugi & Held, 2011: 434). These authors the shared ambition to understand how the victory of liberalism over communism could unify the world under the same moral and political framework (Pogge, 1992: 48). Cosmopolitanism thereby often came up as the all-encompassing answer to these inquiries.

These contemporary cosmopolitan views can be categorized by two distinctions. The first distinction that can be made is between moral and political cosmopolitanism (Duffek, 2013: 179-80). The former, moral cosmopolitanism, implies “that every human being has a global stature as an ultimate unit of moral concern” (Pogge, 1992: 49). It suggests a that cosmopolitanism brings about norms of justice that apply to all human beings as if they were in a universal community of mankind (Duffek, 2013: 178). The latter, political cosmopolitanism, suggests that these moral norms of universal justice should also be institutionalized globally to live up with them. In order to recognize the fundamentally shared human bond, political action is required to turn these into feasible progressions.

On top of this distinction, the strength or weakness of contemporary cosmopolitan ideals are an important method. The primary concern within this distinction is the extensity in which cosmopolitanism has concrete impact on political actions (Held, 2010: 234). A strong form of cosmopolitanism, therein suggests that global institutions should come about to promote the ‘moral unity of humankind’ through actual world-citizenship in a world state (Duffek, 2013: 180). These positions argue that cosmopolitanism is overriding other forms of morality, such as those promoted by nation-states (Held, 2010: 234). Weaker forms of cosmopolitanism suggest that such a community is not required, as cosmopolitan justice can come about

(11)

10

through intermediate forms of political institutions. In overall, it is important to acknowledge that a satisfying form of cosmopolitanism is strong and contains both moral and a political element (Brown & Held, 2010: 2; Duffek, 2013: 180). As the title of this thesis – The Cosmopolitan Conquest – gives away, this satisfying form of strong moral cosmopolitanism has not been found so far.

A comparison between Stoic and contemporary cosmopolitans demonstrates that over 2500 years, the level of universalism did not change. The logic and rationale behind the fact that human beings belong to a universal community of mankind is unchanged. Contemporary cosmopolitan thinkers formulated three criteria that secures the level of universalism in cosmopolitanism (Held, 2010: 44). First, the acknowledgement of egalitarian individualism that emphasizes the position of the individual as a member of the universal community of mankind of paramount importance. The position of the individual is valued over all other forms of affiliation, such as race, gender, identity, culture and citizenship (Brown & Held, 2010: 4). A second element that comes to the fore, once this first point is agreed upon is the

principle of reciprocal recognition (Held, 2010: 45). It agrees that everyone requires an equal

stake in universal morality and respect for each other’s position within this realm (ibid.). The third element is referred to as impartial reasoning, a frame of reference to establish rules and principles that allow every human being to interact in public deliberation and argument freely and equally (idem. 15;47). Thus contemporary cosmopolitans effectively improved what universalism in cosmopolitanism could actually entail through these standards.

This section showed what universalism in cosmopolitanism actually entailed. First it started with the definition of cosmopolitanism by Seneca that humans dwell in two ‘worlds’; the universal and the local. The former was under investigation here, whereby we can come to the conclusion that there is a unanimous view that the universalism in cosmopolitanism implies that humans belong to the same community of mankind (Brown & Held, 2010: 2). Contemporary cosmopolitans made a set of characteristics to measure the quality of this universalism in cosmopolitan thought, namely egalitarian individualism, reciprocal recognition and impartial reasoning (Held, 2010: 44-47). With these criteria, it is possible to better understand how the universal community of mankind, as a vital element of cosmopolitanism, is affected by invention of the Westphalian state system. But before reaching that point, a number of steps have to be taken. To start with the other, often forgotten element of cosmopolitanism, the polis. The subsequent two sections will discuss why this

(12)

11

element of the polis is crucial in understanding cosmopolitanism.

2.2 Aristotle’s logic of the polis

The second element of cosmopolitanism – the polis – is often forgotten as a component in contemporary cosmopolitanism. The current Westphalian state system is often regarded as a new political fundament, significantly different from the ancient Greeks roots (Dahl, 2016: 11-12). Accordingly, there is a strong contemporary belief that cosmopolitanism has to be brought about within this system of sovereign nation-states (Dallmayr, 2012: 179). Especially in combination with globalization and the potential for global human integration, there is different interpretation of the element of the ‘polis’ in cosmopolitanism observable. In these interpretations, the idea is promoted that cosmopolitanism is only transition towards more universalism. Cosmopolitan discussions thereby often forgo the actual question of feasibility within politics (Walker, 2003: 279). This thesis wants to break with this false reading of cosmopolitanism, by placing emphasis on understanding the original rationale behind the polis, which offers a down-to-earth understanding of everyday communal life.

The immediate response to this emphasis on the polis would be that, as a form of political rule, the polis is no longer exiting. The contemporary view of the polis is strictly as a system of political rule, a city-state that invented direct, participatory democracy (Dahl, 2016: 11-2). Ancient Greece is contemporarily regarded as the most prominent expression of a polis, as a “system of independent political rule over a city” (Scruton, 2007: 529). Aristotle work The

Politics is often regarded as the most extensive discussion on the role of the polis. Over a

timespan of twelve years he investigated 158 Greek poleis (Sinclair, 1992: 23). During the time Aristotle was writing, poleis were dominant systems of political rule. For roughly 200 years, the most well-known form of a polis, the Athenian, lasted as a prominent example of direct democratic rule in the confines of a city-state. Due to external oppression, first by the Macedonians and later by the Romans, the city-state, with direct democracy as its most well-known, disappeared (Dahl, 2016: 12). The step taken by contemporary cosmopolitans to exclude it from using cosmopolitanism as an answer in the era of globalization thereby appears to be justifiable.

While it is easy to downgrade the polis as an outdated form of political rule, it is important to understand its deeper meaning, especially as a component within Stoic cosmopolitanism. An

(13)

12

important reason in favor of this interpretation is the definition of Seneca that was given at the start of this chapter. Seneca was a Roman public official and intellectual, who referred to the polis or local life as an inherent part of cosmopolitanism, four centuries after Aristotle’s The Politics. The reference of to the polis within cosmopolitanism should be perceived in the light of Aristotle’s work. Aristotle (1992: 59) perceives human-beings as political animals: “[I]t follows that the [polis] belongs to the class of objects which exist by nature and that man is by nature a political animal”. All men are equal in their end in life, as this resolves around the pursuit of happiness, a desire gifted by nature (Saunders, 1992: 37). The polis as an intimate natural surrounding naturally comes about and ultimately provides all necessities for human beings, not only in living life in general but also in ‘living-well’ (Aristotle, 1992: 55). As such, a well-functioning polis is the ultimate socio-political arrangement to bring about the universal pursuit of happiness, both naturally and, potentially, most effectively (Heater, 1996: 2; Fine & Cohen, 2002: 137-8). Aristotle’s perception of the polis offers a deeper meaning of everyday life that is often overlooked.

Another argument against using this Aristotelian view of the polis might be that Aristotle did not make the connection to cosmopolitanism. Aristotle’s the Politics, which describes this deeper meaning of cosmopolitanism, was solely focusing on poleis and cosmopolitanism is not mentioned in it at all. It however important to acknowledge that Aristotle was an incredible polymath, who was writing on an enormous arrange of subjects (Heater, 1996: 8). Within Greek lyceums, where Aristotle was working as a teacher, a strict separation between theory and practice was upheld (Sinclair, 1992: 14). Logically, Aristotle followed this logic. Cosmopolitanism, as a research subject, fits the former category and the study of politics, which The Politics was, fits the latter (idem: 14-5). In a number of other works, his admiration for human universalism is observable. In his analysis of socio-political systems, he believed that the polis was the ultimate political means to pursue the ‘end’ of individual freedom and happiness, whereas in biology he wrote about Homo sapiens as a single species (ibid.). Lastly, as a moral philosopher, he also referred to the existence of a universal brotherhood of human beings: “we praise those who love their fellow-men. And one notices in one’s travels how everybody feels that everybody else is his friend and brother man” (Heater, 1996: 8). Aristotle’s perception of the cosmopolitan claim that humans belong to the same moral community of mankind was thus observable beyond his understanding of the polis.

(14)

13

the previous section. By using Aristotle’s deeper meaning behind the polis, the second element of cosmopolitanism also received a clearer position in the overall thought. Both the local, everyday setting where individuals pursue their happiness in life, as well as the agreement that human beings belong to a universal community of mankind, are crucial in the potentials of individuals in life (Burns, 2007: 12). It thereby breaks the understanding that cosmopolitanism is solely focusing on universalism. These important observations however tell us fairly little about the contemporary context of ‘the polis’ in era of globalization. Therefore, it is necessary to align this Aristotelian view beyond these ancient times to understand how the perception of the polis can be of use contemporarily.

2.3 The transforming character of ‘the polis’ in time

The message of Aristotle’s polis is more encompassing than a specific system of political rule, as it is an essential understanding of how individuals are part of the communal, everyday life. Cosmopolitanism should be understood as an ‘engaged practice’, a continuous recognition that local interpretations, identities, culture and actions matter in shaping the way cosmopolitanism is perceived (Dallmayr, 2012: 182-3). Whereas cosmopolitanism might ideally offer a common framework of rights and institutions, allowing individuals to be free and equals, the adaptation of these vital elements are continuously exposed to social interactions and agency of individuals in everyday communal settings. It thus forms a crucial element of cosmopolitanism as it acknowledges the unavoidable context of the immediate community as an organic network crucial in sustaining life (Bielskis, 2008: 85). Cosmopolitanism is thus never a fixed, unvarying philosophy, nor is the definition of the good life, or what happiness entails as these changes both in time and place . What the polis ideally entails is thus never fixed but a continuous process, but shaped by individual interaction and agency.

Throughout history, the natural position of the polis was always contextualized by cities. Whereas it is hard to find a clear definition of what a city entails throughout the centuries, the commonality with Aristotle’s polis is always present (Barber, 2013: 55). Cities offer the elementary expression to human life, despite continuous changes in their precise role, size and influence (idem: 60). It therein makes no sense to pin down how this city ideally look should look like in size for instance, as this opens entirely new discussions (idem: 55; Dahl, 1967: 953). For this thesis, it is sufficient to underscore the predominant Aristotelian meaning of

(15)

14

communal life as a key component of everyday, individual life.

When we turn over to the era of globalization, the intimacy of the polis can be found in the modern city2 (Dahl, 1967: 958). While the Ancient polis as a form of political rule and the modern city differ enormously, such as the number of people allowed to participate, the lack of direct democracy in today’s cities, the difficulty to socialize citizens, the lack of autonomy and the lacking single loyalty to the city, it still contains the elementary logic of Aristotle (Dahl, 1967: 958; 964). The modern city deals with the fundamental things that should bring about individual’s well-lived life. By offering immediate institutions and arrangements, such as jobs, education, transportation, housing, healthcare and crime prevention, the city offers vital elements that enable or disable individuals to live to good life (ibid.).

Besides that, the polis and the city also share the democratic ability to connect citizens to influence decisions that affect their lives. Men’s nature as ‘political animals’ is visible within the communal realm of everyday life, as it is the best possible scope of democratic deliberation (Aristotle, 1992: 59; Dahl, 1967: 964). Historically, The Athenian polis did so through direct democracy, whereby citizens could directly join public institutions and express their opinions (Chan, 2016: 139; Dahl, 2016: 12). Contemporarily, is the best unit to enable immediate democratic decision-making by responding directly to the daily needs of a well-organized life in the political community (Bielskis, 2008: 85). As the democracy of nation-states is often regarded as too large and too diverse, the confines of cities are perceived as the immediate and intimate forms to make democracy work well (Dahl, 1967: 956; 968; Barber, 2013: 54). The limited level of democratic decision-making in the city makes it an important counterpart of universalism in cosmopolitanism.

This section discussed the relevance of Aristotle’s polis as an often forgotten element of contemporary cosmopolitanism. The predominant focus of cosmopolitanism is on the creation of a universal moral and political institutions, a cosmopolis, and an interpretation that subordinates the element of the polis. This is erroneous with regards to the original Stoic meaning of cosmopolitanism, where the polis was not only a blueprint for a system of political rule, but also a deeper moral understanding. In this understanding, the polis denotes

2_{Please note that the city has always been ‘a frontrunner’ in human communal life (Castells, 2016: 4). As a}

result, I discuss the city as the optimal form of Aristotle’s logic of the polis. I thereby do not exclude local villages or rural areas, as these can also be sites of communal life where individuals pursue their good life. In this thesis however, I will mainly restrict myself to cities however.

(16)

15

the context of the everyday in the political community, naturally existing in every indivdiual human beings life. This understanding of communal life can best be retraced in the era of globalization in modern cities, giving cities a potentially crucial role in thinking about cosmopolitanism.

In overall, this chapter had to intention to retrace the original logic behind cosmopolitanism. Most importantly, this chapter showed that cosmopolitan thinking must originally be understood as a two sided moral view. A number of workable criteria for understanding cosmopolitanism were found, of use for the remainder of this thesis. Universalism, on the one hand, places the emphasis on the acknowledgement that individual human beings are the ultimate concern of cosmopolitanism (egalitarian individualism), that these individuals belong to the same moral community of mankind, with equal worth for everyone (reciprocal recognition) (Held, 2010: 44-5). And finally, that this universalist thinking is often regarded as offering a moral framework to develop rules and regulations, through impartial reasoning (idem: 46). The polis on the other hand, cosmopolitanism prescribes the ‘the polis’, symbolizing the importance of everyday communal life, vital in enabling individuals to life a good and happy life.

As this thesis briefly touched upon, the use of the Westphalian state system allows contemporary cosmopolitans to perceive cosmopolitanism differently, thereby foregoing the relevance of the polis. In the remainder of this thesis, it is especially important to understand how this divergent understanding came about. Some crucial insights might be found better understanding how the Westphalian state system affected the way this original cosmopolitan view is understood. The critical constructivist approach of this thesis is useful in doing so, as this chapter showed that the perception on cosmopolitanist thinking changed through the course of history. How and why this happened is the primary subject of chapter three.

(17)

16

3 The Westphalian Transformation of Cosmopolitanism

The previous chapter generated several characteristics on cosmopolitanism that offers the fundamental underlying insight. This third chapter is mainly concerned with investigating the question how is the ideal of cosmopolitanism affected by the invention of the Westphalian state system? It unfolds in the following way. First, it logically starts with a better understanding of the Westphalian state system; why did it come about and what its impact was on the perception of politics are vital to understand. The insights of constructivism are really useful in this respect. The second section of this chapter discusses how this modern, Westphalian perception of politics is affecting the view of communal living and politics within cities. This entails a decisive break away from Aristotle’s perception of the immediate confines of the city into the ‘imagined community’ of the nation-state. The third section tries to understand how the novel perception on political rule, through the Westphalian state system, changed the morality behind thinking about cosmopolitanism. Ultimately, these observations allow us to compose a better understanding of how the invention of the Westphalian state system affected cosmopolitanism.

3.1 The Westphalian state system

To be able to understand the impact of the Westphalian state system, the priority is to better understand why and how it was invented. The Westphalian state system is the normative structure and rationale behind the modern perception of politics based on sovereignty statehood (McGrew, 2014: 23; Barber, 2013: 154). As a paradigm, it is a crucial component in the way we perceive the world. In the era of globalization, this Westphalian logic of ‘inter-national’ politics shapes our understanding towards potential possibilities to bring about cosmopolitanism (Jönsson et al. 2000: 66; Armstrong, 2014: 42). In this analysis, the construction of the Westphalian state system was brought about by three historical contributions: the invention of the social contract, the successful application of sovereignty in political practice by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the period of the Enlightenment. As such, the Westphalian state system label of the new perception on political rule, that is useful to later understand the impact this paradigm made on cosmopolitanism. Before turning towards an analysis how this Westphalian state system came about, it is useful to understand the context within which is emerged, allowing us to understand the logic behind this drastic

(18)

17

shift towards this modern Westphalian paradigm.

The Westphalian state system came as an answer to feudalism. Feudalism was an agriculturally oriented system, hierarchically organized by peasants, lords, kings and the pope in Europe (Ruggie, 1993: 274). The peasants cultivated the agricultural land and most of the harvest was handed over to the lords and kings in exchange for the use of land and protection (Shaw, 2012: 36-7). Peasant and local lords embedded by higher authorities to cultivate the land, offering them limited alternatives. Kings and the Pope were at the top of the chain, battling over the ultimate authority, where kings claimed to have the right to do so as the immediate territorial rulers, whereas the Pope had the divine authority ‘gifted from God’ (Armstrong, 2014: 39). The hierarchal relationships among actors in this system crafted a static system, where roles and possibilities were stable.

The rigid nature of these hierarchical bonds was unable to cope with changing circumstances, which was the primary reason why was overrun by innovations. Both in the material environment, as well as within the way of organization, transformations ultimately undermined the stability of the feudal system (Ruggie, 1993: 152-4). On behalf of the former, innovating land modifications generated growing productivity with higher yields that made trading possible (Jönsson et al. 2000: 69). As a result, the city revived as the focal point of these economic activities, by allowing merchants and markets to grow and connect (Barber, 2013: 14). To enhance these interactions additional innovations were made, such as growing commercial services, disaster relief and the growth of weaponry and defense innovations to protect trading activities (idem: 68; Ruggie, 1993: 154-5). The hierarchy of the feudal system was outdated and new interactions prospered, with cities as important nodes to facilitate these new dynamics (Barber, 2013: 60).

In the transition period that came about, between the outdated feudal system and a new form of political rule that could effectively deal with these innovative forms of interaction and organization, novel perceptions were emerging. The role of changing mental perceptions are crucial in this respect, as these perceptions allowed people to imagine and symbolize new forms of political community that could effectively respond to the changes away from feudalism (Ruggie, 1993: 157). The importance of economic interaction and security were to vital elements, where states turned out to be the most efficient system of political rule. Monarchs and central authorities realized that given the many conflicts, it was necessary to

(19)

18

find a way to finance and maintain armies to protect trading activities from threats (Jönsson et al. 2000: 68-70). What element was decisive is hard to indicate, as the combination of three factors significantly contributed in making states the most efficient political response in moving beyond the feudal system. These three factors were the ability to wage war, uphold stable trade relations and keep order within their territory and levy taxes from those within their territory (idem: 68). While states were already effectively responding to the changing circumstances, there was no uniformity on the position of states yet.

States were effectively turned into influential institutions of political rule through the Westphalian state system that was not a uniform moment, but consists of three influential contributions: the social contract, the Peace of Westphalia that applied sovereignty into practice and the Enlightenment. The first element is the social contract. This political invention constructed the belief that the state, as the absolute sovereign power, was the only political actor, with absolute power, that could bring about peaceful coexistence among individuals (Walker, 1990: 11). Thomas Hobbes was the leading architect behind this new reality, where the emergence of states was a bitter necessity to the otherwise prevailing anarchy among individuals; as a war of all against all (Wendt, 1992: 400). In order to escape this situation, rational individuals would hypothetically agree to a social contract, whereby an absolute leader would bring about a peaceful and harmonized society, within a demarcated area (Agnew, 1994: 61). Outside this demarcated area the war of all against all continuous, forcing the state survival through military means (Wendt, 1992: 410). This perception of distrust among states makes international collaboration nearly impossible, as states have to continuously be aware to be attacked by other states (Wendt, 1992: 400). The idea of the social contract developed into a new political potential that would significantly contribute in the consolidation of the Westphalian state system as an dominant political paradigm.

The second contribution was the peace of Westphalia and the effective application of sovereignty in political practice. The logic that the social contract brought about, i.e. sovereignty, turned out to be a useful political mechanism to end conflict temporarily at the time. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, concluded the Thirty Years wars by giving way to the idea of state sovereignty for the first time in history (Jönsson et al. 2000: 65). The rulers agreed to respect each other’s authority and religious freedom, making sovereignty the new accepted norm in the arrangement of international affairs (Ruggie, 1993: 163). Sovereignty can best be understood as “the rightful entitlement to exclusive, unqualified and supreme rule

(20)

19

within a delimited territory”, rapidly transformed the political reality (McGrew, 2014: 24). The Peace of Westphalia symbolized the rapidly expanding acceptance of sovereignty as the new norm for political rule.

The Westphalian state system thereby effectively allowed sovereignty to become a powerful expression of political rule. Sovereignty consists of three elements: territory, absolute authority and the monopoly of violence. As the logic of the social contract already showed, a territorial demarcation is required to separate internal from external state affairs (Walker, 1990: 11). Within this territorially defined area, the state has the absolute, meta-political

authority, to create law and order as well as to bring about harmonization in society (Agnew,

1994: 61; Thomson, 1995: 214). Through the agreement of the Peace of Westphalia, this internal, sovereign authority of ruler became mutually recognized by one another (idem: 60). This intersubjective understanding between other sovereign rulers, the system of sovereignty became a powerful new norm in perceiving political rule (Wendt, 1992: 412). The Westphalian state system is thus built upon mutual recognition of one another’s sovereign position, putting it in a powerful position against other forms of political rule at the time (ibid.). Finally, the monopoly of violence offered states the coercive ability to obtain an absolute position within the territorial confines of the state, to secure law and order (Walker, 1990: 6). Externally, it was responsible for the maintenance of the military and fighting wars (Wendt, 1992: 415). The logic of sovereignty rapidly popularized the logic of the social contract as the new idea on how political rule should look like.

The final component that strengthened the position of the Westphalian state system is the

Enlightenment. The period of the Enlightenment marked the systematic efforts to bring

progress along the lines of liberal thought and the use of reason (Ruggie, 1993: 145). Especially on the level of politics and morality, the Enlightenment crafted a powerful belief in liberal progress towards the future (Pagden, 2013: vi). How can we live together as free and equal individuals was the core political question in this search for progress, that found resonance with the logic of the social contract that was formulated a couple of decades before (Brennan & Tomassi, 2012: 1). The view of popular sovereignty, the civil society and nation-state were all originating within this period, thereby underscoring the idea of sovereignty as the most affective political instrument at the time. These three steps crafted the powerful belief that the Westphalian state system, through sovereign nation-states were strong answer in making liberal progress.

(21)

20

This section showed how the Westphalian state system became the dominant paradigm upon which modern the modern political thinking along the lines of sovereign nation-states is constructed (Walker, 2003: 276). It was effectively put into place as an answer to feudalism by three contributions. First, the social contract logic of Hobbes, whereby absolute authority within demarcated borders was a necessity to bring about stability. Second, by the Peace of Westphalia, which allowed sovereignty to become the mutually accepted form of political rule. And finally, the Enlightenment which connected the idea of the social contract and sovereignty to the idea of liberal progress. It is now important to turn over to the central question of this chapter: how is the invention of the Westphalian state system affecting the idea of cosmopolitanism. It will answer this by first looking at perception of Aristotle’s communal life in cities and then turn over to universalistic thinking in cosmopolitanism.

3.2 ‘The polis’ and ‘the nation-state’

The changing political perception brought about by the Westphalian state system had a significant impact on the original Aristotelian perception of politics. The new political authority of sovereign states affected the initial perception of politics on two levels, namely through the creation of the nation-state and individually. The former was the idea that came about through the logic of the social contract that states were the only actors to create a harmonized society (Agnew, 1994: 61). The meta-political authority of states not only positioned them as the absolute authority, it also allowed them to determine what belonged to the realm of political authority and what did not (Thomson, 1995: 214). This rapidly expanded the authority of sovereign states into new areas of influence to regulate and manage activities in economic, social and cultural terms (ibid.; Taylor, 1994: 154-7). The sovereign state became a powerful new political actor.

The emergence of the civil society confirmed the belief that states felt the need to harmonize their populations. The need to do so started as a self-interested one: to be able to extract taxation and loyalty in times of war against other states. Through what Tilly (1994: 137-8) calls “programs of normative indoctrination”, individuals became actively taught to be citizens of the state. Nationalism became a political tool that can be used as a mechanism to win sentiment and loyalty around the institution of the state and ‘their homeland’ (Breuilly, 1982: 352; Taylor, 1994: 151). This creation of sentiment went so far that people had to be willing to die for the survival of the state if necessary in times of war (Anderson, 2016: 7). A

(22)

21

widespread belief originated that ‘the harmonization of society’ could only happen by creating equal citizens, all adhering to a common system of beliefs and practices (Onuf, 1991: 439). The civil society became the expression of the cohesive link between the state and the rational individuals living within them, making the ‘nation-state’ a common concept in the Westphalian state system.

This construction of the sovereign nation-state overthrew other forms of political rule that where based on the city. Prior to the widespread agreement of state sovereignty, there was ambiguity over what political rule entailed after the disability of feudalism to respond to new dynamics. Three candidates were competing each other, namely states, cities and city leagues (Jönsson et al. 2000: 41). City leagues were created to smoothen trading relations between cities, which were regarded as the centers of economic interaction (Barber, 2013: 60). Ultimately, sovereign states turned out to be the most effective political answer, especially when states actively started to interfere with economic interactions (Taylor, 1994: 154-5). The ability to protect, as well as nourish trade relations gave them an advantage as opposed to the city-based forms of political rule. After the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, city leagues ultimately dissolved as they were outrun by the sovereign state as the new political norm (Jönsson et al. 2000: 70). With all other forms of political rule defeated or suppressed within the realms of sovereign nation-states, the idea of sovereignty rapidly expanded to become a universal norm of political rule (Wendt, 1992: 412). The Westphalian state system was the only accepted form of political rule left.

On the level of the individual, this sovereign nation-state rapidly replaced the idea of Aristotle as an essential part of individual life into an imagined community. The idea that civil society offers freedom and equality for individuals expanded into a growing number of additional realms, such as social, cultural and economic activities (Taylor: 1994: 152). The institutions within the state were focused on making the individual actively aware of its dependence upon the nation-state as well as activating its loyalty and national sentiment (Breuilly, 1982: 352). What started as a merely as a strategic move of differentiation, rapidly turned into a natural position of the nation-state in the lives of individuals (Ruggie, 1993: 148). The nation-state became an imagined community, where an artificial bond was crafted between fellow-citizens, who do not know each other and who will not meet each other, but who are deeply connected by the symbolic value of their communion (Anderson, 2016: 7). As a result, the Aristotelian idea that communal, everyday life mattered became subordinated by national

(23)

22

programs and institutions, turning cities into an irrelevant attachment, unimportant for understanding the position of the individual in modern political rule (Dahl, 1967: 955). Consequently, the idea of what happiness entailed for the individual started to change as well. As a citizen of the nation-state the mutual expectancy is created that individuals contribute to the progress of the state, predominantly in economic terms, through taxation (Taylor, 1994: 155). No longer, individuals were expected to question what was regarded as valuable in life, as the civil society decides that for them (Bielskis, 2008: 87). The individual pursuit of happiness or quest for the good life is predefined by society, by being born in it and by actively contributing to the progress of the nation-state. As Viroli (1992: 476) observes “[t]he ideological triumph of reason of state inaugurated the “modern” as opposed to the “ancient” understanding of politics”. Aristotle’s deeper meaning of the polis, became overwhelmed by the powerful newly agreed upon standard of the sovereign nation-state.

This section answered the question how the Westphalian state system affected the original perception of communal life by Aristotle as part of cosmopolitanism. It showed that the meta-political authority of the sovereign state allowed them to expand into initially non-meta-political realms, such as economic, social and cultural affairs. By doing so, the idea of the nation-state and a domestic civil society were popularized, allowing nation-states to be regarded as self-evident and naturally feeling political institutions. This idea of an imagined community entirely subordinated the perception of individual pursuit of happiness or a well-lived life, as was originally formulated by Aristotle. Political rule took a decisive turn away from the everyday life of the polis. But the invention of the Westphalian state system also impacted cosmopolitanism in a second way, by the reformulation of what universalism meant in cosmopolitanism.

3.3 Cosmopolitanism and the Westphalian impact

In this section, the question is how the universalist thinking in cosmopolitanism became affected by the invention of the Westphalian state system. The social contract and the idea of sovereignty were fruitful new perception on how to envision political rule, that were further expanded during the Enlightenment. The most influential thinker that helped connected cosmopolitanism to the Westphalian state system was Immanuel Kant (Held, 2010: 41). Kant played an active part in the ambitions of the Enlightenment to bring liberal progress for

(24)

23

humanity at large through the Westphalian state system (Fine & Cohen, 2002: 139). The most famous writing on cosmopolitanism is Perpetual Peace (1795). It was a response contemporary peace agreement (Treaty of Basel) that brought an end to one of the many wars between sovereign rulers at the time (Lutz-Bachmann, 1997: 60). Kant was pessimistic with the agreement, and regarded it as a mere ‘suspension of hostilities’, instead of a serious attempt to create a structural form of peaceful coexistence among sovereign nation-states (Fine & Cohen, 2002: 141; Bohman & Lutz-Bachmann, 1997: 1). Accordingly, Kant advocated in his Perpetual Peace that such everlasting peace could come about by reviving the ancient logic of cosmopolitanism.

Through this revival, Kant brought cosmopolitanism and the logic of the Westphalian state system together. In doing so, he crafted the belief that there is a possibility to bring cosmopolitanism about through the particularistic focus of the sovereign nation-state (Walker, 1990: 10). The kind of cosmopolitanism Kant had in mind, could be understood as a universal community of world-citizens (Held, 2010: 2). Through cosmopolitan law, every human being would have entitlements to have uncoerced dialogue with the rest of the world, creating a form of hospitality towards those outside one’s own community (Reiss, 1991: 26). By accepting the Hobbesian logic of the social contract as given, Kant accepted the internal and external divide as a normatively self-evident aspect of human coexistence. As a result, the belief was crafted that individuals could potentially live under the same cosmopolitan framework of thinking, but only as citizens of sovereign nation-states (Walker, 1990: 10). Kant had to significantly readjust cosmopolitanism into the logic of the Westphalian state system. In three ways, this differed from the logic of the Stoic cosmopolitanism. First, the inherent logic that every human being is part of a universal community of mankind got sidelined by a new moral claim of the social contract, prioritizing national citizens above those outside of the community of the nation-state. Every indivdiual human being was still part of the universal community of mankind, but it did not receive any immediate political relevance. As it was not perceived as possible to make progress beyond the realm of the sovereign nation-state (Walker, 2003: 11). Cosmopolitanism became a desire, a trajectory towards progress, where mutual coexistence of different communities could potentially be possible.

(25)

24

When we relate this with the three criteria on cosmopolitanism from chapter two, there are some problems to observe. First, the principle of egalitarian individualism becomes of secondary importance, as individuals are initially born as citizens of the nation-state (Held, 2010: 43). As Kant starts with the social contract logic as pre-defined condition, the fact that humans belong to a community of mankind as a mere attachment. Second, with regards to ‘reciprocal recognition’, national citizens are prioritized over those who do not belong to the imagined political community of fellow-citizens (idem: 45). Third, impartial reasoning –rules and principles allowing individuals to interact in public interaction and discussions – was very weakly defined (idem: 47). Whereas it was Kant’s idea that people could potentially interact with each other freely, they would have to do so as part of citizens from different communities. The message that humans naturally belonged to a universal community of mankind would not be backed up by any political power, making it significantly reduced in strength. The Westphalian reformulation differed significantly from the strong form of Stoic cosmopolitanism.

The position of warfare in Kant’s cosmopolitan ideal is a second important change brought about in the work of Kant. As section 3.1 showed, Hobbes had a quite pessimistic view on interstate progress, due to the existence of anarchy beyond the sovereignty of the nation-state. Kant was more optimistic however, as he believed that cooperation and cosmopolitan regulation could ultimately bring an end to warfare forever (Fine & Cohen, 2008: 142-3). “The ultimate problem of politics” was to find peaceful human coexistence on the earth, with cosmopolitan law as an effective legal standard to secure this (Bohman & Lutz-Bachmann, 1997: 1; Reiss, 1991: 33). The position of warfare was a remarkable one however, as Kant thereby followed the Hobbesian logic as well, observable in the following words: “war […] does not require any particular kind of motivation, for it seems to be ingrained in human nature” (Nussbaum, 1997: 18-9). Kant accepted warfare as natural thing, whereas his optimism towards progress would suggest differently.

This perception of Kant turns out to be very important in the perception of warfare within cosmopolitanism. By accepting the logic of the social contract, the monopoly of violence became an accepted norm norm between sovereign nation-states in Kant’s cosmopolitan thinking. In one of his previous writings Kant proposed that all standing armies had to be abolished, but it failed due to a major dilemma (Nussbaum, 1997: 18-9). Either Kant had to change the logic newly accepted view that sovereign nation-states were having the ability to

(26)

25

fight wars and maintain an army independently, as part of their fear against external oppression. Or Kant had to find a solution elsewhere, outside the realm of the nation-state. Obviously, Kant choose the second, whereby the mutually accepted norm that sovereign nation-states were allowed to maintain armies against external oppression was even further embedded. Partly by Kant’s decision to accept sovereignty as a taken-for-granted norm, it is nowadays so difficult to look beyond the use of military force as an accepted norm (Wendt, 1992: 413; Walker, 1990: 6). Kant’s choice, transferred the abolition of war towards an ultimate cosmopolitan ambition, whereas the use of military means by nation-states remained an inherent and entirely unchallenged element of the Westphalian state system.

Third, the logic of the Westphalian state system significantly altered the overall perception of progress towards future politics. With the social contract and sovereignty as building blocks in the cosmopolitanism of Kant, the idea of future possibilities are severely reduced (Walker, 2010: 14). Kant’s cosmopolitanism was part of a tripartite framework, whereby he believed that domestic, interstate and cosmopolitan law were crucial in order to bring about cosmopolitanism (Brown, 2010: 55). Cosmopolitan law was thereby regarded as “a necessary complement to codes of existing national and international law” (Held, 2010: 43). It corresponds with the Westphalian state system’s logic of internal and external affairs. As such, through the work of Kant, cosmopolitanism became converted into a Westphalian state system trajectory, where “the grand march” of towards cosmopolitanism has to take place in. The role of the sovereign nation-state within the achievement of universality thereby became regarded as a self-evident starting point towards cosmopolitan progress (Walker, 2003: 276). Kant crafted the belief that if cosmopolitanism would ever come about, it had to be within the Westphalian state system.

In this section, the aim was to understand how cosmopolitanism became affected by the invention of the Westphalian state system. The transformation resolved predominantly around the work of Immanuel Kant, who aligned cosmopolitanism with the logic of the social contract and the sovereign nation-state. In doing so, he brought about three important changes. First, the moral value of the nation-state, where individual human beings were belonging to, was prioritized over the individual belonging to a universal community of humankind. Second, while Kant prioritized the abolishment of warfare, he accepted the monopoly of violence as a given norm in Westphalian politics. Kant was forced to convert the abolition of war into a cosmopolitan ideal, whereas the sovereign’s ability to be involved in

(27)

26

military practices remained an accepted mutually accepted norm. Third, Kant constructed the belief that cosmopolitanism could only come about within the Westphalian state system. In overall, this shows that cosmopolitanism is significantly weakened in universal moral strength by the invention of the Westphalian state system.

In answering the question that was central in this chapter - how is cosmopolitanism affected by the invention of the Westphalian state system – several conclusions can be drawn. First, that the Westphalian state system symbolizes the new framework of political thinking through sovereign nation-states. This novel perception of politics meant that Aristotle’s view of politics – of the polis as a symbol for communal life and immediate politics – was completely replaced. Instead, the imagined community nation-state was the novel sphere within which the individual could be free and happy (Anderson, 2016: 6). Lastly, it was Immanuel Kant who constructed the belief that within this Westphalian state system cosmopolitan progress could potentially take place. To make this possible, Kant altered the idea that human beings belonged to a universal fraternity of human beings naturally, in order to bring it in agreement with the logic of the Westphalian state system. Now that we understand how cosmopolitanism became affected by the logic of the Westphalian state system, the next step is to turn over to the era of globalization. And find an answer to the question: why is this Westphalian form of cosmopolitanism so problematic that it requires us to rethink it nowadays?

(28)

27

4 Cosmopolitanism in the Era of Globalization

In the previous chapters we have seen how the Westphalian state system constructed an innovative, powerful moral and political reality that subordinated the original view of cosmopolitanism. Why this modern Westphalian logic towards cosmopolitanism is becoming problematic nowadays is under inquiry now. The question central in this fourth chapter is: why is it necessary to rethink cosmopolitanism beyond the sovereign nation-state? It will do so in three steps. The first section will discuss the fundamental changes in the era of globalization that increasingly demand us to find political solutions in responding to these innovations. The second section will question how these changes are perceived in the still dominant Westphalian state system and how this affects the position of the sovereign nation-state as the primary political unit. In the third section, we come back to the ambition to develop towards cosmopolitanism, which turns out to be persistent paradox in the Westphalian state system. These three sections allows us to come to the conclusion that it is necessary to rethink cosmopolitanism beyond the sovereign nation-state in the era of globalization to complete the cosmopolitan conquest.

4.1 Fundamental change in the era of globalization

The era of globalization generates a whole new political, socio-economic and technological reality that allow for mental changes that might ultimately lead to political innovations. On numerous levels, the resonance of McGrew’s (2014: 20) perception that globalization brings about fundamental change or transformation is observable. The growing impact of global issues, such as climate change and ecological degradation (Dryzek, 2014, 940), structural economic and social inequality (Held, 2010: 294; Evans & Thomas, 2014: 431) and the recurrence of warfare (Walker, 1990: 24), bring about a realization that the era of globalization is an irreversible process that requires collective action (Rosenau, 1999: 1015). Beyond the realization of these global issues, there are additional changes that signify the fundamental new period that the era of globalization brings about. Some of the most influential are: changes at the level of the individual, changes at the level of experiencing globalization; through glocalization, the predicted growth of cities and their importance and the growing role of networks in the organization of human interactions. Below each of these are discussed in more detail.

(29)

28

In the first place, the lives of individual human beings are undergoing drastic changes on multiple levels, giving way to changing mental perceptions. Rosenau (1999: 1005) distinguishes between three extensive changes in the lives of individuals: individual skills have developed, individuals can organize and identify themselves with people all over the world and individuals are more mobile than ever before. These three transformations allow individuals to perceive the world differently, to understand the era of globalization through their own experiences and insights. It allows for new “spatial, metaphysical and doctrinal constructs through which the visualization of collective existence on the planet is shaped” (Ruggie, 1993: 173). The ability to visualize the demands for a new era of globalization drastically alter the perception and the position of the individual.

This transformation of individual perceptions is one of the primary reasons why cosmopolitanism is so popular nowadays. It is through this freedom that people start to develop cosmopolitan ways of thinking, beyond the realm of moral-political cosmopolitanism. The feeling of being a world-citizen, the practices and habits through which an individual can feel connected with the rest of the world, all allow for a bewildering amount of applications of the label of cosmopolitanism (Vertovec & Cohen, 2008: 8-14). Individuals can take matter in their own hands by doing something to tackle looming global issues by small local actions. The era of globalization offer individuals opportunities to behave differently than before.

These observations of the growing impact of individuals brings us to the second change: the growing experience of globalization as glocalization. Glocalization can be defined as “the refraction of the effects of globalization through the local”, and vice versa (Roudometof, 2016: 403). The growing interconnection and interdependence among societies is imbricating local and global affairs, allowing local levels to grow in influence (Held, 2010: 296; Walker, 1990: 3). Where local level interaction among was overshadowed by the power of nation-states, such ‘micro-level interactions’ are now increasingly coming to the fore and can have global consequences (Rosenau, 1999: 1007). A well-known illustration is the phrase ‘think globally, act locally’, where local levels can make a difference in changing global affairs (El-Ojeili & Hayden, 2006: 146). Glocalization is growing in influence, and allows previously unimportant actors to become increasingly involved in making a difference on the global level.

The cosmopolitan conquest : finding cosmopolitan change in the era of globalization