Postnational? Is an Instructive Piece

¶ … Postnational?" is an instructive piece on the tripwires associated with cosmopolitanism. That is, it explores the limitations innate to arguing that the world would be better off if it was less nationalistic, particularistic, traditional, etc., and more universally connected via democratization, idealistic globalization (globalization without the baggage), and a shared sense of morality.

(One could also suggest that it's not a matter of "would be" but a matter of "is," i.e., the world is better off because it is increasingly becoming a cosmopolitan global community -- and Calhoun is debunking the axiomatic acceptance of this way of reasoning.)

Calhoun shows the reader that there is a cost to transforming to a global community. There is an underbelly to the forces (globalization) and instruments (the Internet) that propel us toward a cosmopolitan utopia. For one thing, as Calhoun points out via his invocation of Pierre Bourdieu, "Unification benefits the dominant." Now, Calhoun also correctly qualifies this statement by saying that those in power don't always benefit at the expense of those who are not in power. In other words, there can be instances where unification both improves the lives of those in power as well as those who are not in power.

Nevertheless, it will almost always benefit the dominant class, regardless of what happens to those who are relatively powerless. This leaves the door open for a society that continues to reinforce stratification along class lines. And in cases where unification fails to improve the social station for all members of society, it often compels individuals who are not in power to seek refuge in traditional schools of thought and to take solidarity in nationalistic or particularistic values. Obviously, when this happens, when individuals who are being steered toward a global community are resistant and become more entrenched in their traditionalist ways, it subverts the cosmopolitan agenda.

Calhoun also shows that cosmopolitanism, as an ideal, is not the polar opposite of nationalism. He points out that here is a constitutive relationship between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. That is cosmopolitanism is not the absence of nationalistic proclivities, rather it is informed by it's own subset(s) of cultural, social, and political biases (there's a great analogy secularism vs. different religions that underscores this relationship). In other words, cosmopolitanism wasn't formed in a vacuum, it was/is wrought by and often perpetuated by well-heeled aristocrats, liberal idealists, and academic elites -- all of whom have their own subjective view of the world that, at times, contradicts or undermines the views of the people they claim would benefit from a global community.

In a sense, those who embrace and push for a cosmopolitan ideal are blind to the needs and sensibilities of the working class. This is often true in politics. For example, one often wonders why so many poor and working class people vote Republican in the U.S., when it's clear to any objective bystander that Republicans are the party of big business and corporations. Many claim that those economically disadvantage folk who vote Republican are voting against their own self-interests, opting to elect officials who will lobby against collective bargaining and union benefits. Nevertheless, and despite overwhelming evidence to support that theory, poor people, working class people continue to vote Republican. The reasons for this phenomenon is that liberal/democratic agenda has certain blind spots when it comes to recognizing the needs of real, working class people. The liberal agenda, the democratic agenda, is a "We know what's best for you" agenda. And many individuals recognize this and rebel against it, even if it's at their own peril.

Likewise, supporters of cosmopolitanism carry an air of "we know what's best for you" type attitude. This is destructive because, as with liberalism, it appears haughty to those who could actually benefit from global harmony and intervention.

So, to recap three major points discussed in Calhoun's article: (a) cosmopolitanism benefits the dominant (not exclusively) (b) cosmopolitanism is often supported by people who have their own particular political, social, and cultural sensibilities (c) it carries with it a "we know what's best for you" type attitude that can be unattractive to would-be converts.

Discussion question #1

Will the world ever really become postnational?

As countries continue to become more industrialized, more technologically advanced, more connected globally, will national and regional allegiances ever completely recede or become subordinate to the universal order?