Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship

Abstract

The author argues that we have obligations to our fellow citizens as well as to those outside our community. Since these obligations can conflict and since neither automatically trumps the other, the author provides the general principles needed to resolve the conflict. While rejecting the notion of global citizenship, he argues for a globally oriented national citizenship and spells out its political and institutional implications.

Embedded Cosmopolitanism and the Politics of Obligation: The Ghanaian Diaspora and Development

“…This discussion of the state, migration and development shows that focusing on the 'space of flows' can underplay the significance of territorialised spaces, particularly the purview of the state. The state is still an important, if not the preeminent, site of identity formation (Parekh, 1996) and transnational communities are linked to states in both imagined and material ways (Smith, 2001). As Radcliffe (2004: 523) warns "however decentred, fluid and mobile the state has become in neoliberal capitalist times, its position as key actor and power broker in questions of citizen participation and development remains highly significant".…”

“…I also argue, following Gibson-Graham (2004), that different logics can co-exist simultaneously even if for heuristic purposes I have differentiated them in what follows. The question of obligation within current discussions of development (UNDP, 2000) tend to stress legalistic rights, which oblige certain institutions to deliver public goods and reflect more general debates focusing on obligations as obeyance of the law (Parekh, 1996).…”

Toward a Critical Multilingualism in Canadian Classrooms: Making Local Inroads into a Cosmopolitan Identity

“…Despite an abundance of cosmopolitanisms, one element that they share is that all humans should see themselves as members of one community, one group, and that this community should be nurtured and protected. Furthermore, I emphasize my leaning toward Appiah's (2006) rooted cosmopolitanism, which deviates from conceptualizations that assume that cosmopolitans are "voluntary exiles" (Nussbaum, 2008;Parekh, 2003) with no local community allegiances. Despite some perspectives that argue for the contrary, cosmopolitanism also allows people to draw on the country of origin as a source of identity.…”

“…Many prominent contemporary thinkers have engaged with cosmopolitanism and related concepts (Appadurai, 2000;Appiah, 2006;Beck, 2002a;Cheah & Robbins, 1998;Mignolo, 2000Mignolo, , 2006Mignolo, , 2010Nussbaum, 2008;Parekh, 2003;Pollock et al, 2002). However, the focus of this article allows me to al-locate space for only a brief mention of some of their perspectives without fully articulating the theories of anyone in particular.…”

“…Global citizenship is most often used as a substitute term for cosmopolitanism, but this concept too is often rejected given its untenable implication of a global state. Parekh (2003), for example, makes a strong case for the use of globally oriented citizen in its place. This term, he posits, does not imply the formation of a global state, yet it retains some of the most desirable elements of cosmopolitanism, namely, the recognition of and interest in all humankind.…”