World Citizens on the Periphery: Threat and Identification with Global Society

Abstract

Who identifies as a world citizen? Many scholars argue that transnational connections are the primary conduits for global cultural diffusion and, therefore, that affluent residents of the densely connected global core should be the most likely to identify with global society. However, empirical studies have shown that global identification is common on the global periphery. We build on theories suggesting that individuals may emphasize expansive identities when particularistic identities fail to provide a sense of security in the face of threat. We argue that members of peripheral and marginalized groups express greater global identification because of the threat inherent in their precarious social positions. We show that (1) global identification is more common among residents of weaker and more repressive states, (2) members of repressed minority groups are more likely to identify with global society than co-nationals with collective access to state power, and (3) many residents of one weak state-Lebanon-expressed greater enthusiasm for global connection immediately following a terrorist attack.

Who Supports Global Cooperation? Cooperative Internationalism at the Intersection of Social Class and Economic Development

“…The handful of studies comparing cooperative internationalism between residents of core and peripheral countries are inconclusive but are more consistent with the idea that people form their interpretations of globalization based on local considerations. Most of these studies have found no difference in cooperativeinternationalist attitudes and global identification on the basis of country-level factors that include per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and various measures of economic, political, and social globalization (Zhou 2016), with a handful indicating that such attitudes may be more common on the global periphery (Gorman and Seguin 2018;Hurwitz et al 1993;Pichler 2011). Even fewer studies have systematically compared proglobal orientations between elites and non-elites in core and peripheral contexts, although Gorman and Seguin (2018) find that repressed minorities are often more likely to identify as world citizens.…”

“…Most of these studies have found no difference in cooperativeinternationalist attitudes and global identification on the basis of country-level factors that include per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and various measures of economic, political, and social globalization (Zhou 2016), with a handful indicating that such attitudes may be more common on the global periphery (Gorman and Seguin 2018;Hurwitz et al 1993;Pichler 2011). Even fewer studies have systematically compared proglobal orientations between elites and non-elites in core and peripheral contexts, although Gorman and Seguin (2018) find that repressed minorities are often more likely to identify as world citizens. Taken together, scholarship in this area suggests that people on the global periphery may use global connections to further their local goals, and may, therefore, be more supportive of international cooperation than once thought.…”

“…At the country level, whether through interpersonal contacts, embeddedness in global networks, economic development, or ideological hegemony, all suggest that people who live in developed, well-connected countries should be more likely to hold cooperative-internationalist orientations than those in developing countries on the global periphery. Despite the theoretical consistency of this expectation, results of empirical studies have been inconsistent, with different measures of cooperativeinternationalist attitudes having positive (Pichler 2009), negative (Gorman and Seguin 2018), null (Zhou 2016), or mixed (Pichler 2011) statistical relationships with various measures of development and global connection. Given its centrality to theory and mixed empirical support, whether residents of the global core are more proglobal remains a critical unanswered question.…”

“…Alternatively, some theories suggest that people interpret the benefits of global cooperation according to their perceptions of how it helps or hinders in reaching local goals. This research has tended to show that members of marginalized groups and those on the global periphery are no less likely-and perhaps more likely-to hold proglobal attitudes than elite conationals and residents of the densely connected global core (Gorman and Seguin 2018;Pichler 2011;Zhou 2016). Furthermore, there is ample evidence that rural, working class, and less-educated people in core countries are less likely to view international cooperation in a positive light than their urban-dwelling, wealthy, and highly educated conationals Hiscox 2006, 2007;Hurwitz and Peffley 1987;Mau et al 2008;Oldendick and Bardes 1982;Rössel and Schroedter 2015;Wittkopf 1986;Wittkopf and Maggiotto 1983).…”

“…Moreover, studies have shown that marginalized groups and those on the periphery use global networks and international organizations to advance their local political interests (Keck and Sikkink 1998;Paschel 2010;Tsutsui 2017Tsutsui , 2018. For example, self-identification as a "world citizen" is more common on the global periphery than in the developed core (Pichler 2011) as people in peripheral contexts look to the global order for protection or other aid (Gorman and Seguin 2018).…”