Since the end of the cold war and the advent of globalization, interest in cosmopolitanism, with its ideas of global justice and citizenship and the like, has been on the rise. Although cosmopolitanism is not new, it is easy to see why it has gripped the post-cold-war imagination. Cosmopolitan is a term often used to describe a citizen of the world: an enlightened individual who believes he or she belongs to a common humanity or world order rather than to a set of particular customs or traditions. Cosmopolitans consequently believe that peace among nation-states is possible only if they transcend their parochial identities and interests in the name of a global state or consciousness. To this extent cosmopolitanism appears democratic in spirit.
This inspiration for global community has its roots in classical antiquity, where politics was defined as being “based upon reason rather than patriotism or group sentiment.” The ideas of Zeno’s “cosmopolis,” Diogenes’ “citizen of the world,” and Cicero’s “common right of humanity” influenced modern thinkers who sought to reconcile the idea of a universal community with a specific one. For example, John Stuart Mill proposed patriotism eclaire as an alternative to nationality with the hope that, given the proper education, members of the human race would attain an ideal devotion not only to their countries but also to the world. More recently, Kwame Anthony Appiah made an appeal for a “cosmopolitan patriotism” that recognizes the need of belonging to a particular community as a necessary condition to transform cosmopolitan ideas into a desirable political project. Jurgen Habermas’s “constitutional patriotism” and Ulrich Beck’s “cosmopolitan nationalism” are other attempts to reconcile cosmopolitan values with national identity, whereas Will Kymlicka seeks a place and protection for minority rights in a cosmopolitan world.
Kant is often cited as the founder of modern cosmopolitanism. At the end of the eighteenth century, Kant wrote of the “cosmopolitan condition” as a rational necessity to link nations together so that “a violation of rights in one part of the world” would be “felt everywhere.” This idea of the cosmopolitan condition influenced subsequent thinkers in their conceptions of cosmopolitanism. In the nineteenth century, Hegel proclaimed that “a human being counts as such because he is a human being, not because he is a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Germany, Italian, etc.” and that this view was of “infinite importance.”
Later, Marx wrote of the predicted destruction of capitalism as a worldwide system, a destruction that would be the basis upon which a universal human emancipation and future association could be constructed. Durkheim, at the beginning of the twentieth century, looked forward to a “world patriotism” in which societies could “have their pride, not in being the greatest or the wealthiest,” but in being the most just, the best organized, and in processing the best moral constitution. In the 1970s Aaron wrote that the technological fusion of the world would be the infrastructure upon which humans could achieve a global unity in which “the dialectic of universality” would be “the mainspring of the march of history.” More recently, Ulrich Beck wrote of “the cosmopolitanism of reality” that currently exists because humanity faces global risks that threaten its survival.
For contemporary cosmopolitan theorists, a new methodology and theory are required to address these global risks. Because of globalization, where ideas, people, culture, institutions, and technologies have become global commodities in an integrated worldwide economy, new threats like terrorism, disease, and climate change pose a challenge not to just a few nation-states but to all people. Rather than approaching these problems from the perspective of the nation-state or from outdated forms of cosmopolitanism, contemporary cosmopolitan theorists call for a new methodology with universalism at its center. Treating the human species as a single subject, with its differences recognized but ultimately discarded for conceptual consistency, universalism equates itself with globalization. It is only now, when globalization has reached every corner in the world, that we can treat humanity as a single object of study by adopting a universalistic framework to understand and to evaluate ourselves.
International relations and law are two disciplines where cosmopolitan theorists have made inroads with their new theory and methodology. The realist paradigm and the idea of state sovereignty are replaced with cosmopolitan concepts. Traditionally both disciplines had seen the state as the ultimate legal and moral authority that reigns supreme both internally and externally. Cosmopolitan theorists look to international institutions and law to replace the sovereignty of the state, especially when it infringes upon its own citizens’ rights and freedom. They claim that the sovereignty of the state is a product of history rather than a permanent feature of the human condition: state sovereignty was the result of an international system that arose in the aftermath of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and not from some metaphysical reality. Although the Westphalian model is still operative today, that does not mean it cannot be changed, especially as international relations and law are being reconstructed because of the pressures of globalization.
Cosmopolitan theorists have also contributed to political theory, philosophy, and the social sciences in the revival of Kant’s ideas of a universal history and perpetual peace. Maintaining key elements of Kant’s thought, these theorists reconstruct his argument for our own times in the call for a citizenship based not on the state or nation but on the world. Not surprisingly, nationalism, and the social sciences that are built upon it, is a particular target of cosmopolitan theorists. The social sciences originally conceived of concepts like democracy, citizenship, and political community based on the nation-state. But in this globalized age, where “the ideals of citizenship clash with the sovereign nation-state in which they were first developed,” these concepts appear to be outdated and consequently no longer useful to explain and evaluate this new globalized reality. Unable to meet the pressures of globalization, concepts like democracy and citizenship must be transformed in order to have relevancy. Cosmopolitanism is the crucial step in transforming these concepts such that they will continue to possess importance.
This cosmopolitan vision—a universal and peaceful state that permits local attachments and tolerates minority rights—has dominated the discussion of global events and the conceptualization of ideas like democracy and citizenship. Although there have been critics of cosmopolitanism—Carl Schmitt, Jacques Ellul, Neil Postman, Wendell Berry, Mark Mitchell—these thinkers either call for a withdrawal from the world that is characterized by globalization or advocate a discredited ideology to replace it, such as fascism. There are also critics of cosmopolitanism that focus on the United States’ dominance of the global system and view the imposition of any Western values as a violation of non-Western cultures. These critics may have valid objections to cosmopolitanism; however, they do not have a realistic and engaged response to the contemporary reality of globalization and cosmopolitanism. Whether or not one favors cosmopolitanism, the reality is that it exists and one must confront rather than withdraw from it.
What this subject still needs is a critical account of cosmopolitanism that is both critical and engaged. It needs to be comprehensive in terms of both its breadth and its depth. The subject is important and dynamic enough to warrant an examination of a range of perhaps sometimes uncomfortable debates. This volume addresses the topic from its beginnings to its contemporary manifestations, as cosmopolitanism has had a long and variegated history.
This new and unique volume aims to provide a thorough and in-depth understanding of cosmopolitanism by bringing together the work of political scientists, philosophers, historians, and economists. It seeks to examine the concept of cosmopolitanism in historical, theoretical, and comparative contexts. In addition to the range of interpretations on the idea of cosmopolitanism, this volume supplies readers with self-contained essays that focus on specific thinkers or topics related to their interest, while also providing a clearer overview of the history and the debates that characterize the field of cosmopolitanism than is usually offered in the rapidly growing body of literature on the subject. It therefore will be possible to build a rich and diverse framework for a thoughtful analysis of cosmopolitan’s current claims and limits, which in turn will enable us to better identify and define it and develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of it.
The rationale behind this volume’s publication rests on two fundamental premises. The first is the growing relevance of cosmopolitanism today and for the foreseeable future. The complex economic, social, and political developments in our age of globalization have only intensified the revival of cosmopolitanism as an alternative to nationalism and patriotism. The various ways in which cosmopolitanism as a political and moral principle can be applied to politics and organizations have brought cosmopolitanism to the forefront of international and domestic debates in unprecedented ways. Even a glance at international and national politics today shows cosmopolitanism assuming a growing importance in understanding and managing political and religious conflict. As many nations around the world attempt a liberal reordering of their politics, cosmopolitanism is assuming renewed importance more than it ever has.
The second premise of this volume is that any attempt to confine such an inherently complex concept as cosmopolitanism to a single school of thought or discipline is deeply problematic. A history of the idea of cosmopolitanism reveals that it is the kind of political and philosophical concept that eludes a single, absolute, and authoritative definition. Cosmopolitanism is therefore bound to frustrate any attempt to establish a grand and universal theoretical system or political manifesto, even as it invites theoretical reflection upon the most fundamental questions about human life and politics. Consequently, this volume does not attempt to propose or defend a specific view of cosmopolitanism. While there is overlap and theoretical agreement among some of the contributors, no specific conception of cosmopolitanism or approach to it is established or defended. Since this volume seeks to reflect the range of thought on the subject, the essay authors have explored the meaning of cosmopolitanism in the thought of a specific thinker or topic from within their own specialties. The result is a volume of unparalleled scope and depth that includes the expertise of many specialists from a range of disciplines examining a variety of perspectives on cosmopolitanism, from its ancient beginnings to its contemporary conceptions.
Finally, this volume seeks to reacquaint contemporary debates on cosmopolitanism with the vast, but often neglected, primary sources found in the history of political, religious, and moral philosophy. There are parts and essays examining thinkers and topics ranging from classical Western antiquity and Christian and Islamic medieval political theology and philosophy to early and late modern political theory, history, and economics, as well as American and European approaches to cosmopolitanism. These essays approach familiar and often sterile ground from a fresh perspective and aim to introduce many overlooked thinkers and topics into the current thinking on cosmopolitanism. As we hope to demonstrate, cosmopolitan studies are characterized by disparate and often ignored theoretical sources.
By broadening and deepening the discussion, our aim is to complement our growing awareness of the concept of cosmopolitanism. The book is organized chronologically, and it aims to clarify the debate over cosmopolitanism as it relates to the themes of citizenship and globalization. Whereas much attention has been so far given to the political, economic, cultural, and technological aspects of contemporary globalization, very little has been written on the philosophical consequences of cosmopolitanism as a type of global citizenship. Such a historical perspective and critical approach is simply lacking today.
Part 1 explores cosmopolitanism in the classical Greek and Roman, medieval Christian, and Islamic worlds. Mary P. Nichols challenges Nussbaum’s contention that cosmopolitanism’s origins are Socratic, while Thomas Pangle examines Cicero’s and the Stoics’ rational account of cosmopolitanism and its influence in international politics. John von Heyking explores the limitations of Aquinas’s notion of natural law as a cosmopolitan concept and shows how Aquinas’s objections to Averroes’s philosophy are a continuation of the theme of cosmopolitanism. Khalil M. Habib turns to twelfth-century Islamic philosophy and provides a commentary on Ibn Tufayl’s reflections on cosmopolitanism in the philosophical romance Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, which embraces cosmopolitanism in the individual soul but questions its possibility on the political level.
Part 2 focuses on the modern and contemporary accounts of cosmopolitanism. Mary P. Nichols looks at the dangers of embracing Kant’s philosophy of progressive history as well as the difficulties in discovering alternatives to it. Richard Velkley shows how Hegel’s philosophy, as influenced by Socrates’ daimon, makes him neither a liberal nor a cosmopolitan, as many critics claim. Michael Palmer demonstrates how Heidegger’s existential philosophy is radically committed to an anticosmopolitan politics, thereby indicting what is questionable about the cosmopolitan project. Gaelan Murphy focuses on the neglected aspects of aesthetic cultivation and economic arrangements in Kojeve’s philosophy of cosmopolitanism and empire. And Lee Trepanier explores Derrida’s philosophy of deconstructionism as a way to negotiate the debate between cosmopolitan and democratic theorists on the question of citizenship, democracy, and political community.
Part 3 examines cosmopolitanism in the regime of the United States. Luigi Bradizza argues that James Madison rejected cosmopolitanism and instead promoted civic attachments through a common national political memory. Joseph R. Fornieri examines Lincoln’s reflective patriotism as an alternative response to both nationalism and cosmopolitanism. L. Joseph Hebert Jr. deals with the United States and Tocqueville, who, as a follower of Cicero, shows the necessity of natural right for the American regime, distinguishing Tocqueville from contemporary cosmopolitan liberals.
Part 4, “Practical Cosmopolitanism,” examines the political project of cosmopolitanism as it exists today. From the vantage point of Tocqueville, Paul Seaton discusses Manent’s critique of the European Union as a cosmopolitan project and the problems inherent in it. In the final essay, Brian Domitrovic looks at Mundell’s economic account of cosmopolitanism as a monetary policy that produces an ironic result, where larger countries believe themselves to be masters of their own economic destinies.
Any attempt to encapsulate an idea as broad and multifaceted as cosmopolitanism within the constraints placed even on a comprehensive volume of this nature confronts certain limitations. We simply cannot include every conceivable topic and thinker who has ever thought about or written on cosmopolitanism. If this volume encourages scholars and students to consult the specific thinkers and the works examined here and to reflect upon their findings, it will have fulfilled its purpose. By offering a close examination of many conceptions of cosmopolitanism from the past to the present, this volume strives to mirror, as much as possible, the complexity of the subject to which it is devoted.
We would like to thank Lou Lehrman and Kelly Hanlon for their support in this project.
 Martha Nussbaum, “Kant and Cosmopolitanism,” in Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohrman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997), 25–58; also refer to Martha Nussbaum, “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism,” Journal of Political Philosophy 1 (1991): 1–25.
 David Hollinger, “Not Universalists, Not Pluralists: The New Cosmopolitans Find Their Own Way,” Constellations 8, no. 2 (2001): 236–48. For more about cosmopolitanism in classical antiquity, refer to Daniel S. Richter, Cosmopolis: Imaging Community in Late Classical Athens and the Early Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011). The specific references can be located in Cicero On Duties (De Officiis) 3.6.27–32; and Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6.63, 6.1.
 John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2009).
 Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Cosmopolitan Patriots,” in For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Cosmopolitanism, ed. Joshua Cohen (Boston: Beacon, 1996), 21–29.
 Jurgen Habermas, The Postnational Constellations: Political Essays, ed. Max Pensky (Cambridge: Polity, 2001), 74–76; Ulrich Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision (Cambridge: Polity, 2006), 49; Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
 Immanuel Kant, Kant: Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), 107–8.
 Georg Hegel, Philosophy of Right, ed. Allen Wood, trans. H.B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), 209.
 Emile Durkheim, Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, trans. Cornelia Brookfield (New York: Routledge, 1992), 74–75; Raymond Aaron, Progress and Disillusion (New York: Penguin, 1972), 4–5.
 Ulrich Beck, “The Cosmopolitan Manifesto,” New Statesman 20 (1998): 38–50, quoted phrase on 38; also refer to Ulrich Beck, “Towards a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent,” Constellations 10, no. 4 (2003): 435–68; Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision.
 For examples, refer to Daniele Archibugi, David Held, and Martin Kohler., eds., Re-imaging in Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracies (Cambridge: Polity, 1998); David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds., Governing Globalization (Oxford: Polity, 2002); Carol Breckenridge and Sheldon Pollock, eds., Cosmopolitanism (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press, 2002); Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen, Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003); Daniele Archibugi, Cosmopolitics (London: Verso, 2004).
 Lawrence Douglas, The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 2001); Pavlos Eletheriadis, “Cosmopolitan Law,” European Law Journal 9 (2003): 241–63; David Hirsch, “Cosmopolitan Law: Agency and Narrative,” in Law and Sociology, ed. Michael Freeman (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006); Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice (New York: Penguin, 2006); Philippe Sands, Lawless World: Making and Breaking Global Rules (New York: Penguin, 2006).
 Jens Bartelson, The Critique of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001); Chris Brown, “Kantian Cosmopolitan Law and the Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution,” History of Political Thought 27, no. 4 (2006): 661–84; Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of the Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Oxford: Polity, 1998).
 Martha Nussbaum, For Love of Country (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996); Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “Cosmopolitanism and the Circle of Reason,” Political Theory 28, no. 5 (2000): 619–39; William E. Connolly, “Speed, Concentric Cultures, and Cosmopolitanism,” Political Theory 28, no. 5 (2000): 596–618; Sharon Anderson-Gold, Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights (Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press, 2001); Jacques Derrida, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2001); Catherine Lu, The Political Theory of Global Citizenship (New York: Routledge, 2001); Carol A. Breckenridge, Homi K. Bhabha, and Sheldon Pollock, eds., Cosmopolitanism (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press, 2002); Fred Dallmayr, “Cosmopolitanism: Moral and Political,” Political Theory 31, no. 3 (2003): 421–42; Simon Learmount, Robin Cohen, and Steven Vertovec, eds., Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003); Kok-Chor Tan, Russell Hardin, and Ian Shapiro, eds., Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004); Arash Abizadeh, “Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged Incoherence of Global Solidarity,” American Political Science Review 99, no. 1 (2005): 46–60; Harry Brighouse, ed. The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005); Jennifer Mitzen, “Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and the Global Public Sphere,” American Political Science Review 99, no. 3 (2005): 401–17; Seyla Benhabib and Robert Post, eds., Another Cosmopolitanism: Hospitality, Sovereignty, and Democratic Iterations (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006); Jurgen Habermas, The Divided West (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006); Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (New York: Norton, 2007); Costas Douzinas, Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (New York: Routledge, 2007); Robert Fine, Cosmopolitanism (Oxford: Taylor and Francis, 2007); Mica Nava, Visceral Cosmopolitanism: Gender, Culture, and the Normalisation of Difference (Gordonsville, VA: Berg, 2007); James D. Ingram, “What Is a ‘Right to Have Rights’? Three Images of the Politics of Human Rights,” American Political Science Review 102, no. 4 (2008): 401–16; David Harvey, Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2009); Robert J. Holton, Cosmopolitanisms: New Thinking and New Directions (Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave, 2009); Stan van Hooft, Cosmopolitanism: A Philosophy for Global Ethics (Montreal: McGill-Queens Univ. Press, 2009); Pnina Werbner, ed. Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism: Rooted, Feminist, and Vernacular Perspectives (Gordonsville, VA: Berg, 2009).
 Jurgen Habermas, Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge: Polity, 1998); Habermas, Postnational Constellations; Immanuel Kant, Political Essays, ed. Hans Reiss (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991); Robert Fine, Political Investigations: Hegel, Marx, Arendt (London: Routledge, 2001); Nussbaum, For Love of Country; Otfried Hoffe, Kant’s Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
 Perhaps the most famous recent critique of nationalism from a cosmopolitan perspective can be found in the works of Ulrich Beck: Beck, “Cosmopolitan Manifesto”; Ulrich Beck, Democracy without Enemies (Cambridge: Polity, 1998); Ulrich Beck, “The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity,” British Journal of Sociology 51, no. 1 (2000): 79–105; Ulrich Beck, The Brave New World of Work (Cambridge: Polity, 2000); Ulrich Beck, What Is Globalization? (Cambridge: Polity, 2000); Ulrich Beck, “The Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies,” Theory, Culture, and Society 19, no. (2002): 17–45; Beck, “Towards a New Critical Theory; Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision. However, this cosmopolitan critique of nationalism has its roots in Anthony Giddens, The Class Structure of Advanced Societies (London: Hutchinson, 1973); and Herminio Martins, “Time and Theory in Sociology,” in Approaches to Sociology, ed. John Rex (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974), 194–246.
 Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision, 49; Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000); Gerard Delanty, Citizenship in a Global Age (Buckingham: Open Univ. Press, 2000). This has prompted a debate between democratic and cosmopolitan theorists about what should be the basis of democracy. Refer to Nussbaum, For Love of Country; David Held, “The Transformation of the Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization,” in Democracy’s Edges, ed. I. Shapiro and C. Hacker-Cordon (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998); A. McGrew, ed. The Transformation of Democracy? Democratic Politics in the New World Order (Cambridge: Polity, 1997); B. Yack, “Popular Sovereignty and Nationalism,” Political Theory 29, no. 4 (2001): 517–36; Lu, Political Theory of Global Citizenship; Tan, Hardin, and Shapiro, Justice without Borders; Benhabib and Post, Another Cosmopolitanism; Appiah, Cosmopolitanism; Hooft, Cosmopolitanism.
 Wendell Berry, The Art of the Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2003); Jacques Ellul, The Technology Society (New York: Vintage, 1967); Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Knopf, 1997); Carl Schmitt, Concept of the Political (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2007); Political Theology (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2006). Also refer to the Web site www.frontporchrepublic as an example of the localist movement that sees cosmopolitanism as a threat to human flourishing.
 Refer to Noam Chomsky, The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo (London: Pluto, 1999); Costas Douzinas, The End of Human Rights: Critical Legal Thought at the End of the Century (Oxford: Hart, 2000). The only article that provides a balanced account of cosmopolitanism is Joshua P. Hochschild, “Globalization: Ancient and Modern,” Intercollegiate Review (2006): 40–48. A negative account of cosmopolitanism can be found in Lee Harris, “The Cosmopolitan Illusion” Policy Review (2003): 1–12.
This excerpt is from Cosmopolitanism in an Age of Globalization: Citizens Without States (University of Kentucky Press, 2011). Also see “Cosmopolitanism: Citizens Without States“; “Aquinas’s Mediated Cosmopolitanism and the Impasse of Ancient Political Philosophy”; “Ibn Tufayl’s Critique of Cosmopolitanism in Hayy Ibn Yaqzan“; “Kant’s Teaching of Historical Progress and Its Cosmopolitan Goal“; “The Limits of Modern Cosmopolitanism“; “An Introduction to Martin Heidegger“; “The Postmodern Condition of Cosmopolitanism.”