I've actually heard quite a bit about cosmopolitanism lately. I am a student of Stoic philosophy and there are some voices in that community who are really pushing the idea.
I will be the outlier here, though. The little I know about cosmopolitanism sounds like a terrible idea that I would reject outright. But having said that, I am very open to the possibility that I am misunderstanding the concept. The idea of becoming a "single worldly community" for me completely devalues cultural identity, history, and social truths learned from generations of lived history. Sure, we are all human, so 'same team,' so to speak. But just because I am human does not mean that I can understand what it means to be part of Indian, Russian, Islamic, or any other culture. I think it is very important that cultures retain their distinct identities. What works for them may not work for me, and vice versa, because of our cultures' different life experiences.
Your description below the definition of cosmopolitanism illustrates more of an openness to cross borders than to eliminate them. I am all for that. There is an enormous amount we can learn from different cultures and apply to our own lives. However, it seems to me that if cosmopolitanism is achieved, all of those unique perspectives would vanish into one.
I think you have it right Erik and you have some valid critiques and concerns of cosmopolitanism. There's a lot to this discussion and I won't pretend I've thought it all through but I will say that we'd have to get into the weeds on a handful of other definitions and concepts to properly analyze this. A few of these terms I know anthropologists have grappled with and debated for a long time now.
One is the concept of "culture" and whether there are many cultures or just culture. A famous 19th-century anthropologist, E.B. Tyler, had a well-known definition of culture which was "A complex whole, which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, customs and other capabilities and habits acquired by people.” But is any given culture a closed system?
My take on there being different cultures is that they are somewhat of an illusion when we consider the history of cultural contact, and the recent findings being brought about by the genome revolution having shown peoples to have been migrating, mixing, integrating, and likely sharing ideas far longer and more frequently than was once known. If we had the time to unravel history with a microscope, I suspect we'd find that all "cultures" are unique blends, conglomerates of ideas that have morphed, sometimes gradually, sometimes rapidly--that ultimately what we see as distinctly "Russian" or "Chinese" or "Indian" is actually a palimpsest of ever-changing ideas that no two people would ever agree on the parts to the whole.
What did it mean to call something English culture before and after the Norman Conquest, for instance? Or what did it mean to be an Italian in the 12th century versus after the unification of the state in the 19th? Same with Germany and dozens of other instances in history? There is a famous discussion on whether the United States is a melting pot of cultures or more akin to a salad bowl. We're still debating this to this day.
This isn't to downplay the importance of cultural identity, history, and social truths. On the contrary, those are very meaningful to all of us, and while we can never fully know what it is like to live in other areas of the world speaking a different language and living a life with differing technologies and customs, it is also fair to say that we may never be able to fully pin down the essential ingredients of what comprises any particular "culture." Like a paleoanthropologist trying to pin down the exact moment in time Homo erectus spawned a new species, identifying the constituent parts of a distinct "culture" cannot be done because, like everything, it is all in flux. In what sense are we even the same person we were 15 years ago?
The concept of the nation is another interesting term to analyze and try to break down in this way, but this is getting lengthy, so I'll leave it there. I add lastly that I think whether we recognize it or not, we've been headed in the direction of a cosmopolitan world all along as a species and live in one already to some extent, yet we cling to identities we still can't fully comprehend.
Borders have their utility and I'm under no delusion that we'll see those go away anytime soon, but they too are ephemeral and liable to change in the future as they have in the past. Cosmopolitanism is a higher ideal, one I can't say would necessarily cause a vanishing of perspectives though you are probably right there. However, I think perspectives are near infinite, and what we'd see in a fully obtained cosmopolitan world is anyone's guess, but vastly new perspectives nonetheless, maybe more for the better.
Happy to continue the discussion here or privately. I really enjoy this topic and appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to lay them out, Erik. Cheers!
Thanks for the reply! I appreciate your explanation of the constant evolution and almost nebulous definition of culture. That makes total sense.
I could see cosmopolitanism being valid as an abstract ideal. The problem is when ideals collide with reality. I am not saying I have all the answers, or that my way of life is absolutely correct. However, there are other human institutions that I reject and would not welcome into a cosmopolitan world. Islamic extremism or even Christian fundamentalism come to mind. Communism is another. It sounds good on paper, but fails every time it is implemented and has resulted in many millions of deaths.
I believe everyone has the potential to live up to the highest of human virtues. And, because we are all human, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are at least striving towards them. However, I am a cop and I deal with criminals every single day, so maybe that skews my view. I think that before we become a single worldly community we must acknowledge that we would be opening the doors to not only the best of humanity, but also the worst.
Anyway, I apologize but I am not very well educated in these topics. Your comments are helping me to learn. I'm not trying to come across as negative here. I have traveled the world and encountered many wonderful people and cultures. I really enjoy learning about shared experiences of humanity. Still, I will always see myself as an individual and influenced by the context of where and when I live. I feel very fortunate and proud of that and am not quite interested in becoming a citizen of the world.
Do I have valid points here? You won't hurt my feelings if you say no!
Nothing to apologize for at all, Erik. I didn't interpret anything you've said as negative either and you certainly have valid points. It's perfectly well-reasoned to me, and I actually think we share many of the same concerns. The collision of ideals with reality is spot-on, and I fully share in your abhorrence of religious extremism and totalitarian ideologies. If I had it my way, a cosmopolitan outcome would not be premised on being tolerant of intolerance. We have a long and bumpy road to go to get close to anything I'm envisioning.
I have to check myself because my background in archaeology and anthropology has conditioned my mind to think in long-time scales, and so when I'm positing a cosmopolitan world, I'm thinking far beyond our lifetime. I'm also reading Dune at the moment so I'm thinking a lot about tens of thousands of years in the future too. Lol.
On a side note: I really appreciate your perspective and want to thank you for your service. Over the years, I've met a lot of cops and people in the military practicing Jiu-Jitsu, and hearing their perspectives has helped me calibrate my ideals for sure. I've also read a lot about human conflict and violence studying archaeology so I'm under no delusion we'll all be living in harmony any time soon.
Right on! Now that you mention it, my thinking on these topics is in the context of here and now, rather than something we're evolving towards in the future. I'm not sure what led me to think that way, but the longer time scale is definitely worth considering.
Lol, I've had very little opportunity to practice Jiu-jitsu here lately and I miss it. Can you imagine if that became a universal human practice? Cosmopolitan Jiu-jitsu rescues humanity!!!
Ha! Oh man there’s maybe more truth to that than we realize. Nothing has humbled me more and made me want to avoid violence at all costs than practicing Jiu Jitsu. At scale maybe we’d reach world peace. Lol!
While distinctions of us vs them and a focus on us appear to be ascendant in the USA right now, I think it's too early to announce the demise of cosmopolitanism. Barring a worldwide depression, travel and tourism will continue to grow. Wealthier Americans want to see the Great Wall, the Taj Mahal, wild animals in Africa and the Eiffel Tower. Wealthier foreigners want to see the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the Lincoln Memorial, and Times Square. I can't help but hope that the more we mingle, the more we realize that our similarities far outweigh our differences. In addition, if the world population continues to grow, we'll face growing pressure to work with other nations on common problems. The way we interact with others remains to be seen. I'm a little shocked at the recent statements relecting a possible resurgence of American Imperialism. Will we shout "Remember the Maine" as we attempt to retake the Panama Canal? As with the failure of neoconservative efforts to remake the Mideast in our image 20 years ago, I think imperialist policies on our part will be largely unproductive in the long run. The manor house on the hill that is America is stronger when our entire neighborhood is stronger. We need to lead with strength as we pursue policies designed to improve the common good of the entire neighborhood.
Perhaps the concept needs a new descriptor? The word is freighted with connotations of class and privilege. People who read the New Yorker come to mind. And the association with the eponymously names magazine doesn’t help either. I am sure that even the erudite would have trouble describing the origin and meaning of the term.
As for its original meaning? While I think the idea that humans share the same aspirations and are connected at our cores, the return of tribalism and I-got-mine thinking and action erodes the feel-good one-world concept. I’d like to give the world of a Coke is so 1960s.
The idea of being a citizen of the world in an authentice sense is trumped by influencers “collecting” countries as if they were Barbies or baseball trading cards. Travelers aren’t meeting people—they’re meeting places. It is the rare traveler who comes away from a visit with new life long friends. Unless it is with fellow travelers of their own tribe. We are all about finding ourselves, not finding others.
The UN is frayed. I doubt it could be created today if it didn’t already exist. The US pops in and out of WHO. The drumbeat of American exceptionalism coupled with an animosity towards immigrants and “others” signals an end to the notion of cosmopolitanism.
I take your point that the term is well-tarnished of late, but changing terms doesn't prevent it from happening to the new descriptor we choose, either. Personally, I like the term and think (hope?) it can be eventually salvaged to retain its original etymological meaning of "world citizen." And ultimately, I like how Carl Sagan urged us to eventually consider seeing ourselves as citizens of the cosmos. It's an ideal, sure, but it's a noble one, and people depend on ideals to overcome their limitations, especially in moments of severe stress and crisis. These are long-term goals and aspirations, and I don't expect us to come close to achieving a more unified way of viewing the world any time soon. But I think a term that has us reflect on what it means to be a "world citizen" first makes us think about what it means to even be a citizen, which is what I'm left wondering about now...
Great thinking, Justin. I wonder sometimes, too. “I suspect the vision of our world that travel offers is far closer to the truth of our reality than the narrow world we’re presented with online. But then I reread the news and wonder if that is an illusion I keep teetering back to–a kind of seesaw of viewing the world from which I cannot step off to evaluate what is actually true.” <- Gosh, I felt this. A big reason why I try to limit my media intake and spend more time “out there”, offline, attempting to get a feel for things on the ground in various places… Y’know, between the headlines.
Isn’t travel “up”, statistically speaking? Aren’t more and more places overrun by tourism, for better or worse?
Thank you, Michael! I try my best to do the same as well. I think being grounded for a while and not being able to travel sometimes makes you begin to question your former self.
Travel is definitely up. I try my best to make a case in my upcoming book on the distinction between the quality of travel and quantity aspect without trying to sound too judgmental or pedantic but I've found that to be a challenge. Overall, more people traveling looks good. I definitely want people to experience more areas of the world, but are more of us learning how to be better stewards of other cultures, and the planet, and extracting the meaning and value of it all in the process? I hope so.
I've had a hard time framing all this because it's easy to sound like there's a "right way" and "wrong way" to travel. Have you found a way to bridge that discussion in your thoughts, conversations, or writing?
I hope so too, Justin! Mm, my default is to ask questions that invite people to reflect on how and why we travel, myself included. 🙂 I sometimes share a story or two of my own to subtly illustrate. In my experience, stories are the key... They’re indirect, non-threatening, and “sticky”. I suppose my approach is informed by my curiosity, if that makes sense? Hopefully leaving space for people to come to their own conclusions in their own time, inspiring us to think broadly. I’m curious, what do you mean you’re questioning your former self? Fascinating!
That makes a lot of sense. I like that approach a lot. What I meant was just in regards to that quote about how it's a strange twilight zone of knowing what the world is actually like on the ground and, as you put it, "between the headlines" can make one second-guess themselves. It's an interesting phenomenon, being surrounded by so many who only follow the news and don't travel that much, which is the vast majority of us. Whenever I've been planning to travel somewhere, I've always met people with that worried look in their eyes going "Ohhhh be careful over there, I saw something bad happening there recently." I'm convinced a lot of media scares a lot of us into not traveling, but fear is a powerful thing to overcome.
Ahhhhh, I understand! So true. I remember when I had the opportunity to visit Colombia, friends and family were a bit concerned. So I pulled up some crime statistics to show how it could be safer in Medellin than, for example, Baltimore. 🤪 Hugely reductive, but it made it feel closer to home for some folks.
Quote: "What is cosmopolitanism? In general, it’s the idea that we are of a single human origin, and despite differences, we share a universal set of similarities and can, no, should, become a single worldly community devoted to understanding the complexities of our lives and societies together for the sake of long-term peace, cooperation, and the phasing out of our collective suffering and prejudices."
I might be missing your larger point here. Let me try and list my thoughts that came out of this. If you are traveling within the USA, say in Texas and you are from Wisconsin, you will form an identity with someone else from Wisconsin, a common understanding of your origin. Likewise within the state of Wisconsin, you might form that same bond with someone from your home town, say, when you are way up north. The farther from home, the larger your circle of potential bonding.
My point here, is even when we travel, we try and make our world smaller, because we feel unanchored. The longer the trip or journey the more this culture shock seems to fade. I don't think it can be cast off in a few weeks. I think there is a fear factor here too. Curiosity is the opposite of that fear, when you are open to the experience, and that comes from traveling a lot, or for long stretches where you are immersed in the culture. There are sim[ply not enough people who embrace that curiosity, or have the means to, to make a "cosmopolitan" movement stick.
Groups of people have a propensity to break into smaller groups, not only "Nationalism" but within the borders of any country, we look for common ground to frame our identity. (Dare I go off into the "global" internet community? Where even the most esoteric hobby or belief can create a group, regardless of location? )
"We have a strong instinct to belong small groups defined by clear purpose and understanding - Tribes- This tribal connection has been largely lost in modern society, but regaining it may be the key to our psychological survival". (Sebastian Junger, "Tribe')
I suspect the problem is evolutionary. I wonder if the scale of the world is too big for us to comprehend?
I have a personal observation on this idea, that we want to make sense of the world by keeping as small as we can. I belong to a local group, a running group. We share a common bond, interest, in running. The group is a couple dozen in person, at it largest in any one physical location, but online is several hundred. For runners the natural thing to do is break up into "pace" groups, you lose people faster/slower than you right away. Even within those pace groups, it will start to stratify into something you can anchor to.
This is my rule of 4. Groups in general, break down into sub groups no larger than 4, you simply can't keep track of everyone or have a meaningful conversation.
Human propensity is to keep group size as large as is needed for mutual benefit, but no larger. I remember reading once the ideal city is no bigger than 250,000. All the benefits of a large city without increasing infrastructure, crime, opportunity.
These are all fantastic observations, Marty. I've read a bit on group dynamics and what you said about group stratification squares with what I've read. I suppose my larger point was simply to facilitate this larger discussion on whether cosmopolitanism, as an ideal, is dying, and if it is, is it worth salvaging and worth striving for still?
However, you raise important observations about whether something like a cosmopolitan world is even feasible given our evolutionary drive to form small groups and tribes which has a range of benefits, most of all group solidarity. It remains to be seen whether humans could eventually reach a point where we all simply see ourselves as "world citizens" and dispense with ideas of nationality and all the other identity markers humans have adopted (see Erik Hogan's comment and my response, he had a lot of great food for thought as well related to this).
I tend to have a bias toward cosmopolitanism because I suspect enough people identifying around being a single-world citizenry might eventually allow us to move past so much of the sectarianism and division along ethnic, religious, political, etc. divides. It is a hefty topic though, and I can't pretend to have thought it all through. To me, entertaining a cosmopolitan world is more of a mental model or exercise, to attempt to answer the question "What would it take for humans to reach a point where we all saw each other as nothing more than a global species on a single planet?" Would that be a good thing in the long term? What would it mean?
A lot to think about, and I'm grateful for you taking the time to share your thoughts here. Happy to hear more from you as well on this. Cheers!
“cosmopolitanism is, after all, often what becomes instilled in us after we’ve taken some breathtaking journeys in it. Thus, if fewer of us are experiencing transformative forms of travel and adventure, it makes sense why fewer of us will see the value in it.”
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Less and less are experiencing transformative forms of travel (and one could debate why- over-tourism? social media?) and thus travel is not serving as an educational experience that broadens perspectives resulting in a loss of cosmopolitanism.
I've actually heard quite a bit about cosmopolitanism lately. I am a student of Stoic philosophy and there are some voices in that community who are really pushing the idea.
I will be the outlier here, though. The little I know about cosmopolitanism sounds like a terrible idea that I would reject outright. But having said that, I am very open to the possibility that I am misunderstanding the concept. The idea of becoming a "single worldly community" for me completely devalues cultural identity, history, and social truths learned from generations of lived history. Sure, we are all human, so 'same team,' so to speak. But just because I am human does not mean that I can understand what it means to be part of Indian, Russian, Islamic, or any other culture. I think it is very important that cultures retain their distinct identities. What works for them may not work for me, and vice versa, because of our cultures' different life experiences.
Your description below the definition of cosmopolitanism illustrates more of an openness to cross borders than to eliminate them. I am all for that. There is an enormous amount we can learn from different cultures and apply to our own lives. However, it seems to me that if cosmopolitanism is achieved, all of those unique perspectives would vanish into one.
Am I not understanding cosmopolitanism correctly?
I think you have it right Erik and you have some valid critiques and concerns of cosmopolitanism. There's a lot to this discussion and I won't pretend I've thought it all through but I will say that we'd have to get into the weeds on a handful of other definitions and concepts to properly analyze this. A few of these terms I know anthropologists have grappled with and debated for a long time now.
One is the concept of "culture" and whether there are many cultures or just culture. A famous 19th-century anthropologist, E.B. Tyler, had a well-known definition of culture which was "A complex whole, which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, customs and other capabilities and habits acquired by people.” But is any given culture a closed system?
My take on there being different cultures is that they are somewhat of an illusion when we consider the history of cultural contact, and the recent findings being brought about by the genome revolution having shown peoples to have been migrating, mixing, integrating, and likely sharing ideas far longer and more frequently than was once known. If we had the time to unravel history with a microscope, I suspect we'd find that all "cultures" are unique blends, conglomerates of ideas that have morphed, sometimes gradually, sometimes rapidly--that ultimately what we see as distinctly "Russian" or "Chinese" or "Indian" is actually a palimpsest of ever-changing ideas that no two people would ever agree on the parts to the whole.
What did it mean to call something English culture before and after the Norman Conquest, for instance? Or what did it mean to be an Italian in the 12th century versus after the unification of the state in the 19th? Same with Germany and dozens of other instances in history? There is a famous discussion on whether the United States is a melting pot of cultures or more akin to a salad bowl. We're still debating this to this day.
This isn't to downplay the importance of cultural identity, history, and social truths. On the contrary, those are very meaningful to all of us, and while we can never fully know what it is like to live in other areas of the world speaking a different language and living a life with differing technologies and customs, it is also fair to say that we may never be able to fully pin down the essential ingredients of what comprises any particular "culture." Like a paleoanthropologist trying to pin down the exact moment in time Homo erectus spawned a new species, identifying the constituent parts of a distinct "culture" cannot be done because, like everything, it is all in flux. In what sense are we even the same person we were 15 years ago?
The concept of the nation is another interesting term to analyze and try to break down in this way, but this is getting lengthy, so I'll leave it there. I add lastly that I think whether we recognize it or not, we've been headed in the direction of a cosmopolitan world all along as a species and live in one already to some extent, yet we cling to identities we still can't fully comprehend.
Borders have their utility and I'm under no delusion that we'll see those go away anytime soon, but they too are ephemeral and liable to change in the future as they have in the past. Cosmopolitanism is a higher ideal, one I can't say would necessarily cause a vanishing of perspectives though you are probably right there. However, I think perspectives are near infinite, and what we'd see in a fully obtained cosmopolitan world is anyone's guess, but vastly new perspectives nonetheless, maybe more for the better.
Happy to continue the discussion here or privately. I really enjoy this topic and appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to lay them out, Erik. Cheers!
Thanks for the reply! I appreciate your explanation of the constant evolution and almost nebulous definition of culture. That makes total sense.
I could see cosmopolitanism being valid as an abstract ideal. The problem is when ideals collide with reality. I am not saying I have all the answers, or that my way of life is absolutely correct. However, there are other human institutions that I reject and would not welcome into a cosmopolitan world. Islamic extremism or even Christian fundamentalism come to mind. Communism is another. It sounds good on paper, but fails every time it is implemented and has resulted in many millions of deaths.
I believe everyone has the potential to live up to the highest of human virtues. And, because we are all human, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are at least striving towards them. However, I am a cop and I deal with criminals every single day, so maybe that skews my view. I think that before we become a single worldly community we must acknowledge that we would be opening the doors to not only the best of humanity, but also the worst.
Anyway, I apologize but I am not very well educated in these topics. Your comments are helping me to learn. I'm not trying to come across as negative here. I have traveled the world and encountered many wonderful people and cultures. I really enjoy learning about shared experiences of humanity. Still, I will always see myself as an individual and influenced by the context of where and when I live. I feel very fortunate and proud of that and am not quite interested in becoming a citizen of the world.
Do I have valid points here? You won't hurt my feelings if you say no!
Nothing to apologize for at all, Erik. I didn't interpret anything you've said as negative either and you certainly have valid points. It's perfectly well-reasoned to me, and I actually think we share many of the same concerns. The collision of ideals with reality is spot-on, and I fully share in your abhorrence of religious extremism and totalitarian ideologies. If I had it my way, a cosmopolitan outcome would not be premised on being tolerant of intolerance. We have a long and bumpy road to go to get close to anything I'm envisioning.
I have to check myself because my background in archaeology and anthropology has conditioned my mind to think in long-time scales, and so when I'm positing a cosmopolitan world, I'm thinking far beyond our lifetime. I'm also reading Dune at the moment so I'm thinking a lot about tens of thousands of years in the future too. Lol.
On a side note: I really appreciate your perspective and want to thank you for your service. Over the years, I've met a lot of cops and people in the military practicing Jiu-Jitsu, and hearing their perspectives has helped me calibrate my ideals for sure. I've also read a lot about human conflict and violence studying archaeology so I'm under no delusion we'll all be living in harmony any time soon.
Right on! Now that you mention it, my thinking on these topics is in the context of here and now, rather than something we're evolving towards in the future. I'm not sure what led me to think that way, but the longer time scale is definitely worth considering.
Lol, I've had very little opportunity to practice Jiu-jitsu here lately and I miss it. Can you imagine if that became a universal human practice? Cosmopolitan Jiu-jitsu rescues humanity!!!
Ha! Oh man there’s maybe more truth to that than we realize. Nothing has humbled me more and made me want to avoid violence at all costs than practicing Jiu Jitsu. At scale maybe we’d reach world peace. Lol!
While distinctions of us vs them and a focus on us appear to be ascendant in the USA right now, I think it's too early to announce the demise of cosmopolitanism. Barring a worldwide depression, travel and tourism will continue to grow. Wealthier Americans want to see the Great Wall, the Taj Mahal, wild animals in Africa and the Eiffel Tower. Wealthier foreigners want to see the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, the Lincoln Memorial, and Times Square. I can't help but hope that the more we mingle, the more we realize that our similarities far outweigh our differences. In addition, if the world population continues to grow, we'll face growing pressure to work with other nations on common problems. The way we interact with others remains to be seen. I'm a little shocked at the recent statements relecting a possible resurgence of American Imperialism. Will we shout "Remember the Maine" as we attempt to retake the Panama Canal? As with the failure of neoconservative efforts to remake the Mideast in our image 20 years ago, I think imperialist policies on our part will be largely unproductive in the long run. The manor house on the hill that is America is stronger when our entire neighborhood is stronger. We need to lead with strength as we pursue policies designed to improve the common good of the entire neighborhood.
Perhaps the concept needs a new descriptor? The word is freighted with connotations of class and privilege. People who read the New Yorker come to mind. And the association with the eponymously names magazine doesn’t help either. I am sure that even the erudite would have trouble describing the origin and meaning of the term.
As for its original meaning? While I think the idea that humans share the same aspirations and are connected at our cores, the return of tribalism and I-got-mine thinking and action erodes the feel-good one-world concept. I’d like to give the world of a Coke is so 1960s.
The idea of being a citizen of the world in an authentice sense is trumped by influencers “collecting” countries as if they were Barbies or baseball trading cards. Travelers aren’t meeting people—they’re meeting places. It is the rare traveler who comes away from a visit with new life long friends. Unless it is with fellow travelers of their own tribe. We are all about finding ourselves, not finding others.
The UN is frayed. I doubt it could be created today if it didn’t already exist. The US pops in and out of WHO. The drumbeat of American exceptionalism coupled with an animosity towards immigrants and “others” signals an end to the notion of cosmopolitanism.
I take your point that the term is well-tarnished of late, but changing terms doesn't prevent it from happening to the new descriptor we choose, either. Personally, I like the term and think (hope?) it can be eventually salvaged to retain its original etymological meaning of "world citizen." And ultimately, I like how Carl Sagan urged us to eventually consider seeing ourselves as citizens of the cosmos. It's an ideal, sure, but it's a noble one, and people depend on ideals to overcome their limitations, especially in moments of severe stress and crisis. These are long-term goals and aspirations, and I don't expect us to come close to achieving a more unified way of viewing the world any time soon. But I think a term that has us reflect on what it means to be a "world citizen" first makes us think about what it means to even be a citizen, which is what I'm left wondering about now...
Great thinking, Justin. I wonder sometimes, too. “I suspect the vision of our world that travel offers is far closer to the truth of our reality than the narrow world we’re presented with online. But then I reread the news and wonder if that is an illusion I keep teetering back to–a kind of seesaw of viewing the world from which I cannot step off to evaluate what is actually true.” <- Gosh, I felt this. A big reason why I try to limit my media intake and spend more time “out there”, offline, attempting to get a feel for things on the ground in various places… Y’know, between the headlines.
Isn’t travel “up”, statistically speaking? Aren’t more and more places overrun by tourism, for better or worse?
Thank you, Michael! I try my best to do the same as well. I think being grounded for a while and not being able to travel sometimes makes you begin to question your former self.
Travel is definitely up. I try my best to make a case in my upcoming book on the distinction between the quality of travel and quantity aspect without trying to sound too judgmental or pedantic but I've found that to be a challenge. Overall, more people traveling looks good. I definitely want people to experience more areas of the world, but are more of us learning how to be better stewards of other cultures, and the planet, and extracting the meaning and value of it all in the process? I hope so.
I've had a hard time framing all this because it's easy to sound like there's a "right way" and "wrong way" to travel. Have you found a way to bridge that discussion in your thoughts, conversations, or writing?
I hope so too, Justin! Mm, my default is to ask questions that invite people to reflect on how and why we travel, myself included. 🙂 I sometimes share a story or two of my own to subtly illustrate. In my experience, stories are the key... They’re indirect, non-threatening, and “sticky”. I suppose my approach is informed by my curiosity, if that makes sense? Hopefully leaving space for people to come to their own conclusions in their own time, inspiring us to think broadly. I’m curious, what do you mean you’re questioning your former self? Fascinating!
That makes a lot of sense. I like that approach a lot. What I meant was just in regards to that quote about how it's a strange twilight zone of knowing what the world is actually like on the ground and, as you put it, "between the headlines" can make one second-guess themselves. It's an interesting phenomenon, being surrounded by so many who only follow the news and don't travel that much, which is the vast majority of us. Whenever I've been planning to travel somewhere, I've always met people with that worried look in their eyes going "Ohhhh be careful over there, I saw something bad happening there recently." I'm convinced a lot of media scares a lot of us into not traveling, but fear is a powerful thing to overcome.
Ahhhhh, I understand! So true. I remember when I had the opportunity to visit Colombia, friends and family were a bit concerned. So I pulled up some crime statistics to show how it could be safer in Medellin than, for example, Baltimore. 🤪 Hugely reductive, but it made it feel closer to home for some folks.
Justin, interesting this popped up in a totally unrelated email today. See what you think of this.
https://aeon.co/essays/there-are-no-pure-cultures-we-have-always-been-global
Wow, that is remarkable! I was basically just laying that case out on another comment with Erik Hogan. Thank you for sharing this!
Quote: "What is cosmopolitanism? In general, it’s the idea that we are of a single human origin, and despite differences, we share a universal set of similarities and can, no, should, become a single worldly community devoted to understanding the complexities of our lives and societies together for the sake of long-term peace, cooperation, and the phasing out of our collective suffering and prejudices."
I might be missing your larger point here. Let me try and list my thoughts that came out of this. If you are traveling within the USA, say in Texas and you are from Wisconsin, you will form an identity with someone else from Wisconsin, a common understanding of your origin. Likewise within the state of Wisconsin, you might form that same bond with someone from your home town, say, when you are way up north. The farther from home, the larger your circle of potential bonding.
My point here, is even when we travel, we try and make our world smaller, because we feel unanchored. The longer the trip or journey the more this culture shock seems to fade. I don't think it can be cast off in a few weeks. I think there is a fear factor here too. Curiosity is the opposite of that fear, when you are open to the experience, and that comes from traveling a lot, or for long stretches where you are immersed in the culture. There are sim[ply not enough people who embrace that curiosity, or have the means to, to make a "cosmopolitan" movement stick.
Groups of people have a propensity to break into smaller groups, not only "Nationalism" but within the borders of any country, we look for common ground to frame our identity. (Dare I go off into the "global" internet community? Where even the most esoteric hobby or belief can create a group, regardless of location? )
"We have a strong instinct to belong small groups defined by clear purpose and understanding - Tribes- This tribal connection has been largely lost in modern society, but regaining it may be the key to our psychological survival". (Sebastian Junger, "Tribe')
I suspect the problem is evolutionary. I wonder if the scale of the world is too big for us to comprehend?
I have a personal observation on this idea, that we want to make sense of the world by keeping as small as we can. I belong to a local group, a running group. We share a common bond, interest, in running. The group is a couple dozen in person, at it largest in any one physical location, but online is several hundred. For runners the natural thing to do is break up into "pace" groups, you lose people faster/slower than you right away. Even within those pace groups, it will start to stratify into something you can anchor to.
This is my rule of 4. Groups in general, break down into sub groups no larger than 4, you simply can't keep track of everyone or have a meaningful conversation.
Human propensity is to keep group size as large as is needed for mutual benefit, but no larger. I remember reading once the ideal city is no bigger than 250,000. All the benefits of a large city without increasing infrastructure, crime, opportunity.
These are all fantastic observations, Marty. I've read a bit on group dynamics and what you said about group stratification squares with what I've read. I suppose my larger point was simply to facilitate this larger discussion on whether cosmopolitanism, as an ideal, is dying, and if it is, is it worth salvaging and worth striving for still?
However, you raise important observations about whether something like a cosmopolitan world is even feasible given our evolutionary drive to form small groups and tribes which has a range of benefits, most of all group solidarity. It remains to be seen whether humans could eventually reach a point where we all simply see ourselves as "world citizens" and dispense with ideas of nationality and all the other identity markers humans have adopted (see Erik Hogan's comment and my response, he had a lot of great food for thought as well related to this).
I tend to have a bias toward cosmopolitanism because I suspect enough people identifying around being a single-world citizenry might eventually allow us to move past so much of the sectarianism and division along ethnic, religious, political, etc. divides. It is a hefty topic though, and I can't pretend to have thought it all through. To me, entertaining a cosmopolitan world is more of a mental model or exercise, to attempt to answer the question "What would it take for humans to reach a point where we all saw each other as nothing more than a global species on a single planet?" Would that be a good thing in the long term? What would it mean?
A lot to think about, and I'm grateful for you taking the time to share your thoughts here. Happy to hear more from you as well on this. Cheers!
“cosmopolitanism is, after all, often what becomes instilled in us after we’ve taken some breathtaking journeys in it. Thus, if fewer of us are experiencing transformative forms of travel and adventure, it makes sense why fewer of us will see the value in it.”
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Less and less are experiencing transformative forms of travel (and one could debate why- over-tourism? social media?) and thus travel is not serving as an educational experience that broadens perspectives resulting in a loss of cosmopolitanism.