Nationalism vs Cosmopolitanism: Political Philosophy

Comparison Overview

Nationalism and cosmopolitanism represent two fundamentally different visions of the scope of moral and political obligation. Nationalism holds that the nation is the primary unit of political loyalty and that individuals have special obligations to their fellow nationals that they do not have to foreigners. Cosmopolitanism holds that all human beings belong to a single moral community, and that our obligations to others are not limited by national boundaries, ethnicity, or citizenship.

The debate between nationalism and cosmopolitanism is one of the most urgent in contemporary political philosophy. It raises questions about the nature of political identity, the scope of justice, and the possibility of a global community. Immanuel Kant's vision of perpetual peace and Martha Nussbaum's defense of cosmopolitan education represent the cosmopolitan position, while the republican and communitarian traditions provide the resources for a defense of national loyalty and patriotism.

Key Differences

The most fundamental difference between nationalism and cosmopolitanism concerns the scope of moral obligation. Nationalists argue that we have special obligations to our fellow nationals — obligations arising from shared history, culture, language, and citizenship — that are stronger than our obligations to humanity in general. Cosmopolitans argue that our fundamental obligations are to all human beings, regardless of nationality, and that national boundaries do not mark the limits of moral concern.

The second difference concerns the nature of political identity. Nationalists argue that national identity is a fundamental component of personal identity — that who we are is partly constituted by our membership in a nation. Cosmopolitans argue that our identity as human beings is more fundamental than our national identity, and that we should think of ourselves as citizens of the world.

The third difference concerns the scope of justice. Nationalists tend to argue that principles of justice apply primarily within the nation-state, and that the requirements of global justice are limited. Cosmopolitans argue that principles of justice apply globally, and that the inequalities between nations are as unjust as the inequalities within them.

The fourth difference concerns the legitimacy of the nation-state. Nationalists see the nation-state as the primary locus of political legitimacy — the institution through which the people govern themselves and realize their collective identity. Cosmopolitans see the nation-state as a contingent and potentially problematic form of political organization, and they argue for the development of international institutions that can address global problems.

Cosmopolitan View

The cosmopolitan tradition in Western philosophy dates back to the Cynic philosopher Diogenes, who declared himself a "citizen of the world" (kosmopolites). The Stoics developed the idea further, arguing that all human beings are members of a single rational community and that reason, not nationality, is the basis of moral obligation.

Kant's essay "Perpetual Peace" (1795) is the most important modern statement of the cosmopolitan position. Kant argued that the condition of peace among nations requires the establishment of a federation of free states, bound by a cosmopolitan right of universal hospitality. The cosmopolitan right is the right of a foreigner not to be treated with hostility when they arrive on the territory of another. Kant's vision was not a world state but a peaceful federation of republican states, each respecting the rights of citizens and foreigners.

Nussbaum's essay "Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism" (1994) is the most influential contemporary defense of cosmopolitanism. Nussbaum argues that education should cultivate cosmopolitan citizenship, teaching students to think of themselves as citizens of the world, not merely as members of a particular nation. The cosmopolitan education should teach students about the history, culture, and contributions of other peoples, and should cultivate a sense of moral responsibility for the suffering of all human beings, regardless of nationality.

Nussbaum's cosmopolitanism is not a rejection of local attachments but an insistence that they should not be absolute. The cosmopolitan recognizes that they have special obligations to family, friends, and fellow citizens, but they also recognize that these obligations are not the whole of morality and that they must be balanced against the claims of humanity.

Nationalist View

The nationalist tradition in political philosophy emphasizes the importance of national identity, national sovereignty, and the special obligations that individuals have to their fellow nationals. Nationalism is not merely a political ideology but a claim about the nature of political identity: the nation is the primary unit of political loyalty, and the nation-state is the legitimate form of political organization.

The nationalist argument draws on the communitarian critique of liberalism. Communitarians such as Michael Sandel and Alasdair MacIntyre argue that the self is constituted by its attachments, including its membership in a national community. The individual is not a disembodied rational agent but a person who is shaped by the history, culture, and traditions of their nation. The national community is not a voluntary association but a constitutive community — it is part of who we are.

The nationalist also argues that the nation-state is the primary locus of democratic legitimacy. The people who are governed by a state should be the people who constitute the nation — the people who share a common identity, history, and culture. The democratic nation-state is the institution through which the people govern themselves and realize their collective identity.

The nationalist does not deny that there are obligations to humanity in general, but they argue that these obligations are weaker than the obligations we have to our fellow nationals. The nation-state is the primary agent of justice, and the requirements of global justice are limited to ensuring that basic human rights are respected.

Contemporary Relevance

The debate between nationalism and cosmopolitanism has become increasingly urgent in the twenty-first century. The rise of populist nationalism, the Brexit vote, the election of Donald Trump, and the growth of anti-immigrant sentiment have all challenged the cosmopolitan ideal of an open, interconnected world. At the same time, the global challenges of climate change, economic inequality, and the COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated the need for international cooperation and have strengthened the cosmopolitan argument.

The debate between nationalism and cosmopolitanism is not merely a debate about political theory. It is a debate about the kind of world we want to live in and the kind of obligations we have to each other. The nationalist argues that the nation is the primary community to which we belong and that we have special obligations to our fellow nationals. The cosmopolitan argues that our obligations extend to all human beings and that the nation-state is not the final word in political organization.

The question of whether justice stops at the border or extends across the globe is one of the most pressing questions of our time. The debate between nationalism and cosmopolitanism, whatever its theoretical limitations, provides the framework within which that question is most often debated.