What Is Cosmopolitanism?

Adam Gannaway
The New School for Social Research
MPSA Conference Paper
Panel 33-18: “Cosmopolitanism: For and Against”
4/03/2009
Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 1
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

What is Cosmopolitanism?

Adam Gannaway
The New School for Social Research
MPSA Conference Paper, 2009

I. Introduction
Cosmopolitanism is the belief that everyone exists in a globally constructed ethical-political order.

The purpose of this paper is to unpack this definition. Such a definition, I believe, strikes at the core

of many iterations of cosmopolitanism today. But it is not my intention to provide an intellectual

history of the term here. Rather, I will seek to explicate my own understanding of the term in

relation to our contemporary epoch. Many forms of cosmopolitanism today come from a Kantian

liberal perspective, basing their conceptions of cosmopolitanism on Kant’s articulation of the term.1

Alternatively, I will seek to provide an interpretation of cosmopolitanism through going to the roots

of the word in its first articulations in ancient Greek discourse.

Cosmopolitanism has meet with much criticism and skepticism in some circles. And such a

concept is indeed frightening if it is not critically evaluated in terms of the global era in which we

live. This is why I will discuss the global context in which the term “cosmopolitanism” gains

meaning today (II). After examining this context, I shall begin to unpack my own understanding of

the term through looking back at the term’s etymological origins (III). And finally, I will complete

the explication of my definition through applying the arguments of the previous section to the

global context and laying out some of its normative implications (IV).

II. The Global Era, or, Why Should We Care?

The increased interconnection of people on a global scale has problematized the ethical-political

boundaries associated with the nation-state. Such boundaries are by no means obsolete. But as


























































1 See Kant, 1991a; Kant, 1991b



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 2
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

processes of globalization bring people into new relationships with those beyond their national

borders, those borders have increasingly become points of reflection and contention.

Undoubtedly, people have been closely interconnected for thousands of years.2 And each era has

struggled to construct economic, moral, and political frameworks to mediate such interconnections.

During the modern era, the international state system was devised in Europe to contain economic

and political decision-making under a sovereign authority. Such developments generated struggles to

create and sustain (sometimes more effectively than not) ethical-political attitudes framed in terms of

national solidarity. Sometimes these ethical-national characteristics were “pre-political,” as in the

case of Germany; others, such as France, were actively constructed in service of political unification.3

But in each case, they served to create normative ideals for ethical-political unity.4 International laws,

customs, and treaties, served as the framework to adjudicate relations with other sovereign nations.

Thus with the onset of modernity, the international state system became the primary normative

institutional framework to contain ethical-political relationships. And despite it’s imperfect

realization at times, this system has become global in scope.

The international state system was conceived over three hundred years ago against the existing

socio-political context in Europe. Yet, it has been argued that, today, globalization has significantly

altered the ways in which people interact across these political boundaries.5 The globalization of

organized violence, global economic trade and finance, multinational/transnational corporate

organization, increased migrations and cultural transmissions across borders, and the potential for

global environmental catastrophe have called into question the constructed boundaries of the

nation-state and have raised normative questions for ethical and political relationships in an

























































2 See Abu-Lughod, 1989.
3 See Brubaker, 1992.
4 This is not to deny that the nation-state system was often imposed by force, internally and externally, by those in

power, and often at the expense of alternative modes of political organization (see Spruyt, 1994). It is only to say that the
nation-state system became the dominant normative form of ethical-political order, whether imposed from the top-
down or inspired from the bottom-up.
5 See Held, 1999.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 3
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

increasingly global age. Issues of human rights and the decision-making and regulative capacities of

supranational governance structures only generated further reflection.

Cosmopolitans have responded to this context with a variety of claims. These claims can be

roughly divided into moral and political categories. Moral claims examine what moral or ethical

responsibilities result from our shared humanity as it is experienced in a global age. Political

cosmopolitanism outlines proposals for legal or political solutions to global problems. These claims

can be broken down as follows:

A. Moral
1. Global poverty requires a moral dedication to redistributive efforts across boundaries.
2. The pursuit of national-self interest or unilateral political action should be balanced by
concerns for the effect of such actions on the broader global community.
3. Nations have a duty to uphold morally grounded human rights and a responsibility to
protect violations of such human rights.
B. Political
1. Processes of globalization have threatened the autonomy of nationally based decision-
making and, in particular, the popular sovereignty of democratic states.
2. People have become subject to an increasing number of decision-making bodies beyond
the state without any corresponding rights to participate in their decision-making
processes.
3. A number of issues of global or regional concern have emerged that require action
beyond the level of the nation-state.

Within the literature on cosmopolitanism, these claims are espoused and contested on both

theoretical and empirical grounds. It is not my intention to outline the depths of these debates here,

but only to explicate the claims made about the current era in which we live and their importance for

understanding the cosmopolitan position.6 These arguments are not always made in ways that are

compatible with one another. Moral cosmopolitans frequently do not posit political solutions to

moral problems, and sometimes argue against them. Some political cosmopolitans deliberately avoid

making moral arguments, while others critique them as being metaphysical, imperialist, or incapable

of being enforced without proper institutional support. The guiding principle for moral


























































6 But for all but a brief taste of these debates, see Archibugi, 2003; Held, 2005.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 4
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

cosmopolitanism is a global moral order based on shared humanity. For political cosmopolitanism,

the guiding principle is a global political order based on shared subjection to political power.

Despite their differences, both the moral and political cosmopolitans assume that such problems

create certain obligations that are universally binding across national boundaries. The global era

creates conditions whereby people exist in ethical and/or political relationships with one another on

a global scale. The arguments of both moral and political cosmopolitans serve to posit a normative

order that recognizes such a condition.

III. What’s in a Word?: Ancient Origins of the Term

Most iterations of cosmopolitanism today have taken the form of Kantian liberalism. Such

reflections on Kant have generated a wealth of constructive material for considering

cosmopolitanism today. However, such articulations have generated a variety of criticisms. Such

criticisms concern liberal morality’s defense of individual moral duties irrespective of political

membership and the capacity for liberal universalism to eviscerate the presence of difference,

diversity, or pluralism. Such criticisms have required many qualifications of Kantian

cosmopolitanism. The re-articulations of cosmopolitanism are not always true to their Kantian

foundations and sometimes lack a clear philosophical foundation, further weakening their position.

Furthermore, it can be argued that Kant’s notion of cosmopolitanism, while utopian in its time, was

articulated against the then emerging world of international law and relations, not the global era of

today. In this case, Kant’s cosmopolitanism based on—international peace and the right to

emigration7—was a specific response to the political challenges of his day.


























































7It should be remembered that Kant in “Perpetual Peace” laid out many principles for international law and relations. The
principles outlined there that are specifically noted as “cosmopolitan” specifically limit “world citizenship” to the
condition of “universal hospitality,” or, quite simply, the freedom of emigration. While winning the right to emigration
for all people’s might be an astounding victory for today’s political climate, that alone does not address the mounting
moral and political problems of the global era.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 5
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

Much as Kant articulated his own version of cosmopolitanism as a normative response to his

political world, cosmopolitanism today must be framed in terms of the increased connections of the

global era. I shall argue, counterintuitively, that the principles necessary for understanding

cosmopolitanism today can be serviced through a close reading of the philosophical origins of the

term “cosmopolitan” in ancient Greece.

One of the earliest known textual accounts of the term “cosmopolitan” can be found in the

account of the life of Diogenes of Sinope, or Diogenes the Cynic: “Asked where [Diogenes] came

from, he replied, “I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)”” (Diogenes 1925: 71). Such a term is

derived from two words: kosmos and politês. But what is to be made of such a phrase? To better

articulate my understanding of the term cosmopolitanism, allow me to explicate what such a term

could imply through providing an etymological reading of its Ancient Greek construction.

A. What is Kosmos?
The Greek term kosmos is most generally translated as “universe” or “world,” but has a strong

connotation of natural order. The term reflects the Greek monistic understanding of the natural

world as it was conceptualized by philosophers of the time. The stars above (wandering and not)

were considered just as much a part of the natural order as the processes that drove the seasons

down below. The natural world and the universe were linked in under the term kosmos.

While there are many Greek texts that deal with the issue of nature or natural processes (physis),

one of the texts that most explicitly addressed the issue of the kosmos specifically is Plato’s Timaeus.

While the philosophies of Plato and Diogenes are hardly compatible, their understandings of Greek

terms are similar. And since no written work of Diogenes has survived to this day,8 I shall reflect

here on Plato’s explication of the term kosmos in the service of understanding what Diogenes could

have meant in pairing the term with politês,


























































8The primary account of Diogenes of Sinope that informs our understanding of his philosophy today is found in the
work of Greek historian Diogenes Laertius who lived a few hundred years later.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 6
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

In the Timaeus, it is implied that the action of this dialogue takes place immediately following

Socrates’ telling of the Republic. In this work, Timaeus provides an imaginative exposition of the

nature of the kosmos. For contemporary readers, Timaeus’ discourse might be (with all of its

fantastical opining) hard to take seriously. But I will attempt to demonstrate its importance for the

discussion of cosmopolitanism.

In his speech, Timaeus describes the kosmos as being ordered by the good according to natural

laws.9 Having been ordered in this way, the kosmos is representative of the good itself.10 While the

kosmos is not the good per se, the good is immanent to the ordering of the kosmos.

Such an order does not represent a form of homogeneity imposed onto the natural world, but

precisely the opposite. The order of the kosmos, as articulated by Timaeus, is understood as a

harmonization of many different elements, a balance of conflicting forces, a unity in diversity.11 In the

order of the kosmos, many diverse elements are brought together by virtue of their differences, not in

spite of them. Unity, here, does not negate difference. Such an order in fact requires diversity in

order to function—a quality that will be essential in discussing the political ramifications of such an

idea. And being a representation of the good means that the order of the kosmos represents a

normative order for which human beings should strive.

For Timaeus, this heterogeneous mixture of elements is also reflected in the creation of human

beings, as well.12 Humans, it is explained, are made from the very same elements as the kosmos—one

is tempted to recall Carl Sagan’s famous phrase, “we are star-stuff.” Made of these elements, humans

are natural beings comprised of heterogeneous elements and conflicting drives that need some form

of order. This order is found in becoming attuned to the natural order, or in observing the natural


























































9 And if we recall, it is the good, or rather the idea of the good, that is necessary for achieving a just order of both the
city and one’s soul in the Republic.
10 See Plato, 2001; 59-60, 29E-30A and 79, 48A.
11 See Ibid.; 64, 35A-B; 68-69, 39A-E; 81, 49B-50A.
12 See Ibid.; 72, 41D-42B.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 7
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

rhythms and processes of the kosmos. In recognizing how the natural world finds some type of

harmony amongst its various and possibly conflicting elements, humans, too, can find ways of

ordering their own lives in accordance with the principles of finding a harmony of differences,

balance of conflicting forces, and unity in diversity.13

The driving force of Timeus’ discourse is to provide a normative principle of order. Timaeus’

wild opining—what he calls a merely “a likely discourse” that is not to be taken solely on face

value14—should not be considered a mythological digression doomed to obscurity in our post-

metaphysical age. Rather, it serves as an elaborate image to illustrate a normative principle for

human action.

Such a principle is essential to understanding cosmopolitanism in a global era. The term kosmos

reflects a philosophical understanding of the world as harmoniously ordered, all pieces fitting

together to form a balanced whole under a principle of unity in diversity. Such a principle does not

mean the subsumption of difference into a unity, e.g. the assimilation of difference for the purpose

of its elision. The principle of unity in diversity, articulated in the elaborate image of the kosmos,

implies that an effective unified order must account for, promote, and protect difference and

diversity. Any suppression of difference would compromise the integrity of the assumed unity.

The work of Hannah Arendt can help illustrate what a principle of unity in diversity might imply

in a political context. For in her Human Condition, Hannah Arendt argues that plurality is integral to

the human condition, specifically regarding politics.15 Plurality provides for dialogue and struggle

within politics while ensuring that human action does not conform to one model behavior. A

condition of plurality is essential for public discourse and innovation. However, this plurality is

unified under the banner of the human condition. It is because humans are united in their


























































13 See Ibid.; 78, 47B-C.
14 See Ibid.; 59, 29d.
15 See Arendt, 1958: 7-8.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 8
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

differences that political action is possible. Such a concept of unity in diversity diverges from

monological political or moral orders. A monological political order would be totalitarian, whereas a

monological moral order would resemble a self-righteous moral universalism or fundamentalism. In

such conditions, politics, for Arendt, is impossible.16

Arendt’s reflection on plurality and politics is important for considering Plato’s idea of the

kosmos. For the fact that the Timaeus immediately follows the Republic is by no accident. This is

because understanding the nature of the kosmos was essential in finding a just order for the poleteia. In

the Republic, Plato examines how to best achieve a just political order. One of the images he uses to

make his point is most commonly referred to as “the Ship of State.” Here, Socrates verbally

illustrates an image of sailors attempting to pilot a ship at sea without understanding that “for the

true pilot, it is necessary to pay careful attention to year, seasons, heaven, stars, winds, and

everything that proper to the art . . .” (168, 488d). The pilot must have an understanding of the

constantly changing environment in which the ship is sailing. This complex unity of diverse elements

that the pilot must understand is the same kosmos from the Timaeus. For this reason, “the true pilot

will really be called a stargazer . . .” (168, 488d-e). Thus there can be no justice in the world without

a bit of stargazing.

B. What is Politês?
The political nature of cosmopolitanism can be elaborated further through examining the

ancient Greek discourse on politês. Politês is the Greek equivalent of the Latin term civis, translated

most simply into English as “citizen.” In examining Greek discourse on citizenship, it is my

intention here to delink the notion of citizen, as it is embodied in the term politês, from membership

in a state as it is understood today. In doing so, I will outline a conception of politês as membership

in any form of ethical and/or political association.


























































16 Ibid.: 58.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 9
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

In ancient Greek political discourse, the term politês is constitutively related to the terms polis and

politeia. Aristotle used the term politeia to indicate constitutions in general, sometimes specifically

applying the word to indicate democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, and mixed constitutions.17 Aristotle

describes the politês as “he who enjoys the right of sharing in deliberative or judicial office…attains

thereby the status of a citizen of his [politeia].” But “a [politeia], in its simplest terms, is a body of such

persons adequate in number for achieving a self-sufficient existence.”18 To this extent, there is a

circular relationship between politês and politeia. Citizens have the right to participate in the

functioning of the politeia. But what is the politeia? It is that which is constituted by those deliberating

around the formation and adjudication of laws governing the polis. Citizens have membership rights

in the politeia while also embodying the politeia through governing themselves. Neither one exists

without the other. They come together in mutually supporting relationships. Therefore, the polis, or

political association, is constructed by the actions of the citizens in a state of self-governance. It does

not designate the physical architecture of the city or the surrounding area, but indicates a political

association of individuals coming together to in order to govern themselves.19 The politeia is not an

autonomous bureaucratic institution but a construction, built from the political actions of members.

It is the presence and actions of citizens as political actors that serve as the foundations for both the

polis and its governing to achieve political ends. Therefore, within the discourse of ancient Greek

political thought, the members of the political association, the political association itself, and the

governing of the political association are all intertwined.

However, it would be too narrow argue that politês indicated solely a political relationship as we

would understand it today. Membership in the polity reflected an ethical-political relationship among

its members. Such a condition can be seen in Plato’s Republic [politeia] where the just city is conceived

























































17 See Aristotle, 1958: In particular, Note M, 87.
18 Ibid.: 1275b, III, i, §12, 95.
19 Such is reflected when the Persians burned Athens to the ground. When the inhabitants fled to the sea in boats, it was

said that the polis was now in the boats, not the city they left behind.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 10
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

in direct relationship to the just soul. The just comportment of people in their social and political

lives directly correlated with aspects of the just city. And it must not be forgotten that Aristotle’s

Politics emerges directly out of the considerations on ethics, happiness, and friendship in the

Nicomachean Ethics. The statement that human beings are “political animals” is one of the early

principles that initiates his reflection on ethics. Ethics and politics function by virtue of one another

in this conception of the politês.

Aristotle consistently held that human beings were inclined towards forming political

associations, that they were “political animals,” “zoon politikon.”20 And in the Politics, Aristotle

specifically suggests that the city-state is the form of political association that was best suited to

achieve self-sufficiency. Such is not surprising given the predominance of the city-state as the

primary mode of political organization in Greece at the time; however, ever since the appropriation

of Greek though by the Romans, the term polis has been broadened and translated in ways to include

forms of public government, or more simply, a political community or association. It is from Cicero

that we get the title Republic for Plato’s book on the politeia. Such is appropriate for the time of the

Roman Republic. And likewise, the common translation for political associations in the modern era

might be the State. Such a consideration of the polis, politeia, and politês for the modern era was

famously articulated by Hannah Arendt in her Human Condition.21 In each case (the city-state, Roman

Republic, and the modern state), political association we considered to be best achieved within the

most predominant form of government at the time. Each one of these modes of government

applied to the given political context of the day and reflected the ways in which people organized

along ethical and political lines. Thus rather than suggesting that people are inclined to organize in

one form of political association or another, I argue that people are inclined to form ethical-political

associations that attempt to address specific ethical-political contexts.


























































20 See Aristotle, 1975: 1097b, A, §5, 8-9 and 1169b, I, §9, 175 and Aristotle, 1958: 1253a, I, ii, §9, 5.
21 See Arendt, 1958.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 11
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

C. What is Kosmopolitês?

Given these expositions of kosmos and politês, what would they mean when put together? If we

turn out attention back to Diogenes, we find very little along a positive articulation of cosmopolitan

principles. It could be assumed that Diogenes’ appropriation of the term cosmopolitanism was

posited negatively as a critique of the ethical-political conventions of the polis. But put more

positively, the term kosmopolitês could imply that Diogenes views himself as part of a universal human

community governed by the laws of nature, or the kosmos. The kosmos reflects a normative order

from which to base one’s own ethical-political actions. The politês is a human association or

community seeking to govern or order itself. And as argued above, there is a constitutive

relationship between the politês, the polis, and the politeia. So it comes as no surprise that Diogenes, as

a cynic and cosmopolitan, is said to have postulated that the “only true [politeia] was…as wide as the

universe [kosmos].”22 Thus the kosmopolis would be a universal ethical-political association (polis) made

up of ethical political actors (politês). And following the argument above, the kosmopoliteia, or the

global ethical-political order, would be constituted by people around the world acting according to

the various normative principles perceived in the world around them. The kosmopoliteia would be the

global order based on the actions of human beings throughout the world.

But this more positive construction of Diogenes’ statements should not overshadow their critical

drive. According to Diogenes, the conventions of city life often arouse vices while the natural,

balanced order of the kosmos can serve as the guiding principles for ordering humanity around the

globe. But what are the vices of the city, and what is the virtue reflected in the normative balance of

the kosmos? Numbered among the (many) vices articulated by Diogenes are the frivolities that come

from city life: hypocrisy, gross displays of wealth, and, in particular, the ways in which life in the polis

restrict the freedom of people to act according to their natures. For it is said of Diogenes that “it


























































22 Diogenes, 1925: 75.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 12
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

was plain that he acted accordingly…allowing convention no such authority as he allowed to natural

right, and asserting that the manner of life he lived was the same as that of Heracles when he

preferred liberty [freedom/independence] to everything.”23

Therefore, freedom is the critical principle followed by Diogenes in his cosmopolitanism. By

freedom, Diogenes does mean to live free from the restrictions of social convention. But Diogenes

had a more specific understanding of freedom: “Being asked what was the most beautiful thing in

the world, he replied, “Freedom of speech [parrhesia].””24

The term, parrhesia, is central for understanding the form of freedom advocated in Diogenes’

cosmopolitanism and how I will apply the term to the contemporary global era. The term parrhesia as

it was used in ancient Greece has been closely examined by Michel Foucault. Foucault identifies a

few key characteristics of parrhesia: frankness, truth, risk, criticism, and duty.25 In terms of frankness,

parrhesia indicates full disclosure or transparency, to refrain from saying anything misleading or

illusive. By way of truth, parrhesia indicates a claim to truth or truthfulness. Risk implies that one will

speak one’s mind regardless of the consequences. Such an indication relates to the critical nature of

parrhesia. Speaking freely means having the right and capacity to speak critically if one desires. It also

signifies the right to have one’s frank, truthful voice be heard by others. But more than a right,

parrhesia was one of the principles of the Athenian democracy. As much as it was a right, it was also

a duty, a duty to participate in the governing practices of the politeia. Parrhesia is then the right to

speak one’s mind and the duty to critically participate in the governing of the polity. Thus in terms

of politics, it could be said that parrhesia indicates the freedom to critically engage in political

discourse. On an ethical level, it could be suggested that parrhesia is both expressed by and demanded

from people in their daily lives. Therefore, in relating the kosmos to human affairs, Diogenes posits


























































23 Ibid.: 73
24 Ibid.: 71
25 See Foucault, 2001: 12-19.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 13
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

normative ethical-political principles of discursive freedom and critique. Here, parrhesia can be said

to be the driving principle of Diogenes’ cosmopolitanism.

The concept of parrhesia is complementary to the principle of unity and diversity, as derived from

Plato’s notion of the kosmos. In parrhesia, a plurality of voices is expected, and in fact demanded,

within an ethical-political association. If people express their frank and critical opinions in public

discourse, there must be efforts to voice diverse opinions for the unified aim of governing an

ethical-political community. The polity (politeia) is constituted by the expression and management of

the diverse opinions of its members. In terms of cosmopolitanism, Diogenes claims that by virtue of

being members in a universal human community, people should have the right to speak their mind

publically and live a life where people are free to engage in critical practices.

In that he is critical of social and political conventions and advocates living a life outside of such

conventions, parrhesia serves as the normative principle of governance for Diogenes. Here Diogenes

capitalizes more on the ethical aspect of politês, using an argument about human ethical

comportment to critique the political institutions of the polis. Put another way, Diogenes considered

the governing principles in terms of ethical relations with others rather than in terms of formal

political institutions. If we are content to be anarchists—and Diogenes was one of the first who

could claim such a title—this would be all the work we would need to do. Diogenes seems to be

advocating a global order where people can live in a world ordered purely by the critical expression

of difference.26

A few hundred years later, the Roman stoics took a more conservative reading of Diogenes’

brand of cosmopolitanism. For the stoics, cosmopolitanism meant focusing on the ethical relations

between humans qua members of humanity, rejecting relations of pure difference, revitalizing one’s

duty to the polity, and imbuing ethical relations with others with a responsibility to look after and

























































26It might be tempting here to draw relations between Diogenes position here and post-modern articulation of a global
ethical-political order put forth by Hardt and Negri. See Hardt and Negri, 2000; Hardt and Negri, 2004.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 14
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

care for others, despite their political affiliations. Thus it could be said that the stoics formulated

some of the earliest conceptions of moral cosmopolitanism. In this interpretation, one could be a

member of a particular political community, but this does not preclude affording non-citizens the

same ethical concerns as one’s fellow citizens.27

But along with its ethical suppositions, the term politês can also have implication for formal,

institutionalized politics. The term kosmopolitês could indicate that as members of a world society,

people should have the capacity to participate, to some degree, in the formation of the global

political order. This does not necessarily mean the formation of a world state. Today, it could mean

using existing political channels to push for anything as little as bolstering the efficacy of

international law, strengthening the international society of states, or possibly, the formation of

cosmopolitan international law that better protects principles of human rights. However, importing

the principle of parrhesia into the political realm, such a principle would require ethical and/or

political rights and duties to some degree. Such rights could involve formal membership in decision-

making bodies that have a say in the global politics, open and responsive channels for voicing critical

opinions, and the right to initiate public deliberation in which people could freely express their views

and opinions.

In concluding this section, let me review and summarize the principles discussed in terms of

explicating the term kosmopolitês. This term was broken down into it’s roots: kosmos and politês. I will

list these two terms and review the principles associated with them in terms of their articulation in

ancient Greek philosophy.

Kosmos: 1) indicates a universal or global order encompassing all of humanity; 2) calls for a

reflection on a changing environment or context, taking into account a multiplicity of different

factors; 3) highlights the principle of unity in diversity, or plurality in Arendt’s term, taking care not


























































27 See Nussbaum Nussbaum, 1997.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 15
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

to eviscerate difference for the sake of unity; 4) reflects a state of freedom, particularly parrhesia, or

the freedom to critique and participate in public discourse.

Politês: 1) indicates membership in an ethical-political community; 2) imparts the right to

participate in the governing or ordering of one’s society or political association by virtue of

membership in it; 3) reflects the reciprocal relationship between membership in a political

association and the political association itself; 4) and such a relationship highlights the constitutive

quality of ethical-political participation in the construction of an ethical-political order.

Based on these principles, cosmopolitanism would indicate a belief in or a normative drive

towards a global ethical-political order, constructed by the participation of individuals around the

world with the right to freely initiate critical deliberation around the ever changing world in which

they live while respecting and promoting diversity and difference.

IV. Constructing Cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism in a Global Era

So what does such an investigation into the ancient Greek roots of the term “cosmopolitanism”

offer us in terms of the contemporary global era? We no longer look up into the sky and base an

understanding of our ethical-political world on imaginative intimations of cosmos. We now live in a

post-metaphysical context where such speculations are viewed as irrelevant with respect to

demystified, modern scientific worldviews. And we no longer live in the tight community of the polis

where ethics and politics are loath to be separated. The nation state, in many respects, was envisaged

as an ethical-political relationship; however, in the contemporary world of pluralism and

multiculturalism, ethics and politics are more easily separated and are often considered irrespective

of one another. Also, theories of ethical-political relationships beyond the nation-state have come

under criticism for being irreconcilable with the nation-state system.28 Despite their continued

problems, the democratic nation-state has been the preeminent normative framework for ethical-


























































28 See, for instance, Miller, 1995; Miller, 2000; Nagel, 2005



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 16
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

political order in the modern era. And the nation-state system has provided the foundations for

adjudicating relationships between states under the normative order of sovereign equality. Law and

legalistic forms of justice are widely administered according to such a framework.

But it is my argument that cosmopolitanism, as it is articulated above, is even more salient today

than when it was first articulated nearly twenty-five hundred years ago. The claims of moral and

political cosmopolitans—described in section II above—portray a global era in which the

contemporary practices of people, groups, and institutions, have deepened human interactions on a

global level. Such actions construct a global context where ethical and political concerns can no

longer, if they ever did, be contained solely within the frame of the nation-state. People’s

participation in such a context constructs a world in which individuals and groups are increasingly

engaged in ethical and/or political relationships with others beyond their national boundaries.

However, corresponding rights and duties have not emerged in order to meet these new conditions.

It is within this context that we can apply the cosmopolitan principles articulated above.

Many of us no longer share Timaeus or Diogenes’ views of the kosmos. However, their

discourses were articulated, not in the service of scientifically explaining the natural world, but as a

means to investigate and provide normative principles for order in human ethical-political

relationships. Such principles are important for analyzing the global era for four reasons: 1) For in a

global era, cosmopolitanism suggests that it is necessary to view ethical-political life from a global

standpoint. Interrelations on local, national, transnational, regional, and supranational levels require

a global frame of analysis. Although globalization might affect different regions disproportionately, it

constructs and intensifies human relations on a global scale. An analysis of people’s ethical-political

relations must take this into account. 2) The nation-state emerged in a distinctive historical context,

and political actors of the time participated—often disproportionately—in forming ethical-political

relations to realize state-bound national political orders. As such, in an era of shifting forms of



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 17
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

governance on a global scale, it is necessary to assess principles of ethical-political relationships in

terms of the contemporary exercise of social and political power. 3) As globalization brings people

closer together beyond the frame of the nation-state, people from diverse backgrounds are being

brought together in ever widening and deepening relationships. Today, incredibly diverse individuals

are increasingly unified (in terms of economic, political, and social relations) around the world. It is

crucial now to analyze the ways in which such a unity is constituted and, normatively, how to

preserve difference in the face of ever-closer unions. 4) And in a changing context of mounting

exercises of power on a global scale, it has become important to evaluate the status and prospects of

freedom, particularly the freedom to critically participate in public discourse around the exercise of

power on a global scale, in terms of the global era.

The polis, or political association, is currently conceived in terms of the nation-state as it is

realized in the international state system. Such a context creates a dualistic political and legal system

where formal politics either occurs a) within the framework of the state, or b) between states as

political actors themselves. Law is either a) internal to a polity, concerned with citizens, or b) formed

through agreements and customs realized between states as the subjects of international law.29 Some

have argued that this necessarily limits the field of political relations to the political within and

between nation-states.30 In other words, because the formal political institutions are state-based, the

normative frame for political action must be limited to national institutions. In another respect,

legalistic conceptions of justice31 based on national identity, have framed the scope of ethical

responsibility either primarily within a national framework.

Such an outlook reflects a particular interpretation of the concept of politês. Such positions begin

from the context of established political institutions as they are distinct from their members. This


























































29 For more on legal dualism as a normative global order see Cohen, 2004; Cohen, 2005; Cohen, 2008a; Cohen, 2008b
30 See Urbinati, 2003.
31 See Miller, 1995; Miller, 2000; Nagel, 2005.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 18
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

means that political institutions—often, today, state bureaucracies—exist separately from their

members. Politics occurs within these formal political channels by virtue of membership in them.

And in that, for some, the membership boundaries of the politeia designate ethical-national

relationships, ethical relationships should exist at their strongest within the national community.

Cosmopolitan perspectives would view the issue of the ethical-political association from a

different perspective. As I have sought to demonstrate in my reflection of politês above, the polity is

constructed by the actions of those who are a part of it. People come together to form political

associations in order to engage in public opinion- and will-formation around governing their lives.

This means that ethical-political membership need not be limited to the existing forms of political

institutions but should reflect conditions of political action around the globe. Cosmopolitan

perspectives suggest that new ethical and political standards might be required to meet the needs of

ethical and/or political relationships in the global era where new modes of ethical and political

associations are under formation. Such positions are based on the current distribution of governance

structures around the globe, the rise of transnational social movements, and the increased intensity

of relationships (social, political, and economic) between people beyond formal political boundaries.

Rather than beginning from the given national framework for normatively assessing ethical

responsibility and distributing political power, cosmopolitanism would seek to evaluate the current

ethical and political practices of individuals, groups, and institutions in the global era. From this

perspective, it is 1) necessary to reevaluate the current boundaries of ethical and political

relationships and determine who are a part of such relationships and 2) to articulate what rights,

duties and responsibilities people owe one another based on such relationships. Such a position is

based on the assumption that 3) if people are subject to ethical and/or political relationships with

others beyond the state, they should have ethical or political standing in that relationship. And thus,



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 19
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

this position 4) presupposes the constitutive nature of ethical and political relationships beyond the

frame of the nation-state in forming post-national ethical and political communities.

In sum, the cosmopolitan perspective takes the interrelations between people around the globe

as the constitutive basis for a global ethical-political order of ethical. Cosmopolitanism assumes that

the actions of people across the globe in an increasingly globalized era constructs ethical and

political relationships that can no longer be bound to the frame of the nation-state. There is, of

course, no one articulation of cosmopolitanism today. And the concerns articulated above generate a

wide array of empirical analysis, theoretical reflection, and normative postulating. But it is not within

the scope of this essay for me to investigate different articulations of cosmopolitanism today. In this

paper, I have sought only to explicate the principles of cosmopolitanism through interpreting its

origins in ancient Greek discourse and applying such an interpretation to the global era.

V. Conclusion
Do we live in a cosmopolitan era? No. But we do live in a global era where cosmopolitan

principles are gaining increasing salience. But it is important to be clear about what such principles

are and make an argument for their normative privileging in the contemporary world. Within the

framework of cosmopolitanism, two principles are central: 1) the principle of unity in diversity, or

plurality, and 2) the freedom of critical public discourse beyond boundaries around the issues faced

by individuals and groups in a global era. If difference is not respected and protected, then

cosmopolitan principles can prove to be damningly imperialistic. If the free expression, deliberation,

and critique are restricted on a global level, then it is impossible to formulate claims for ethical and

political justice in a global era. And, according to the analysis of the term politês, freedom of public

expression should be tied to constitutive membership in ethical and/or political communities. Thus

there must be means of translating modes of public opinion- and will-formation into formal

channels of ethical-political action. Such a condition requires the reevaluation of the terms of



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 20
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

membership in ethical and political communities as well as continued debates over the rights and

duties of such communities within the global era.

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Janet L. 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Archibugi, Daniele. 2003. Debating Cosmopolitics. London ; New York: VERSO.
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition, Charles R. Walgreen Foundation Lectures. [Chicago]:
University of Chicago Press.
Aristotle. 1958. The Politics of Aristotle. Translated by E. Barker. [1st American ed. New York,: Oxford
University Press.
———. 1975. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. G. Apostle, Synthese Historical Library V. 13.
Dordrecht, Holland ; Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Cohen, Jean L. 2005. "The Self-Institution of Society and Representative Government: Can the
Circle Be Squared?" Thesis Eleven (80):9.
———. 2008a. "A Global State of Emergency or the Further Constitutionalization of International
Law: A Pluralist Approach." Constellations 15 (4):456.
———. 2008b. "Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of
Globalization." Political Theory 36 (4):578.
Cohen, Jean L. . 2004. "Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus International Law." Ethics & International
Affairs 18 (3):1.
Diogenes, Laertius. 1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. 11 ed. 2 vols. Vol.
II, The Loeb Classical Library. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Foucault, Michel. 2001. Fearless Speech. Edited by J. Pearson. Los Angeles, Ca[lif.]: Semiotext(e):
[Distributed by MIT Press].
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
———. 2004. Multitude : War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: The Penguin Press.
Held, David. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
———, ed. 2005. Debating Globalization. Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA: Polity.
Kant, Immanuel. 1991a. "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose." In Kant:
Political Writings, edited by H. S. Reiss. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
———. 1991b. "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch." In Kant: Political Writings, edited by H. S.
Reiss. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality, Oxford Political Theory. New York: Clarendon Press.
———. 2000. Citizenship and National Identity. Cambridge, UK; Malden, Mass.: Polity Press;
Published in the USA by Blackwell Publishers.
Nagel, Thomas. 2005. "The Problem of Global Justice." Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2):113-147.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. "Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism." The Journal of Political Philosophy 5 (1):1-
25.
Plato. 2001. Plato's Timaeus: Translation, Glossary, Appendices and Introductory Essay. Translated by P.
Kalkavage, The Focus Philosophical Library. Newburyport, Mass.: Focus Pub./R. Pullins.



Adam Gannaway What is Cosmopolitanism? 21
4/3/2009 MPSA Conference Paper

Spruyt, Hendrik. 1994. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors, Princeton Studies in International History and
Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Urbinati, Nadia. 2003. "Can Cosmopolitcal Democracy Be Democratic." In Debating Cosmopolitics,
edited by D. Archibugi. London: Verso.