In his chapter on “Media
and the Reinvention of the Nation,” Silvio Waisbord defines cosmopolitanism as
a belief in the “need to go beyond the lottery of birth that underlies national
identities, so as to strengthen a universalist, humanitarian consciousness” (385).
This modern understanding of cosmopolitanism is rooted in early twentieth
century dialogue and correspondence between Rabindranath Tagore and W.B. Yeats,
two extraordinary poets and thinkers who were both winners of the Nobel Prize
in literature (in 1913 and 1923, respectively). Both were borne out of disparate
parts of the British colonial empire; Tagore in India and Yeats in Ireland. Both
were also self-identified staunch nationalists, believers in loyalty to their nations,
but also to the global community of mankind.
Prior to Tagore and Yeats,
cosmopolitanism was widely understood to be an eighteenth-century ideal that
called for minimizing national differences in favor of “one uniform enlightened culture” (“Overcoming
the “Contagion of Mimicry,” Louise Blakeney Williams, 70). In deemphasizing
national culture, this construction of cosmopolitanism supported a universal set of values shared
across all upper-middle and elite classes around the world.
Enter Tagore and Yeats, who
questioned the inherent value of nation-states and their binary cultures. (You’re either
part of a national culture and identity or you’re not.) Tagore and Yeats responded
to prior visions of cosmopolitanism by articulating their own vision of a “rooted”
cosmopolitanism. This is the same cosmopolitanism that we referenced in our
contemporary discussions last week. As Williams notes:
[Tagore and Yeats] think that individuals can be nationalists by retaining their national identities and primary loyalty to one nation, while at the same time being “respectful of cultural diversity, interested in dialogue across cultures, and committed to forms of cultural hybridization.
In other words, a
modern-day cosmopolitan respects a nation-state’s legacy traditions, values,
and history while also embracing curiosity and openness to universal values espoused
by all other nation-states.
Over 2,000 years have
passed since the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes the Cynic first declared
that he was a cosmopolite, or, a “citizen of the world.” Back in 1999, John
Tomlinson made the argument that cosmopolitanism cannot be true group identity
because modern media does not support it. Instead, news and information are
written and understood in reference to the nation-state.
However, in this age of
rapid-fire social media—where the individual is seemingly empowered to dialogue
across cultures on Facebook and through programs such as Peace Corps and
participate in cultural hybridization through the consumption of globalized
products and information—are we all still just Americans, Canadians, and
Chinese? Or are we global citizens? Or somewhere in between,
Perhaps in this digital communication age flush with
communication, a certain number of us in middle-class households with access to
information and international consumption and/or travel opportunities are all
occupying Homi Bhabba’s “third space.”
First, thank you for inserting the Tagore and Yeats quotes. Having two anti-colonial writers argue for a moderated form of cosmopolitanism brings a very interesting perspective to the debate of the modern "global citizen". However, after reading your post, I found myself wondering if the "third space" is in fact possible when it is still trapped in the language of nationalism.
ReplyDeleteBoth the utopian global citizen and the Yeats/Tagore balancing act are predicated on the existence of a nationalist discourse and identity. Without knowing what nationalism is, you could not understanding its antithesis or even create the "third space". To me, that would make both ideas slightly problematic to initiate. With the "third space", nationalism is permitted, but is supposed to be tempered by respect for other cultures. But isn't that a hard thing to balance against an idea that still has power in the modern world? Even pure cosmopolitanism, which says it erases nationalism, actually doesn't because nationalism as an idea still underscores the very language of cosmopolitanism.
It is very hard to change or even erase an idea when that idea is still very much alive in the language of a culture. When it is in the discourse, it means it still has agency in the system, and can therefore impact modern ideas for good or ill.
The reference to Tagore and Yeats brought to mind the work of Uma Narayan. Though she deals predominantly with "Third World Feminism", she spends a whole chapter in her book Dislocating Cultures talking of "Anti-Western" sentiment and how that lead to third-world nationalist movements. But as she points out, in their attempt to create a new identity for themselves, the colonized ended up appropriating the same system of cultural identity that their colonizers used ("Us" v. "Them") and just making their definition of nationalism as "Anit-Western" (14). By not changing their discourse on identity, the colonized were still bound by the meanings that discourse conveyed on them. Though it may seem like going in the exact opposite direction would free you from the shackles of a discourse you do not agree with, it actually binds you even closer, because you can only define yourself as NOT that discourse.
Tagore and Yeats are both writing in this colonialist era, and so it fascinates me that they bring up this idea of hybridization in such a context. But even they do not offer a means to change the actual language of identity. As you noted, "national identity" is still a part of their "third space". So my question to everyone is: how can you expect to think about culture in a new way -- to include the possibility of a hybrid culture -- if you cannot change the way in which you talk about cultural identity?
Even with social media and other communication technologies giving us access to cultures and perspectives, nationalism still plays its role, because to this day you identify yourself as Chinese, American, Indian, Moroccan, etc. Until that language can be taken out as a signifier of our identity, I will have to remain skeptical that the third-space -- even if we are occupying it -- can be sustained. Nationalism dominated international relations for so many years, and I worry that that much history and power in our world means that it will not easily share its language space with the discourse of inclusion.