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.”
