Cosmopolitan ideas had evolved through the centuries from “The Prince” of Machiavelli till Beck’s “Cosmopolitan Vision”. Starting from origination of capitalism and ending by contemporary ecological issues those ideas can be traced in the works of the most prominent philosophers, economists and sociologists. In this paper cosmopolitan ideas of Machiavelli, Smith, Marx, Latour and Beck will be represented in the longitudinal analysis of the history of cosmopolitanism. People started to ponder over state structure, forms of government, their rightness, equality in distribution of wealth and resources long ago. The very first mentioning of these ideas could be met in the works of Kant, Aristotle, Plato and Confucius. The necessity of cosmopolitanism had been always a topical issue when people tried to justify the rightness of existing form of governing the state. This essay is an attempt to trace the development and evolution of cosmopolitanism ideas.
The issues of globalization are often addressed in contemporary economic and social literature. When addressing the perspectives and problems of globalization, Beck represented several ideas regarding further global development of cosmopolitanism. In his books Beck does not advocate cosmopolitanism, however, realizing its inevitability. Beck cosmopolitan politics is centered on the issues of the role of the state power, inequality and conflict. He focused on analyses of ecological and demographic issues. Beck also paid particular attention to the development of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), crimes, terrorism, poverty, health and human rights.
He marked out the following principles of globalization: the principle of experience of global crisis, the principle of cosmopolitan conflict (or recognition of cosmopolitan differences), the principle of cosmopolitan empathy, the principle of impossibility of living without borders in the world, the principle of penetration of the nations, religious, cosmopolitan, ethnic, cultures and traditions.
In his works Beck often addressed global issues stating that “it is arousing a cosmopolitan everyday consciousness which transcends even the boundaries between man, animal and plant. Threats create society, and global threats create global society” (38). He often considers cosmopolitanism as inevitability and emphasizes the necessity of addressing the issues of globalization despite of multiple contradictions it brings. Beck made an example of potential conflict over resources (water) as one of the main ecological issues of today.
Beck relegated to the significant role of powerful nations because they are considered to be able to make the problems even worse since they often put their interests ahead of the interests of global community.
He also outlined the perspective for labor division in the nearest future as follows: “a cosmopolitan distribution of labour and wealth could arise in the long run in which low-skilled jobs are exported from rich to poor countries: concomitantly jobs requiring higher qualifications would be sourced in countries with low population densities but highly skilled workforces” (108). One of the central ideas of Beck’s discussion is that globalization resulted from capitalism making possible tax avoidance by large corporations, labor downsizing and switching to poor countries in a search of cheap labor (Beck 62). They organized labor at national level while capital was organized globally to maximize their gains thus strengthening their position in the world (Beck 65).
Another Beck’s concern is US power, hegemony, national interests, imperialism and oil issues over human rights being focused on the US violating international laws. Accusing US in global interventionism related Iraq, stated that US intentions did not coincide with generally accepted cosmopolitan humanitarian view. Beck stated that the USA and NATO pretend to play the role of the global policeman while pursuing economic interests (137). He criticized US internationalist alternative of the national outlook for being centered on the exceptionally national interests while declaring overarching good (Beck 158).
Beck narrowed a range of choice with two alternatives possible in the present situation: the first one a cosmopolitan regime adapted to new reality with the mechanism of threats elimination developed; another alternative is a return to Hobbesian war where all fight against all with military regime superiority over global law (Beck 125).
Machiavelli described the model of cosmopolitanism that took place in XVI century and the way it further developed. In his book “The Prince” Machiavelli raised the issues of just governing where imaginary prince can be associated with governing power or a state. He explained the nature of conflicts that arise between the states and possible measure of regulating these conflicts. Wars were the most popular method of resolving conflicts between countries. Governors of European countries attempted to capture territories from each other to maintain integrate supremacy in the continent. To do so it was important to grab as much as possible natural resources. Machiavelli described how Italians considered the possibility to capture the state in the neighborhood to Italy as follows: “The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them” trying to evaluate potential risks of being defeated. He also defined the treats a good prince must possess (49). Thus, he wrote: “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted” (Machiavelli 82). In this way he attempted to explain the policy of internal and external relations should be established. He emphasized the necessity of compliance with the arrangements achieved by the parties “so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out” (Machiavelli 124).
Some of the ideas of Machiavelli coincide with Beck’s. Thus, Machiavelli described a principle of cosmopolitan conflict developed by Beck later: “two men working differently bring about the same effect, and of two working similarly, one attains his object and the other does not” describing possible negative consequences of cosmopolitanism (Machiavelli 122).
Several issues that were addressed by Machiavelli concerned wars and crimes being in line with Beck’s opinion. Machiavelli did not raise any concern regarding ecological, social or poverty issues because they arose long after as the process of industrialization began.
Machiavelli hypothetically considered the opportunity of living without borders describing new order as “new prince”: “whether there were the elements that would give an opportunity to a wise and virtuous one to introduce a new order of things which would do honour to him and good to the people of this country, it appears to me that so many things concur to favour a new prince” (128). Interestingly, he suggested the opportunity of cosmopolitan integration and penetration of nations when the process of industrialization started. The work of Machiavelli represented the first attempt to describe global processes and their consequences. Also, “The Prince” allowed for making conclusions with regard to similarities of the processes that took place long ago and compare them to the processes that proceed in the modern society.
The analysis of both Beck’s and Machiavellian works showed that societies evolve in accordance with a certain scheme which is similar disregard of the period of time where they occur.
The ideas of Adam Smith are extremely popular in modern world especially when it comes to the debate regarding cosmopolitanism. A significant part of “The Wealth of Nations” is devoted to the issues of commerce, division of labor, distribution of natural resources, international law and justice. Thus, Smith mainly stressed economic aspects as the main reason of inequality. The idea of cosmopolitanism is explained from economic perspective. He also explained the benefits of intercultural communication with regard to the labor division.
Smith gave an accurate description of the nature of economic aspect of cosmopolitanism: “the different produces of their respective talents, by the general disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, being brought, as it were, into a common stock, where every man may purchase whatever part of the produce of other men’s talents he has occasion for” (21).
Smith emphasized the importance of accumulation of capital for future growth. He wrote:
“As the capital of an individual can be increased only by what he saves from his annual revenue or his annual gains, so the capital of a society, which is the same with that of all the individuals who compose it, can be increased only in the same manner” explaining the nature of the wealth of every nation (276).
Whereas “Capitals are increased by parsimony, and diminished by prodigality and misconduct” capitalists are forced to continuously save (Smith 276). In contemporary business environment saving means using outsourcing, developing production in the countries where labor force is low-paid and unqualified, resources are cheap and available. Such a policy helps maximize benefits and save significant costs because labor payments usually compose a large part in the structure of total costs. This statement explains inevitability of development of cosmopolitanism and globalisation.
Smith argued: “Though the principle of expense, therefore, prevails in almost all men upon some occasions, and in some men upon almost all occasions; yet in the greater part of men, taking the whole course of their life at an average, the principle of frugality seems not only to predominate, but to predominate very greatly” (279). Unlike Marx, Smith was convinced that people are prone to frugality and acquisitiveness. He builds up his arguments over this statement. Smith lived in the epoch of industrialization this is the reason why he was mostly concerned about labor issues, capital and working hours.
Smith believed that physical and cultural differences constrain intercultural communication and ethical obligations. Advocating some aspects of cosmopolitanism, Smith resisted relativism in the form of cultural isolation, chauvinism and other localists’ politics. However, being engaged in Stoic teleology, Smith rejected the idea of cultivating apathy towards domicile while he supported Stoic opinion regarding human affection.
Despite of having opposite views regarding some aspects of cosmopolitanism, Beck and Smith shared several opinions. Thus, Smith moral psychology has much in common with Beck’s principle of cosmopolitan empathy and the principle of penetration of nations. As well as Beck who developed the principle of empathy, Smith represented the idea of sympathy as a sociological process practiced by individuals who share the same physical space.
As well as Smith, Marx addressed economic and social problems that arose with the development of cosmopolitanism. He also stressed the importance of primary accumulation of capital. Defending communist ideology he described the process of the primary accumulation of capital in the following way: “The never-ending augmentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save his money from circulation, is attained by the more acute capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation” (273). This description explains continuous pursuit for new opportunities and markets which can be observed nowadays. Capitalists are seeking for new resources and cheaper labor force globally in perpetuity.
Karl Marx considered consuming bourgeoisie natural cosmopolitans. As he propagated communist ideology, he argued that capitalism as contains the seeds for its own destruction due to the philosophy of consumption. With regard to capitalist mode of production Marx stated: “The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what he aims at” (280). The world crisis of 2008 resulted from overproduction crisis and inability to find high-yield investment markets proving this statement of Marx. He also gave the definition of fetishism as a constant thirst for acquisition: “the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands” (82). Thus he explained men’s desire to purchase things which forces them to produce and acquire more products.
Marx’s position differed from the majority of the views of apologists of capitalism since he propagated communist ideology. Unlike to many prominent economists he considered that people are not selfish and greedy. He stated that people can act without regard for they benefit from their actions or not. In this part of his theory his ideas coincide with the ones of Machiavelli but are different from Smith’s ones. Marx paid particular attention to capitalist and socialist labor division emphasizing the issue of excessive exploitation of labor force by capitalists. He also stated that capitalists tend to pay as less as possible and labourers strive for get as much as possible for their labor. Thus, the labor price is set in accordance with those two tendencies mainly. However, nowadays some countries of the world are used as sources of cheap labor force because there are a lot of labourers there who are ready to get lower wages in comparison to the labourers from developed countries. Thus, globalization as the consequence of cosmopolitanism is a good opportunity for capitalists to legally exploit labourers.
Neo-Marxists emphasized social and political models of conflicts. Beck also acknowledged the conflict which could arise from hybrid relationships. He agreed with Marx on the point that shared relations would likely lead to conflict instead of forming international community. Beck suggested that the creation of cosmopolitan democracy could diminish potential conflicts by sharing the risks (58). On the contrary, Marx distinguished between capitalist and socialist mode of production as well as other concomitant processes arising from this division. Both Marx and Beck agree that elimination of social inequality must be primarily addressed (Beck 54; Marx 33).
Like Machiavelli, Latour in his “Pasteurization of France” used a language of metaphors to describe political, economic and social consequences of cosmopolitanism and globalization. Latour ideas are much closer to the modern times addressing an initial stage of globalization.
He developed “Actor-Network Theory” which described the relations between technological progress heterogeneous agents that coalesce constructing a stable network. He marked out “macroparasites” and “microparasites” disregard of whether are of human or non-human nature (64).
He compared globalization that span up with pandemia of anthrax calling upon to isolate “microbes” saying that Pasteurians “became the spokesmen for these new innumerable, invisible, and dangerous agents” (39). He also noticed that “We do not have to decide for ourselves what makes up our world, who are the agents “really” acting in itNor do we have to know in advance what is important and negligible” referring to unknown processes that occurred in French society (9).
Beck and Latour questioned outdated models of subjectivity in communication and raised the issues of the challenges faced by modern society (262). As well as Marx, they referred to fetishism as unwanted aspect of human life. Being a part of consumption philosophy it encourages greed and is a blind alley for capitalism. By contrast, Beck challenge to Latour is that the “other” world will not serve as a stable point in cosmology anymore as it evidences cosmopolitanism.
Latourian and Beck’s theories are connected closely with individualistic approach to ethical issues. Latour, however, is more generous to the unknown “agents” he described. Under the agents he purports state practices, epidemics, machines which are supposedly inert but can actually act as subjects. This approach helps understanding ethical dimensions involved in the cosmopolitan processes, such as, armed conflicts initiated in Iran and Israel whether they act as determining systems or instigators that authorize reactions.
Beck and Latour had significantly contributed to the development of cosmopolitan and cosmopolitical theories. At the same time Latour challenged Beck by repudiating cultural code. Latour stated that scientific modernity implies for allocation of responsibilities and invoking social change by natural processes. The most significant achievement of both Latour and Beck is that they rejected the postulates of classical sociological critique in favor of considering society as an analytical category. On applying to sociology of agents and networks Latour referred to Pierce and James while Beck returned to Kant. This distinction took them in different directions.
Beck stated that the institutions of culture and society are gradually moving off leaving divergent reality. Thus, human subjects remained the only agents capable of maintaining mutual consideration. The constraint is that human beings subject to manifest of unmediated ego in the quality of social arbiter that is asocial by definition.
Certainly, each process has positive and negative sides. On the one hand, cosmopolitanism offers many opportunities (new markets, development of cultural adaptation and tolerance, consolidation of all nations) and serves for the development of wealth. On the other hand, it produces negative economic (unemployment, unfair salaries, crises), ecological (global warming, pollution) and cultural (blending, homogenization, ethnic conflicts, loss of national identity) effects. To succeed in developing an appropriate scope of cosmopolitanism, its framework must be clearly outlined. There also must be a balance between national and global interests. Also, it must represent a healthy alternative to excessive nationalism and narrowly defined globalization.
Works Cited
Beck, Ulrich, and Cronin, Ciaran. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006. Print.
Latour, Bruno. The Pasteurization of France. Trans. Alan Sheridan, John Law. Harvard: Harvard Universty Press, 1993. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. London: SoHo Books. 2011. Print.
Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume One: A Critique of Political Economy. Ed. Trans. Samuel Moore, Edward Aveling. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2011. Print.
Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Simon & Brown, 2012. Print.
