|
Having been involved in Cosmo Club activities for about five years now, and having lived in the house since 2003, I realized recently that I didn’t know what Cosmopolitanism actually meant. Do we as an organization correspond to its ideals? To be honest, all I remembered was that in the Soviet Union, being a cosmopolitan was a bad thing, and that stamp collectors were sent to labor camps as “cosmopolitans.” (I haven’t looked into whether that’s really true, but it’s something I heard and remembered as a child, since I at that time was a stamp collector.) Being a grad student, I like research, and being of the Internet generation, I decided that it wouldn’t be too hard to find out a bit about cosmopolitanism. So here are the results of a bit of time spent online. Disclaimer: Unlike the good historian I am when working on my dissertation, I made no attempt to check the validity of my sources. Trust this article at your own risk! The term “cosmopolitan”—according to Wikipedia, in any case—comes from the Greek, and means “citizen of the world.” It was used by ancient Greek philosophers to describe a love for humankind as a whole, rather than any nation in particular, and is opposed to patriotism or nationalism, in which individuals and communities express loyalty to a particular nation, perhaps at the expense of others. A cosmopolitan, therefore, focuses on the best for humanity overall, and seeks unity of all nations in order to support human rights and human dignity, and to avoid injustice and war. In practice, cosmopolitanism opposes the politics of nation-states, and instead views politics and economics on a global level. Yet cosmopolitanism has been criticized for undermining national identities, an important part of how we as humans define ourselves, as well as turning the positive characteristic of loyalty into a negative attribute. Perhaps most importantly, it would be easy, in the name of cosmopolitanism, to advocate a single world culture or world political or economic system. This however, it has been claimed (and I would have to agree with the criticism), would inevitably lead to hegemony of the dominant culture and suppression of minority cultures. One could look at either the Soviet Union or the USA for that – while both were/are (the successor states to the Soviet Union still are) extremely multicultural, not all cultures, languages, or religions are equally valued or respected. Looking this up caused me to wonder just how cosmopolitan the Cosmo Club really is. Do we really support the ideas of cosmopolitan here in Champaign-Urbana? It’s a tough question, and I tend by nature to be skeptical. On the one hand, our coffee hours, dinners, and various events often focus on individual nation-states–a unit that is in opposition to true cosmopolitanism. It’s easy to see a national pride, a patriotism in those presenting their country, serving their food, or performing their traditional cultural forms at Cosmo Club events. Living in the house, I notice that virtually all residents identify themselves first by their state of origin, rather than, say, principles that unite larger groups of people. Yet I can’t say that’s wrong; it’s simply a different approach. And I honestly can’t imagine anything else. And while we do recognize and value the nation-state, and loyalty to it, we also seek to value the cultures, languages, foods, and backgrounds of others. While proud and loyal to our own, I don’t find rivalry in the house. I have not yet heard anyone brag that their food is tastier, or their language inherently better. (I have to admit, this doesn’t apply to sports, especially as I watched the Winter Olympics with my housemates!) But I want to thank Andrea Shields and the members of the Cosmo Club and residents of the Cosmo House for helping me on a daily basis to appreciate those of other backgrounds and to think globally, to make choices in my own life–political, economic, educational–that benefit humanity as a whole, rather than the small world of those around me. |