Cosmopolitanism explained

The term "cosmopolitanism" is not a new concept. In fact, Oxford English Dictionary (online of course... only the best website in the world...) says that it was first used in 1828, coming from the word "cosmopolite" which was first used in 1614 meaning "citizen of the world." It baffles me that with all this talk of globalization and internationalization in so many facets of society, nobody is talking about cosmopolitanism. I've always viewed it as a much more broadly usable, applicable alternative to the term "citizenship" because citizenship is very much associated with politics, particularly in the context of American Democracy. And I've noticed that it doesn't really work for our students. They don't connect with it personally because they don't associate it with their immediate reality - i.e. they associate it with a foreign political system. And even if they do begin to create a working definition for themselves that applies to their own culture, it's still somewhat restricted in terms of the pervasiveness and applicability of the concept to all facets of life.

Cosmopolitan or cosmopolitanism, on the other hand, has little to no connotation of a certain action or aspect of society. It's broad enough that it can apply to all people and all situations, but is still specific enough that we can determine what it means for us individually. I was pleasantly surprised to recently read a short commentary in the Spring 2009 publication of TC Today, the alumni magazine for graduates of Columbia's Teacher's College, that quite succinctly yet adequately described the term:

"Cosmopolitanism represents a creative response on the part of people to the realities of globalization and cultural change. In this response, people learn how to develop what I call reflective openness to the world combined with reflective loyalty to the local. In other words, cosmopolitanism (unlike 'universalism') does not imply sacrificing local culture and tradition. Yet neither does it mean sacrificing the immense opportunities to learn and grow that the world provides. Instead, cosmopolitanism means learning to inhabit the 'crossroads' where individual and cultural differences meet. It means learning to learn from other people, a process much richer and more enduring than merely 'tolerating' them, as important as that aim can be." [Written in a Faculty Essay by David Hansen entitled "Cosmopolitanism and Education Today"]

This is the kind of message that this region of the world needs. Really it's what everybody needs as fears of losing one's culture grow and overtake our openness to exploring and understanding other cultures. The right way to live in the new world isn't completely rejecting or fearing other cultures, nor is it trying to meld all cultures together into one unrecognizable conglomerate. Just as in the case of faith development, true understanding comes from interacting with and grappling with the big questions shared by all faiths and understanding the perspectives from many different sides. Only in the context of multiplicity can we fully understand what we believe in and the value our beliefs because they play one part in a symphony of world views that make up the beautiful diversity of thought in our global community. That diversity wouldn't exist if we didn't all contribute to it in some way. And realizing and embracing that fact is exactly what cosmopolitanism is about.

Now only if we could figure out a way to teach that to college students...