Mahatma Gandhi

October 2, 1869 to January 30, 1948

 

Across the globe, Mahatma Gandhi is considered to be India’s most iconic figure in history. He had a somewhat confusing relationship with the West, as he made it known to the public that he had many mixed feelings about the modern and industrialized lifestyle so common on that side of the world, while also maintaining many friendships with citizens from America, Britain and many parts of Europe (Lal, 2009). Gandhi was seen as a saint and a prophet of peace in his time, and is still portrayed as this today because of his unique ability to bring peace without the use of violence (Lal, 2009).

During his time spent in South Africa, Gandhi came across the idea of Indian nationalism, which would later shape the nation into what it is today (Bhosale, 2009). While discovering the idea of Indian nationalism and identifying himself as an Indian nationalist, Gandhi became the author of a key document known as Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home Rule (Bhosale, 2009). “His visions of politics saw Indians, as primarily members of a single nation (Praja) and only secondarily as members of a sect or a castle or a region” (Bhosale, 2009). Praja, underlined the idea of people of a community. Gandhi was set on the idea of India as a nation of its people, free from rule of Britain (Bhosale, 2009).

It can be argued that Gandhi’s most important contribution to Indian thought and political theory was stating that “self control and self realization should go to the well- being of the nation as a whole” (Bhosale, 2009). Gandhi is considered historically significant because he “emphasized the need to become civic minded as well as peace minded instead of relying only on either brute force or on soul” (Bhosale, 2009). Gandhi himself quotes in his novel India of my Dreams, “The highest form of freedom carries with it the greatest measure of discipline and humility” (Gandhi, 1947). In his book, Gandhi expresses his theories on how Indian’s should go about fighting for their freedoms, and how they should voice their opinions to the government. They can voice their opinions on how the government treats its citizens within the state in a peaceful manner.

Gandhi begins to discuss the issues of labour in Indian in chapter ten of his book, and states a list of adequate labour conditions that should be set in place for all citizens of India, and that both parties (labourer and employer) are at fault for the poor conditions that were originally in affect. “The masters care only for the service they get.

What becomes of the labourer does not concern them … The labourer on the other hand tries to hit up upon all tricks whereby he can get maximum pay with minimum work” (Gandhi, 1947). Through both his writings and actions, Mahatma Gandhi was able to bring many issues such as the labouring conditions as a result of poor governing to the attention of people all around the world, and overall made a significant change to the Indian lifestyle.

Jaime Byers

Work Cited

Lal, V. (2009). Gandhi’s West, the West’s Gandhi. New Literary History, 40(2), 281-313. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27760259

Bhosale, B. (2009). INDIAN NATIONALISM: GANDHI vis-a-vis TILAK AND SAVARKAR. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 70(2), 419-427. Retrieved from http:// http://www.jstor.org/stable/42743906

Gandhi, M. (2008). India of My Dreams. Rajpal & Sons.

Other Relevant Reading

Gandhi, M. (1948). The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Courier Corporation. Gandhi, M. (2014). Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan. Gandhi, M. (2008). India of My Dreams. Rajpal & Sons.

Tribalism

Tribalism is described as the state of being organized into tribes; tribes are built on mutual identification, and members have an obligation to be loyal to their tribe, attacking outside forces who threaten their people. The creation of concept of tribalism cannot be attributed to one figure in history. It dates to the paleolithic period, where cooperation and alliances between humans was necessary for survival. The term can refer to tribes in a traditional sense, such as the Xhosa in South Africa, but in modernity, it primarily refers to more figurative tribes based political parties, beliefs, or characteristics that are mutually shared between people.

The significance of tribalism lies in its role as a joining force, as brings people together through shared beliefs, goals, culture, and more. However, tribalism is also dividing and exclusionary; when someone does not fit perfectly into a group, they are ostracized and make their own ‘tribe.’ Simultaneously, vehement and unwavering loyalty to a tribe can also make its people close-minded and apprehensive towards change. In a sense, tribalism is a form of proto-nationalism, both espouse loyalty to one’s social group. Tribalism’s roots are within human nature; historically, people in traditional tribes surrounded themselves with those who shared beliefs, values, and language to name a few. In modernity, factors such as shared values and beliefs cause people to associate with different political groups. Today, it is common for people to divide into smaller within the same group, causing conflict not only between groups but also within groups, as evident in American political parties. Understanding the power of tribalism provides a great amount of insight into motivations, actions and beliefs of the past by explaining the mindset that is held by people. For instance, the tribalism present in Nazi Germany meant that Jewish, disabled, gay, Romani people, and many others were viewed as threat to the desired German society at the time, leading to the mass genocide that would eventually unfold.

When analyzed closely, tribalist ideologies can be seen throughout history. Nelson Mandela, former South African president, is commonly associated with championing against tribalism; he spent much of his life discovering the dangers of tribalism and advocating for unity. When he began his career in politics in 1944, he saw how divided South Africa was, and that the division led to conflict between the various cultural and racial groups within the nation. He was first concerned with the well being of his tribe, then he gradually included the interest of the rest of the black population, the communists, the Indian population, and finally advocated for the unity of all South Africans, regardless of race or culture. When Mandela was elected in 1994, it showed how many South Africans were casting tribalism aside, and moving into the future as a stronger, united nation. Similarly, Afghanistan was home to an abundance of cultural groups that had been collected into one nation. Tribalism flourished within this environment, as each group of people stuck strongly together, and opposed others. Led by Adbur Rahman in the 1890’s, the Pashtun people, who followed Sunni Islam, declared jihad against the Hazaras, another ethnic group that followed Shiite Islam; the declaration was followed promptly with the persecution and marginalization of the Hazara people.

Lor Richardson

 

Bibliography

Bachrach, Susan. “Deadly Medicine.” The Public Historian 29, no. 3 (2007): 19-32. Accessed October 9, 2017. Historical Abstracts. Keywords: Nazi Germany, eugenics.

James, Paul. “Relating Global Tensions: Modern Tribalism and Postmodern Nationalism.” Communal/Plural 9, no. 1 (April 2001): 11-31. Accessed October 10, 2017. Google Scholar. Keyword: Tribalism.

Mandela, Nelson. Long Walk to Freedom. New York City: Back Bay Books, 2013.

Williams, Brian G. “Afghanistan after the Soviets: From Jihad to Tribalism.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 25, no. 5/6 (September 2014): 924-56. Accessed October 9, 2017. Historical Abstracts. Keyword: tribalism.

Zenman, Phillip M. “Tribalism and Terror.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 20, no. 3/4 (September 2009): 681-709. Historical Abstracts. Keyword: tribalism.

White Supremacism

Identification (~100 words)

Supremacy is essentially the idea of superiority in comparison to anything else. White supremacism refers to the ideal that the caucasian race, or certain members within the caucasian race, is superior to any other class of people. This belief has roots in the idea of a genetic superiority and distinction over other races. There are certain groups that can be associated to this idea, such as the Ku Klux Klan, and Neo-Nazis. We can see the acts of white supremacism both historically and in the modern day in several European countries, parts of Africa, and the Western world.

Historical significance (~200 words)

The importance of white supremacism, in a historical sense, can most effectively be seen during America’s civil right movement. In particular, the actions attacking the idea of white superiority and promoting the equality between whites and minorities shaped the discourse of the past. From the early 14th century and onwards, there have been examples of segregation against the African American people over the basis of white superiority. Because the white Americans felt a superiority over the African Americans, they made laws to give themselves more rights, power and control over them. We can see the agitation that this segregation created through the protests and action of the African American people that eventually led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which essential face purpose was to give people equal rights regardless of colour, race, gender and so forth. This move legally stopped white supremacism, but didn’t stop the forces and ideologies that caused and supported it in politics. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, the African American community still faced political hardships in regard to how much actual representation they received, and ended up migrating across the U.S from the south, changing primarily black communities into more equal ones while also increasing their numbers across the United States.

 

Key historical proponents (~200 words)

Adolf Hitler 1933-1945 reign, Germany: Adolf Hitler believed in an Aryan nation superior to all others. He believed that amongst the caucasian race, there was an even more distinct race of people of European descent. He expressed this ideology in his Nazism politics, the most infamous example of this is expressed in his treatment of the Jewish race.

Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968, America: Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights activists who was extremely against the White Supremacist ideologies and actions that the United States was enacting. He became the face of civil rights during his life and has been associated with the idea of equality between the African American and Caucasian people.

Gurwinder Sidhu

 

Bibliography

Morris, Charles. The Aryan race: its origin and its achievements. n.p.: Delhi, 1988. Bibliography of Asian Studies, EBSCOhost (accessed October 10, 2017).

Banks, T. L. (2014). Still Drowning in Segregation: Limits of Law in Post-Civil Rights America. Law & Inequality, 32(2), 215.

de Jong, G. (2005). Staying in place: black migration, the Civil Rights Movement, and the War on Poverty in the rural South. The Journal Of African American History, (4), 387.

Zionism

Identification:   

The Online Etymology Dictionary explains Zionism as a movement whose goal is to form a Jewish national state in Palestine, founded in late nineteenth-century Eastern Europe. Originally, the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wanted to create an independent state for the Jewish people by trying to force the government to grant Jews theirown Charter and land, and in turn, establish their own country. This goal had been a product of the spread of nationalism throughout Europe and had been the Jewish peoples’ way of forming their own nationalist, secular state. This being said, as it may often be confused, Zionism was not originally a movement to create a state based off of the Jewish religion, but rather a state for the Jewish as a people, to provide national security. Zionism is now an ideological movement supporting the development of this Jewish national state reflecting Jewish culture.

Historical Significance:

From a historical standpoint, this “-ism” is significant due to the fact that it illuminates the adoption of nationalist views due to feelings of oppression and segregation within society caused by the Enlightenment’s creation of a modern, secular, and capitalist state. Because the Jews felt pressured in their community due to social circumstances, they felt the need to separate themselves from the rest of society and strengthen themselves as a national unit. It is noted that, during the beginning of the Enlightenment Era, when much, if not all, of Europe, had begun to completely change their way of life, many upper-class intellectuals had begun to progress in society. However, wanting to integrate their culture into this new, modern, society, Jewish intellectuals tried to create a secular Hebrew literature and revive the Hebrew language. This did not work out due to the fact that upper-class intellectuals in their community did not see Jews as equals and refused to allow this integration. As Shapiro claims, “When this was recognized by the Jewish intellectuals, many of them, in their disappointment and frustration, turned to nationalism for solace.” (Shapiro, 1966) . Clearly, the Jews’ turn to nationalism in order to dismiss inequalities within society illuminates the tendency to seek comfort in the practice of nationalist ideologies due to social alienation, an idea formerly brought forward by Rousseau.

Furthermore, Zionism has influenced the contemporary moment due to the fact that it plays a role in some of the Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist violence seen today. Anti-Zionists and Anti-Semitics continue to perform racial violence due to hatred and anger toward Jews, as a result of their desire to separate themselves from the state. Ironically enough, the desire to separate from the state is due to these racial acts. Finally, the meaning of Zionism and its practices have changed over the years and have caused a lot of debate. The principles of the Jewish religion have begun to seep their way into Zionist practices, causing both national and international conflict. This illuminates an ongoing battle between secular and non-secular thinkers.  Some problems never go away and, although we may think they are two separate issues, the development of Zionism in the nineteenth century and the conflict that had led up to and followed it, between Zionists and all opposed to a Jewish national state, is still present today.

Key Historical Proponents:

The key proponents, that being the most famously known people to be associated with the term, had been the Jewish Intellectuals during the nineteenth century. However, the individual most heavily associated with Zionism would be its acclaimed founder, Theodor Herzl. Herzl’s goals in establishing the movement are outlined in some of the previous paragraphs; however, he laid the basic foundation for the practice of Zionism as it is today. However, another proponent of Zionism was Albert Einstein, who believed that the Jews should be given their own state in order to progress culturally and religiously. This being said, Einstein supported cultural Zionism, meaning that he believed the state should reflect the Jewish religion and culture, unlike what Herzl had intended. The most likely reason for his opinion on Zionism may have been that he believed that internationalism was asserted through the connecting and acceptance of various nations and their own individual cultural identities, rather than one, singular and combined identity.

Breann McKinney

 

Bibliography

Jikeli, G. (2017, June 9). Explaining the Discrepancy of Antisemitic Acts and Attitudes in 21st Century France. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from https://link-springer-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12397-017-9221-x.pdf

Pyenson, L. (2008, June). Review [Review of the book Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace, and the Bomb]. Isis, 99(2), 432-434. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/stable/pdf/10.1086/591372.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:68a8490e82f5947b8db2d97d6fa1409f

Shapiro, Y. (1966). The Zionist Faith . Retrieved October 11, 2017, from http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/journal/PDF/1966_18_02_00_shapiro.pdf

Wharton, L. (2015). Zionism, Judaism and the State of the Jews. Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture, 20/21(4/1), 75-82. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from http://www.pij.org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/

Harper, D. (2001-2017). Zionism (n.). Retrieved October 06, 2017, from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zionism&allowed_in_frame=0

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is a term invented by the American sociologist and social Darwinist William Graham Sumner (Duckitt, Bizumic 2012), while working with the European Sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz.  The term was coined in and around the beginning of the 20^th century, but uses of the term without the word date back to a century before. During the 19^th century people like biologist Charles Darwin and anthropologist/sociologist Herbert Spencer argued that “competition with other [social] groups makes people more cooperative with members of their [social] group” (Duckitt, Bizumic, 2, 2012) and “societies in general are characterized by two opposing moral codes, internal amity (towards members of one’s group) and external enmity (towards everyone else)” (Duckitt, Bizumic, 2, 2012). From these arguments and insights comes the basis that there is a strong connection between oneself and one’s “group.” This connection is so strong that “positive in-group attitudes and behaviors are often associated with various preferential attitudes and behaviors for the in-group over outgroups” (Duckitt, Bizumic, 3, 2012). The belief that one’s own group is superior or better than the “outgroup” can lead to hostility towards that “outgroup” (Duckitt, Bizumic 2012). In summary ethnocentrism is defined as “the tendency to judge the beliefs and behaviours of other [groups] or cultures from the perspective of one’s own [group] or culture” (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry, 27, 2016). Therefore believing one’s own group is superior, better, or more proper compared to the “outgroup.”

Ethnocentrism has key historical significance in explaining why the world is the way it is today and what impacts did ethnocentrism have on past events that have shaped the modern world. A direct derivative from ethnocentrism is the ethnocentric fallacy. The ethnocentric fallacy is the “mistaken notion that the beliefs and behaviours of other cultures and [groups] can be judged from the perspective of one’s own culture or [group]” (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry, 27, 2016). As stated before, people of one group will believe that their beliefs are more superior or more correct than another group’s. Furthermore they will try to judge the other group based on their own group’s views. But just because another group’s views, beliefs, and behaviours may seem odd or bizarre it does not mean that they aren’t logical or right in the context of the other group (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). For example cannibalism in most western countries is seen as something that is exotic, barbaric, evil, and overall something no one should ever participate in. However cannibalism among the Wari in Brazil is seen as something people must do as a burial ritual (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). The Wari consume the deceased roasted body in order to show compassion to the deceased person’s family and to help the family with their suffering. The Wari do this to obliterate the memory of the deceased person so that way the body or their belongings will not bring back painful memories that they are dead (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). They also believe they should never bury their dead because the ground is polluted (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). These rituals and customs are very different compared to a western funeral. Usually at a western funereal the body is laid to rest in the ground and the family and friends of the deceased keep their belongings to remember them. Overall both customs and rituals have its practical uses and logic for their respective groups. Judging either group based on one’s own group is then intellectually and methodologically intolerable (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017) because each group has its own practices and logic to those practices. This is just a small example of how ethnocentrism is significant. On a larger scale this can be applied to countries and its leaders stirring a sense of nationalism, pride, and community within its borders (Rosenblatt 1964). The upbringing and socialization of people within the country leads them to believe that their way of life or their people (citizens) are superior or better than anyone else in the world. People will share a strong sense of community and comradery believing that they are more progressed or evolved and the only way to enforce this is through comparing themselves (and their country) with others around the world. In order for all of this to work there must be a strong leader outlining and instilling a sense of “us versus them” mentality among the people. The leader will either promote “fear or hate of some outgroup” (Rosenblatt, 133, 1964) or promote a sense of superiority degrading the outgroup. Such promotion of fear or hate has led to the Nazi’s taking power in Germany during the 1930’s. It has also lead to the spread of fascism throughout Europe and Asia during that time period. More specifically, in Germany Jews were the outgroup that was targeted for fear and hatred. The Aryan Germans believed themselves to be superior to the group and the thing bringing Germany down economically, socially, and politically was the Jew. In order for Germany to rise out of the ashes of World War One and return to its former glory the Aryan Germans must rid of the Jew. This strong sense of nationalism was enforced by ethnocentrism from Adolf Hitler, the Nazi party, and the Third Reich. This led to some of the most horrible atrocities ever to be committed by human beings in history. Another example of Ethnocentrism on a large scale would be the cold war. America and the Soviet Union were comprised of very different ideals, beliefs, and views. Each superpower insisted that their country was superior or had better beliefs and structure. This caused small wars throughout the world as each side fought to prevent the opponent’s ideology being spread into other countries. What both sides didn’t realize was that the ideologies of their opponents might seem illogical to themselves, but be totally logical to the opponent (democracy vs communism, freedom vs equality, and capitalism vs controlled market). Overall ethnocentrism, through ethnocentric fallacy, can lead to dangers in nationalism. This is because through ethnocentrism one can compare their group or country to other groups or countries around the world and claim to be better or superior through hate and fear. This also creates a non-inclusive “us versus them” mentality which is further heated by a charismatic leader. In conclusion ethnocentrism is significant to history because it has shaped world relations and sparked dangerous nationalism amongst groups and countries. All of which are still relevant today.

Traditionally ethnocentrism is used within the social sciences, specifically Anthropology. Many anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Margret Mead have expanded on the term ethnocentrism by participating in field work around the world with many different people. By doing field work for anthropology research one must always consider their ethnocentrism (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). A person must do this because they want to get the most accurate and correct answers they can instead of having answers that are biased. In order to keep ethnocentrism in check while doing field work and interacting with many groups is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the “effort to understand the beliefs and behaviours of other cultures in terms of the culture in which they are found” (Robbins, Cummings, Mcgarry 2017). Through cultural relativism one will finally be able to truly understand the certain beliefs, traditions, and behaviours of other cultures or groups around the world. On a more historical and bigger scope cultural relativism can be used to gain more insight on events that have shaped the modern world. By looking at all sides and scopes of wars, political uprisings, economic changes, and social shifts one can gain a better understanding about the purposes and justifications of certain actions or beliefs. Also by looking into the history of the modern world this way it will open up the possibility for solutions to century old problems. Therefore understanding how ethnocentrism played an influential role in the events that shaped the modern world will provide deeper knowledge into solutions for the future. Furthermore understanding the past through the scope of cultural relativism will provide deeper insight into the reasons and justifications of the beliefs and actions of all sides.

Marco Minadeo

 

Bibliography

Duckitt, J. B. (2012). What Is and Is Not Ethnocentrism? A Conceptual Analysis and Political Implications. Political Psychology, 887-909.

Richard H. Robbins, M. C. (2016). Anthropology 1AB3: Religion, Race and conflict . Toronto: Nelson.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (1964). Origins and effects of group ethnocentrism and nationalism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 131-146.

Nationalism

Nationalism generally refers to a set of beliefs nation has about itself. Although being closely related, nationalism is not a synonym of nation and is a very diverse idea. Every nation has different interpretation of its character therefore it is possible that different nations will have their own set of beliefs distinct from others. The idea of ethnic nationalism in which countries obtain their political authority from historical or cultural groups and each country has a unique spirit, or character was introduced by Johann Gottfried Herder in the nineteenth-century. Not only nations but ideas on the political spectrum could also have different interpretations of nationalism. Left-wing nationalism is drastically different from that of right-wing.

Nationalism has a great significance from the historical perspective. Nationalist mentality in European nation states was the contributing cause of World War I and World War II. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian nationalists who wanted people sharing the same ethnicity with them to form their own state caused the ultimatum from Austria-Hungary which thereafter led to one of the bloodiest events in human history. World War I which was essentially sparked by a group of people following nationalistic ideas, forever changed geopolitical climate in Europe. Similarly, in World War II nationalism was one of the contributing causes of the war as well as one of the driving forces that kept the war going on for six years. German government practicing fascism which evolved from ultra nationalism was promoting submission to the nation and the need for the loyalty to the head of the state Adolf Hitler. Through the use of propaganda, the government successfully promoted these nationalistic ideas which motivated Germans. It also encouraged radical ideas of superiority of Germanic people and hostility towards certain ethnic groups which later led to genocides. Nationalism was not a key cause of World Wars only. It also contributed to the conflicts such as Vietnam war and the Cold War and it continues to shape history and politics to this day.

The most recent political figure that could be associated with nationalism is Donald John Trump. Current president of the United States embodied nationalism in his Republican primary campaign in the 2016 general election. Throughout his campaign Donald Trump had been emphasizing nationalistic ideas by stressing relation to the American nation and using slogans such as “Make America Great Again” and “America first” thus sparking the sense of national identity in his supporters and mobilizing them. Fidel Castro is another historical figure who championed nationalism, especially during the 26th of July Movement which launched the Cuban revolution. In contrast to Donald Trump’s republican right-wing nationalism, Castro’s movement was an example of left-wing communist nationalism. Fidel Castro with the help of his coordinator Frank País organized a group of young men and women to overthrow the regime of General Fulgencio Batista.  While standing by anti-imperialist and communist ideas, they put the movement in a historical and ideological context that would appeal to the Cuban population whose independence and sovereignty had been repeatedly violated since the beginning of the 20^th century thus mobilizing Cubans and gaining their support.

Valerii Kolesnikov

 

Bibliography

Grosby, S. (2005). Nationalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 10, 2017

Kellner, D. (2016). American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle, and Authoritarian Populism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Retrieved October 13, 2017

Sweig, J. (2002). Inside the Cuban Revolution : Fidel Castro and the urban underground. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Retrieved October 12, 2017

Warnes, K. (2013, September). Nationalism. Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2. Retrieved October 12, 2017

Cosmopolitanism

Identification:

Cosmopolitanism is described as the view that all humans are world citizens and it is derived from the word kosmopolites, a Greek word. Those humans have responsibilities that broaden beyond national borders. In other words, cosmopolitanism is the idea of all humans belonging to one society based on shared morality. People who follow cosmopolitanism are known as cosmopolites promote the construction of understanding and they are not the ones to support cultural, social or religious homogenization. Some view cosmopolitanism as more of a self-description rather than a theoretical substance. It is often linked with the modern cultural citizen one that is surrounded by a variety of global cultures and one that is equal at all levels of society whether that be local or global.

Historical Significance:

The term kosmopolites was first to be used by the Cynics and then progressed to the Stoics. The negative side of the cosmopolitan was the historical baggage where the outsider was treated with hostility and suspicion. The darker version of cosmopolitanism has a lot to do with the hostility of national to the migrants who have multiple backgrounds and social/territorial allegiances. Cosmopolitanism’s history was dependent on the mixing of populations often associated with migrants, refugees and outcasts. Cities based on cosmopolitan were created at the outposts of empire and metropolitan centers. This is because cities have more heterogeneity, and diversity proving it to be a cosmopolitan center. Cosmopolitanism and nationalism coexisted casing Eric Kaufman to coin a term, “double consciousness.” However, there were always tension rising between the two. Cosmopolitans were seen as vaunting universal values and nationalism resisted it the times of crisis in the economy or politics. The term cosmopolitanism became an accusation that implied superiority. A cosmopolitan’s values were depicted as a threat to stability and homogeneity. The way in today’s day in age to reduce the negativity of cosmopolitanism it is said to nationalize practices and institutions such as religion. This allows for all people to sustain an acceptance of each other regardless of their differences.

Historical Figures:

The idea of cosmopolitanism initiated a period of “dormancy,” where many developments began. For example, Erasmus of Rotterdam’s idea of Stoic cosmopolitanism was advocating world peace in the 16^th century. During the 17^th century, Hugo Grotius, was the being that formulated the idea of human rights. Both of these men have influence over cosmopolitanism and during the Enlightenment era it also created a lot of eternal peace projects. These were formulated by Abbe de Saint-Pierre, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. Kant wrote a lot of his work based on the idea of cosmopolitanism. His articles stated that the basis that general hospitality but be instituted and to secure the world of a peace that is inclusive of all human capabilities. Another influence in the 19^th century was the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They say that the capital travels wherever he may find profit causing him to have no homeland, but the citizens cannot afford to do the same. Marx and Engels’ version of cosmopolitanism had limited character and served a specific character. They said that the lower class shares common interests everywhere and anywhere in the world they travel to they will find similar people and their will to unite in the revolution to get rid of capitalist order. This idea of a classless society is a strong implication of cosmopolitanism.

Helli Patel

 

Bibliography: 

Ruth Preser. (2017) Lost and found in Berlin: identity, ontology and the emergence of Queer Zion. Gender, Place & Culture 24:3, pages 413-425.

WARF, BARNEY. Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, and Geographical Imaginations.” Geographical Review, 2012, p. 271

Paul Waley. (2009) Introducing Trieste: a cosmopolitan city?. Social & Cultural Geography 10:3, pages 243-256.

Chris Rumford. (2007) Does Europe Have Cosmopolitan Borders?. Globalizations4:3, pages 327-339.

Shmuel Nili. (2011) Democratic disengagement: toward Rousseauian global reform. International Theory 3:03, 355-389.

Pozzo, Riccardo. “Georg Cavallar: Kant’s Embedded Cosmopolitanism: History, Philosophy, and Education for World Citizens. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2015, 215 Pp., ISBN 9783110438499.” Kant-Studien, no. 3, 2017, p. 457.

Pragmatism

The traditional view of what Pragmatism is, according to Pierce, James and Dewey, includes characteristics of “voluntarism, practicality, moralism, relativism, an eye toward the future, a preference for action over contemplation, and other traits of the same degree of generality” (Hollinger, D.). To Charles Sanders Pierce, one of the founders of Pragmatism, there is indeed a legitimate and pure metaphysical aspect to the topic, but only on the condition that it’s scientific and realistic. While contrary to this, William James believed that the “natural” metaphysics of pragmatism is nominalism – which is a theory that no abstract entities such as essences, or propositions exist; only individuals. This ideology was born under a large number of lawyers and scholars as well as some philosophers in the elitist home of Harvard university. Its historical spotlight was between 1870 and 1925. More currently, it’s a common ideology for those looking for research alongside experience and action, as well as the rejection of all other academic philosophy. However, more particularly, “Pragmatism”, was more deeply attractive to those who felt personally opposed to the philosophy of abstractions such as essences – due to James’ 1907 writings. This sort of Pragmatist included people such as Blondel, F.C.S. Schiller, and Italian Papini and Vailati. Henry Steele Commager, a very well known American Historian considered “Pragmatism” in the 20th Century, as “almost the official philosophy of America” (Hollinger, D.). Being American and being pragmatic were one. Interestingly, this popularity of the concept experienced an abrupt decline near the end of the 20th century – with the majority of American historians dismissing its necessity (Hollinger, D.). Although Charles Pierce, William James, and John Dewey’s ideas were becoming increasingly scrutinized by philosophers, the impact they had on Western philosophy and civilization was undoubtedly significant (Hollinger, D.). Therefore, it’s no surprise that Pragmatism would come to be considered as a “philosophical episode” (Hollinger, D.). Another compelling perspective offered examines “The Pragmatic American” as an ideological construct, similar to that of “The Militant German” (Lloyd, B.). This comparison derives from necessary sense of national unity which was foundational around the time of the crisis of WWI – which was also the time of development of these character constructs (Lloyd, B.). Loyd considers Pragmatism as a notion which was politically driven – cultivating a philosophical and intellectual justification for American Nationalism(Lloyd, B.), a la Reagan era (Dobson, A.). Ronald Reagan, the notorious 40th president of the U.S. was known to be characterized as a politically pragmatic, right-wing leader (Dobson, A.).

Safia Khaled

 

Bibliography

Dobson, A. (2016). Ronald Reagan’s strategies and policies: Of ideology, pragmatism, loyalties, and management style. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 27(4), 746-765. doi:10.1080/09592296.2016.1238705

Hollinger, D. (1980). The Problem of Pragmatism in American History. The Journal of American History, 67(1), 88-107. doi:10.2307/1900442

Keller, J. W. (2009). Explaining rigidity and pragmatism in political leaders: A general theory and a plausibility test from the reagan presidency. Political Psychology, 30(3), 465-498. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00708.x

Lloyd, B. (2009). Liberty Philosophy: Nationalism and the Making of American Pragmatism. Science & Society, 73(4), 498-531. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404592