Cosmopolitan Multiculturalism

Cosmopolitan multiculturalism meaning

To understand what we mean by cosmopolitan multiculturalism, let's first look at the meaning of the two words separately.

If we merge these two concepts, we reach the definition of cosmopolitan multiculturalism.

Cosmopolitan multiculturalism theory

One of the foremost theorists of cosmopolitan multiculturalism is Jeremy Waldron. In his book Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative (1992), he discusses arguments for cosmopolitanism and the protection of minority cultures. He paints a picture where both perspectives can actually be mutually reinforcing despite being potentially opposed to each other. His works are what much of cosmopolitan multiculturalism theory.

Cosmopolitanism and minority cultures

Waldron points out that cosmopolitanism, individualism and belonging to a minority culture, which we want to protect and defend, are not natural events. Rather, they are abstract concepts created and developed by communities; therefore, they can change and be re-shaped. Cosmopolitan multiculturalism uses the process of identity-creation to develop a shared sense of belonging within a society based on respect for cultural differences.

Waldron challenges the assumption that each of these concepts can realistically exist in exclusion of each other.

The sense of self and values

Waldron explores the origin of individual values using the work of philosopher Will Kymlicka¹. Kymlicka argues that in order to enjoy the variety of lifestyles offered by cosmopolitanism, we need to be emotionally grounded in the kind of strong emotional safety net offered by a particular culture.

Kymlicka also points out that individuals generally do not start from scratch to know what is right and wrong. They rely on pre-determined ethical frameworks which have been tested over time within specific cultures. He goes one step further by saying that for us to choose a way of life from the myriad choices offered by cosmopolitanism, we choose one that resonates with us because of our own cultural background.

Waldron responds to this idea by highlighting that cultures have been intermingling for millennia, and so it can be difficult to distinguish where certain moral lessons come from.

Fig. 1 the Grimm brothers' Hansel and Gretel

Waldron challenges the assumption that belonging to a minority community is necessarily sufficient to satisfy an individual's need for meaning and self-realisation.

If we were to understand the sense of self from a cosmopolitan perspective, we would quickly see that each person has absorbed different influences. Because of this, they will, from time to time, have inner conflicts. But these conflicts might be a way of developing the individual flexibility necessary to exist in a cosmopolitan society and respond to it appropriately.

Cultural purity and choice

Waldron also questions Kymlicka's idea of choice. He does this by pointing out that a true choice can only be made when one is faced with options. Genuine options can only come from a cosmopolitan society where different cultures merge. The potential risk posed by cosmopolitanism to traditional communities is the loss of purity. However, this is only a negative thing if our understanding of culture is something static and fixed, which, of course, it isn't.

Waldron further argues, that trying to “preserve” a culture, prevents it from evolving through the exchange of ideas that inevitably happens when different cultures meet.

Cosmopolitan multicultural differences

Cosmopolitan and multiculturalist perspectives on the formation of individual identity mean that the two approaches are potentially in conflict with each other. As such, there are some differences between cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism prioritises a communitarian approach.

As a consequence, multiculturalism focuses on identity politics, the respect and recognition of cultural differences and, where necessary, seeks to redress past injustices.

Cosmopolitanism, instead, focuses on moral universalism and creating a unified social system. There are disagreements among cosmopolitan thinkers on how to bring about this system.

For example, some cosmopolitan thinkers suggest promoting universal moral standards and a state that encompasses the whole world. Others support the idea of a looser, voluntary structure of global governance.

Cosmopolitan multiculturalism tries to balance these two approaches. It understands individual identity as dynamic, capable of changing and adapting over time, according to the communitarian base of origin and the cosmopolitan influences to which it is exposed.

Cosmopolitan Multiculturalism Characteristics

Any country's policies that attempt to embrace both cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism must be incredibly culturally aware. This is because considering either of these two philosophies without regard for the other can lead to dangerous conflicts.

Therefore, cosmopolitan multicultural societies must ensure political representation for all minority groups as high up in the political structure as possible.

To combat potential divisions between individual groups, the education system would have to include different cultural histories and perspectives and how they fit into a cosmopolitan system.

Lastly, grassroots advisory groups would have to be encouraged to feed into government decision-making to ensure peaceful coexistence.

Fig. 2 Multicultural children

Cosmopolitan multiculturalism rights

To uphold everybody's rights in cosmopolitan multicultural societies, national and international legislative bodies have to take into account both universal principles, and minority rights.

Following the atrocities the world witnessed during World War II, several countries came together to create the United Nations. One of the first documents adopted by this new grouping of nations was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The Declaration embodies the idea of moral universalism, as it spells out 30 rights and freedoms that belong to all and can't be denied to anyone.

Although the UDHR is not legally binding, the protection of the rights and freedoms mentioned have been incorporated into many countries' legal systems.

On the other hand, the UN also adopted a treaty that includes the right to pursue one's own (minority) culture. This is the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights. Article 27 states:

Fig. 3 ICCPR members: Dark Green - signed and ratified Light Green - signed, but not ratified Orange - signed, ratified but has stated it wishes to leave the covenant.

Crucially, the fact that such a cosmopolitan organisation protects this right as the UN represents how cosmopolitanism can be of benefit to multiculturalism. Yet, for cosmopolitanism to work, it needs the multifaceted opinions generated by the multitude of cultures that make up contemporary society.