Cosmopolitanism is an ancient philosophy that gained particular momentum during the Age of Enlightenment, when universal values were deemed proper to the modern man. But with the advent of modern nations, nationalist ideology and its intrinsic component of xenophobia—literally “the fear of everything foreign”—made cosmopolitanism look like a perversion that threatened values such as patriotism and primary loyalty to one’s own institutions and cultural heritage. Later on, totalitarian states developed a unique abhorrence for any foreign interference, especially when that meddling was seen as a world conspiracy with domestic ramifications: Hitler was obsessed by the “Jewish peril”, and Nazi Germany ultimately decided to implement its infamous “Final Solution”—the simple extermination of the Jews in Europe. The Soviet Union made a wide usage of the nineteenth century expression “rootless cosmopolitanism” after World War II, a term used during anti-cosmopolitan campaigns targeting in particular Jewish intellectuals. With the demise of the Communist Bloc, liberal democracy was seen triumphing at long last, some even prophesizing “the end of history”. Economic globalization of people, goods and services, and its appended “interconnectedness” of the world were seen as the best guarantor of that prophecy—globalization was thus a means, a process and a goal, as it precisely equated with the original yearning of cosmopolitanism. Since then, nations and borders have been revived by the challenge of equally borderless terrorism and the shortcomings of the financial engine of the world economy. Even the European dream of a tolerant and democratic community of destiny rising up from the rumbles of war has clearly bumped into a glass ceiling.
What is there to learn from cosmopolitanism then? What did the Cynic Diogenes in the fourth century BC mean when he replied to someone enquiring about his origin that he was “a citizen of the world” (‘kosmopolitês’)? Weren’t the Stoics right to insist on the very fact that the citizens of the polis and the citizens of the cosmopolis were both aiming at the same improvement of the citizens? And for Immanuel Kant, world peace could only be instituted through the practice of cosmopolitan law grounded on the principle of universal hospitality—nothing to do with a hotel-casino here—ultimately leading to the establishment of a cosmopolitan constitution. Key to that hospitality was the ethical tolerance for the Other. And German sociologist Ulrich Beck advocates a cosmopolitan common sense or realistic cosmopolitanism as the only possible way to respond to such fundamental questions as to “how societies ought to handle ‘otherness’ and ‘boundaries’ during the present crisis of global interdependency”.
Macao is not threatened by terrorism and has been sheltered from the world economic crisis, and yet the tremendous changes brought in by its huge economic success in the past ten years have not made Macao a safer place for everybody—Beck himself is notorious for having made the point that self-assured cosmopolitan globalization is only naturally embraced by the “happy few” highly-educated globe trotters employed by multinationals. Macao is still home today to 60% of a population that was not born here. Back in 2001, less than 8% of the population had gone through tertiary education (today, it is still less than 17%). When Stanley Ho still had the monopoly on gambling—until 2002—croupiers were paid on tips. For young people, rents are just unaffordable and there are three times more young married children still living with their parents than there were back in 2001 and at least 8,000 Macao residents live in Zhuhai or neighboring areas and commute to Macao to study or work. A recent survey done by the University of Hong Kong indicates that “housing” is the top priority for 59% of respondents! And then, more than a third of the Macao labor force is of foreign origin, against less than 10% just ten years ago. Does that justify borderline xenophobic reactions from populist newly elected legislators or lethargic old foxes claiming to represent the have-nots? Of course not. Does that warrant any form of discrimination or national preference for jobs? Of course not. And yet, the worry is legitimate and the answer cannot and should not be grounded in anger and contempt. Just like communication—however widespread, fast and mobile—does not guaranty mutual understanding, full employment and mind-blowing economic growth figures do not dispel anxieties.
Published in Macau Daily Times, January 3 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment