Intercultural Communication and Cosmopolitanism Gernot Saalmann

Transcription

1 Intercultural Communication and Cosmopolitanism Gernot Saalmann There is no doubt that the concept of "cosmopolitanism" is usually positively understood. Therefore, I would like to explore the rather practical question how "cosmopolitanism" can be fostered. It is clear that in our world full of conflict a cosmopolitan orientation or outlook would be extremely helpful for intercultural communication and appeasement. But it seems useless to propagate cosmopolitanism as an ideal unless we first learn to understand what hinders people in adopting a cosmopolitan outlook. Kant developed an extremely rationalistic concept of cosmopolitanism on the basis of his nowadays totally inadequate conception of human nature. Man is not only the "rational animal", but has emotions too and even some kind of spirituality (which, nevertheless, is not to be equated with religion). To explore the direction in which an answer to the question could be found on how a cosmopolitan outlook could be fostered, we may point to a paradox: Intercultural communication can help develop cosmopolitanism, but at the same time it can have an effect to the contrary; namely, that the perception of cultural differences often leads to an emphasis of the mutual differences, and thereby to the rejection of "the other". The result is growing ethnicity, identity politics, communalism, etc. We might introduce the word "idiopolitanism" as opposed to "cosmopolitanism" to denote these ideologies because they place "the own" into the center, irrespective whether it is territory, culture, ethnos (or "Volk" in German), nation or religion. On the other hand, a sign of cosmopolitanism would be not to center "the own" but to see "the own" and "the other" side by side or in some mutual relationship. This would mean to grant the same rights to "the other" like to "the own". But, people must be willing to do so. Surely one big hindrance here is the capitalist logic which poisons the spirit of our time and forces everyone to pursue his or her own interests at all times. This systematically drives one to neglect thoughts for "the other", unless people come to the realization that there always can only be one winner and that teamwork is a reasonable alternative to competition and rivalry. 1

2 To look once more at the aforementioned paradox may be helpful: It seems, that both the strategies in reaction to the confrontation with "differences" to minimize or to acknowledge them aim at the same thing, namely to gain recognition. On the level of social psychology all human beings long for love, solidarity and justice in some way. More abstractly seen, all these are forms of recognition. To construct a community of people who share the same characteristics seems to be a good strategy to ensure recognition from these persons. Contrary to this kind of "idiopolitanism", cosmopolitanism cannot guarantee recognition in such a "mechanical" way (to use Durkheim's terminology). Instead, one could argue that some recognition of one's own way of being by any other, which is very different from it, is of far greater value. People who frequently practice intercultural communication may be able to confirm this. As in times of globalization communication across cultural boundaries, transculturality, and even creolization all increase, one can be rather confident regarding the development of cosmopolitanism as long as the problem of the "silent majority" is overcome. Extremists from either side are far too loud and too much listened to, whereas the majority, who often has had positive experiences with people from other cultures, tends to be overheard. Inviting them to speak out loudly and freely does mean fostering cosmopolitanism. The following text offers some short hints to the history of the idea of cosmopolitanism, and then moves to the theories dealing with recognition like Axel Honneth and Charles Taylor to end with a look at intercultural communication in times of globalization. I. The Idea of Cosmopolitanism Prepared by Cynicism (Origenes of Sinope BCE), later Stoicism claimed that a monistic principle like a reasonable "soul of the world" pervades the universe. Thus, all men share the same nature and reason and live in a political community that encompasses the whole world a cosmopolis. As Ulrich Beck points out, we find nature (cosmos) and the human sphere (polis) combined here (2003: 16; cf. Toulmin 1990: 68), so that people can be citizens of both worlds (Beck 2005: 78). 2

3 The idea of a cosmopolis has been taken up again in Renaissance and Enlightenment thought. The rediscovery of the Greek roots of Christian civilization helped to form the humanistic outlook, and the emphasis on a common nature of man (rationality) in philosophy may be seen as an attempt to overcome eurocentrism and nationalistic frictions. Writing in 1784, Kant used the German translation "Weltbürger" of cosmopolitan to outline the course of history. Like the Greeks generalized their polis, Kant did the same with the Prussian bourgeois state: social and economic competition as well as individual and political liberty are part of the telos of nature. Besides that, cosmopolitanism is highly compatible with Protestant Christianity that broke with the hierarchical and centralized organization of religious communities and stressed the individual capacities instead. Nevertheless, it remains quite strange that a man like Kant should propagate cosmopolitanism who nearly never set a foot outside his hometown Königsberg. Since the 1990s there is increasing talk of cosmopolitanism again which is clearly connected to globalization. If globalization leads to "global interdependence and global consciousness" (Robertson 1990: 22) it is no surprise that people try to establish a trans- and supranational political mentality supplementing and/or overcoming the national one. How big are the chances for democracy if it is not bound to (and into) nation-states? Globalization brought about pluralization and "segmentation" of cultural space and virtualization of social space that together made possible a transnational cosmopolitan space between and above nations (Leggewie 2001: 161). Yet, with this, only the precondition of democratic politics is given a public space. The formal and institutional condition is to be seen in the legitimacy of representation (cf. the debate on "speaking for others"). But, what about the motivation for political engagement? Besides power and money, solidarity is usually mentioned here as well. The crucial question remains, why should citizens participate and engage themselves for the whole world? Building on his Risk Society (1992) and his studies on globalization (2000), Ulrich Beck argued for a break with the national framework of research and theory that has been typical for the "first age of modernity" (or "industrial modernity"). With globalization humanity entered the "second age of modernity" (or "reflexive risk modernity" Boyne/Beck 2001: 63) which requires a new framework of reference: "methodological cosmopolitanism" instead of "methodological nationalism" (Beck 2003: 17; 3

4 2005: 79). Nevertheless some continuities between the two modernities have to be stressed. "Modernity" is a condition actively shaped by decisions based on rationality and individuality. Making decisions implies risk and responsibility. In a globalized world this refers to a transnational risk community where cosmopolitics is needed (Beck 2000a: 95). Beck places his hope on new movements and parties of world citizens (102). The reader is left a little uneasy, because these thoughts seem to be too modernistic still. Sociological enquiry has shown that the feeling of responsibility is limited. For example, Pierre Bourdieu claimed that people are not only guided by habits, but a deep rooted, namely incorporated "habitus", so that their decisions are merely partly conscious and to a large extent socially preformed. Or, to consider another point, life in a modern, globalized world is dominated by bureaucratic organizations where responsibility is easily minimized and/or even neglected. Therefore, the basic question still remains, whether the pure idea of cosmopolitanism may be replaced somehow by a cosmopolitan orientation which develops in daily life and pervades the whole way it is led. Today, the two basic meanings of the word "cosmopolitan" are: "a man at home in the whole world" and "a man without prejudices". By examining the relationship between these two, the possibility of cosmopolitanism based on experience instead of propagated ideas or ideals may be seen. II. The Experience of Cosmopolitans Beck's main concern is to show that the nation-state should be transcended in sociological thinking because it is transcended in real life already (Boyne/Beck 2001: 47). Transnationality "is a general term for ways of life and responsibility that replace the national 'either/or' with a multinational 'this as well as that'" (Beck 2003: 19). Thus, people and social sciences have to replace the monological imagination of the national frame of reference by a dialogical imagination (Beck 2005: 98). This is because a growing number of people belong to different worlds at the same time (85). Beck claims that cosmopolitization is a byproduct of economic globalization (90), which leads to a globalization from the interior of national societies or local cultures (77, 86). This "inner globalization" brings about "banal forms of cosmopolitanism" with respect to food, television or military organization (Beck 2003: 21; Beck 2005: 89). Nevertheless, "cosmopolitization does not 4

5 automatically produce cosmopolitan sentiments" (Beck 2003: 27). The answer to the question, whether this "subterranean cosmopolitanism [will] become conscious and actively pursued" (21) depends on many factors. First of all strong trends of counter-cosmopolitanism have to be rebutted: 1) a new post-modern nationalism that combines relativism and fundamentalism, 2) neo-liberalism (the ideology of globalism), and 3) democratic authoritarianism (Boyne/Beck 2001: 49; cf. Beck 2005: 100f.). Secondly, there is the danger that the ideology of cosmopolitanism will be militarized (55). Third and last, cosmopolitanism has to avoid "ethnocentric universalism of the West" and the use of "biological metaphors for human difference" like hybridization (Beck 2003: 26). All this shows that "the core of cosmopolitanism is the recognition of the otherness of the Other". The hope of Beck is that the growing interdependence which began in the spheres of economy and technology and then took hold in culture, should determine policy and politics also. The globalization and cosmopolitization of social movements might foster the development of strong cosmopolitics. The connections between politics and recognition have famously been worked out by Charles Taylor (1992). He pointed to the collapse of fixed social hierarchies, which accompanied modernization and meant that there are no more fixed social positions. In connection with this, from older concepts of conscience developed the new idea of a true self with the corresponding concept of identity and the demand for authenticity (Taylor 1992: 30). At the same time social recognition, which was based on individual "honor" came to be based on "dignity" that everybody has (26). Since then, a politics of "equal recognition" became possible. The problems began when the idea of "collective identity" developed and soon was valued higher than personal identity. Therefore, nowadays we find politics based on the recognition of universal equality as human beings and particular difference with reference to identity side by side. Thus, it is to be recognized that cosmopolitanism and "idiopolitanism" share a common root. Interestingly enough, Taylor did not analyze with more depth what recognition is or consists of exactly, although he concedes that "it is a vital human need" (26). This became one of the central concerns of Axel Honneth. Discussing the early Hegel and the theories of George H. Mead he came to distinguish three levels relevant for the relationship with "the Other". Human beings long for positive reactions from others because 5

6 these experiences are essential in the constant process of the (re)construction of a positive self image. All humans long for emotional care, cognitive respect and social appreciation to develop self confidence, self respect, and self esteem. Everybody strives for recognition and acceptance, which can not be reduced to respect or tolerance alone. The correlates in the social sphere for these psychological needs are love, law, and solidarity (Honneth 1992: , ; cf. Heredia 2007: 1983). People are willing to interact with other people across borders and will built a cosmopolis, as soon as they have understood, what they get in return: emotional care, cognitive respect and social appreciation on a global level, which are of greater value than those on a community level. Thus, intercultural communication has a strong potential to foster cosmopolitanism. Again and again, positive experiences of intercultural dialogue have to be communicated to overcome "idiopolitanism" and hatred. By converting "divisive debates into integrating dialogues", an intercultural civil society instead of nation-states may be formed. Building on Raimundo Panikkar, Rudolf Heredia speaks of some "higher communion" brought about by "a mystical experience of tolerance" (Heredia 2007: 1985). He is perfectly right, when stating that "Today more than ever before, [...] the only way of being human is to be in constructive and creative interrelationships with others [...]" (1988). III. Conclusion The answer to the question why people should feel something like a transnational solidarity that will motivate them to engage in cosmopolitics is not found in philosophical argumentation (Kant's telos of nature) and it is not the result of moral prescription (as an ideal like in Christianity or Marxism) nor a practical political necessity only (Beck's "project of cosmopolitan modernity" 2000: 93). The answer is given by social psychology which shows that people can have an egoistic interest in cosmopolitan engagement because they have an emotional interest in "the Other". The less one treats other people as strangers, the more likely it is that real interaction and communication will emerge, that form the basis of mutual recognition as well as the idea and feeling of solidarity. Transnational solidarity flows from human self interest. It is not an 6

7 essentialised nature that is at work here (like in Kant 1795, 1. Amendment), but spontaneous organization and emerging systems. The driving force is not bare economic interest (to foster trade e.g.), but can be explained with social psychology and the quantity as well as the quality of intercultural communication. References Beck, Ulrich (1992), Risk Society. London. Beck, Ulrich (2000), What is Globalization? Cambridge. Beck, Ulrich (2000a), The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology and the Second Age of Modernity. In: British Journal of Sociology 51/2000, pp Beck, Ulrich (2003), Rooted Cosmopolitanism: Emerging from a Rivalry of Distinctions. In: U. Beck/ N. Sznaider/ R. Winter (Eds.), Global America? The Cultural Consequences of Globalization. Liverpool, pp Beck, Ulrich (2005), Die kosmopolitische Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde. In: A. Amman/ G. Majce (Hrsg.), Soziologie in interdisziplinären Netzwerken. Wien, pp Boyne, Roy/ Ulrich Beck (2001), Cosmopolis and Risk. In: Theory, Culture and Society 18/2001, pp Heredia, Rudolf C. (2007), The Dialogue of Cultures. From Paranoia to Metanoia. In: Economic and Political Weekly, May 26, 2007, pp Honneth, Axel (1992), Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte. Frankfurt. Kant, Immanuel (1784), Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht. [Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent. In: C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), The Philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant's Moral and Political Writings. New York 1949]. Kant, Immanuel (1795), Zum ewigen Frieden. [Perpetual Peace. New York 1972]. Leggewie, Claus (2001), Gibt es eine transnationale Bürgergesellschaft? In: Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 4/2001, pp ( Robertson, Roland (1990), Mapping the Global Condition: Globalization as the Central Concept. In: M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global Culture. Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. London, pp Taylor, Charles (1992), Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton. Toulmin, Stephen (1990), Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago. 7

8 Gernot Saalmann, 1963, obtained his Ph.D from Albert-Ludwigs- University Freiburg and currently is Lecturer at the Institute of Sociology, Freiburg and the Cooperative State University Baden-Württemberg, Schwenningen. He was Visiting Professor (with Erasmus Mundus) at the Department of Sociology, University of Pune 2010, and Guest Lecturer at CSSS, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi in 2008, 2011 and Fields of research: sociological theory (esp. theory of practice), sociology of knowledge and religion, anthropology and cultural theory (music and film), and globalisation with a focus on India. Publications in English include: The Encounter, Exchange and Hybridisation of Cultures. In: D. Schirmer/ G. Saalmann/ C. Kessler (Eds.), Hybridising East and West. Tales Beyond Westernisation: Empirical Contributions to the Debate on Hybridity. Berlin 2006, pp ; Classical Sociological Theories. Occasional Papers, Pune 2011 (Open access: The Relevance of Marx, Durkheim and Weber Today (10p. 2013, open access: Clifford Geertz: The Philosophical Transformation of Anthropology. In: J. Clammer/ A. K. Giri (Eds.), Philosophy and Anthropology: Border Crossing and Transformation. London 2013, pp ; Introduction: Understanding Change. In: G. Saalmann (Ed.), Changing India - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. New Delhi 2015, pp. VII-XVII. 8