Response Paper

The most interesting class for me is Australia, Asia and the World. It is so refreshing to talk more about why we (as countries or groups of people) made the past decisions we did, why we haven't been able to solve some of them, and what we can do to genuinely make positive changes. I prefer this over the false information pumped into high school history textbooks that block out reality.


Here is a short response paper from our last topic of cosmopolitanism and the concept of a world citizen. It was difficult to write only 800 words on the topic but part of university writing is to be as concise as possible. 

What do you think about the concept of being a citizen of the world? What are its advantages/disadvantages?

It sounds alluring and intricate while simultaneously simple, to be classified as a citizen of the world. When I describe world citizenship, it is not in the literal sense of forming a common law among all people.  For me, world citizenship is about how individuals adapt and enhance their personal worldviews, emerged in a more culturally literate lifestyle. This type of person would live in a cosmopolitan world, filled with people ready for cross-cultural communication, learning with curiosity, accuracy and a fresh mind.

  

A world citizen views the world with a lens that sees difference as a chance for learning, newfound understanding and potentially celebration.  It takes more than just claiming you are globally interested.  If that were the case, we could all be world citizens after watching the world news while eating Thai food and discussing American soldiers fighting Joseph Kony in Uganda.  It entails having a deeper local and global awareness, perhaps by taking classes in world religions, anthropology, foreign economic structures, global politics, and studying linguistics.  If we can’t even understand each other’s basis of cultural cues and communication, how will we ever engage in a real dialogue with one other?

Part of world citizenship is recognizing where our thoughts come from and how significantly they shape our worldviews and actions.  The main challenge is that we have to look backwards before moving forward.  It starts by how we view the world and the people that live differently based on their geographical location.  Although the borders that we see on a map are man made and holistically inaccurate, they are the separating lines that we have learned about since childhood.  How do we just unlearn the false notion of boundaries that have been instilled in us our whole lives?  This is an enormous challenge in forming a cosmopolitan world, because those very lines and edges that we’ve drawn are greatly responsible for why we see ourselves as separate from people living in a different box than we do.  Not enough people question the immense effects of how the simple act of viewing a map can encourage separateness or inaccurate information about one another.

Another force working against a world with global citizens is that we are stuck to our images, identities, and policies, as if without them we would be nothing. Insecurities of difference will only prevent what is essential to live in a world with inevitable change and diversity.  “Cultural communities are constantly exposed to, and having to change in response to, each other, and can not longer define and maintain their identities as they did before” (Parekh, 2008).  That doesn’t mean that a world citizen has to let go of their core beliefs and agree with everyone else’s policies and views.  That would create a world of cowards.  Instead, a world citizen uses an anthropological point of view to better their understanding of the other first, and then will make observations and an more informed opinion.  The challenge is deciding what is and is not a universal idea that we should have a cross-cultural conversation about. Cosmopolitanism is based on the idea that “every human has the resources to a life of dignity and significance” (Brookes, 2006).  For instance, is it a world citizen’s responsibility to engage with citizens of Saudi Arabia about how their women are not allowed to drive?  “Through raising new global issues for consideration, presenting old problems in a new light, global citizens can help to shift the way in which people perceive their country’s relations with the wider world” (Pitty, Stokes, Smith, 2008). The paradox of the matter is that the world citizen can’t force their opinion on those citizens without breaking the foundational rule which is to not shape other’s minds based on your beliefs.  A frustrating result of world citizenship occurs when you have an informed basis of a global issue and are not able to truly resolve acts against human rights.

With all challenges in mind, I still propose that without world citizens, we will never truly progress with global health, as individual nations and as human beings. As globalization newly shapes our world, we have to change with it. I’m not talking about learning the importance of technological advances, but about the importance of human connection and communication on an intercultural level. “It’s a false idea that the progress of science and technology equals the progress of civilisation-as if we become more fully human because we can send an email on a mobile phone” (McDonald, n.d.).  True human advancement depends on our genuine thirst for knowledge about the ideas, lifestyles, and people that we may hold uncertainties about. Whether or not you choose to live as a world citizen, I believe we all have a moral commitment to further our involvement, knowledge and acceptance of one another to better the world we live in.