10 Jan Internationalism vs. Cosmopolitanism
In his book, All Things Considered, published in 1915, G.K. Chesterton had this to say about the virtue of internationalism and the vice of cosmopolitanism:
It is obvious that there is a great deal of difference between being international and being cosmopolitan. All good men are international. Nearly all bad men are cosmopolitan. If we are to be international we must be national. And it is largely because those who call themselves the friends of peace have not dwelt sufficiently on this distinction that they do not impress the bulk of any of the nations to which they belong. International peace means a peace between nations, not a peace after the destruction of nations, like the Buddhist peace after the destruction of personality. The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, a place where they will be each other. And in the case of national character this can be seen in a curious way. It will generally be found, I think, that the more a man really appreciates and admires the soul of another people the less he will attempt to imitate it; he will be conscious that there is something in it too deep and too unmanageable to imitate. The Englishman who has a fancy for France will try to be French; the Englishman who admires France will remain obstinately English. This is to be particularly noticed in the case of our relations with the French, because it is one of the outstanding peculiarities of the French that their vices are all on the surface, and their extraordinary virtues concealed. One might almost say that their vices are the flower of their virtues.
I really like the idea that for one to be an internationalist one must be a nationalist. Not so with cosmopolitanism. Read the whole of Chesterton’s essay. The message is clear: Be slow to find the virtue in other countries and quick to doubt oneself if it comes too easily. Admire the other, but be careful in the rush to imitate.
The snippet disinclines me to read the whole essay given the animus against, and misleading characterizations of, both Hindu and Buddhist ideas. I doubt Chesterton had a very sophisticated understanding of cosmopolitanism, even that of the Stoics. And I’m not at all sympathetic to easy if not stereotypical and essentialist generalizations about “national” character. However one chooses to label Chesterton’s rather idiosyncratic yet creative interpretation of Christianity, it does not seem very close to the life and teachings of Jesus as depicted in the (especially synoptic) Gospels. The demanding ethic found there strikes me as far closer to cosmopolitanism than any nationalist/internationalist political ethic. In any case, and with Brock and Brighouse, it should be kept in mind that “cosmopolitans do not (typically) dispute, for example, that we have obligations toward, and prerogatives relative to, our friends, neighbors, and relatives. The particular focus of cosmopolitan thinking is on the content and weight of those obligations to which national and state boundaries give rise.” Moreover, the “crux of the idea of moral cosmopolitanism is that each human being has equal moral worth and that equal moral worth generates certain moral responsibilities.” Finally, “as Charles Jones puts it, cosmopolitanism is a moral… Read more »
But if one wants to actually believe in something as opposed to everything… Chesterton blows the doors off of that list. He did write “Orthodoxy” after all. Chesterton was well acquainted with both Hindu and Buddhist worldviews. Agree or disagree with him obviously, but don’t accuse him of ignorance. It’s also slightly amusing for you or most anyone to question Chesterton’s understanding of cosmopolitanism.
Would I be right in thinking that this isn’t a million miles from the concept you have discussed here?
If so, I would note that your terminology was somewhat different back then. Rightly, I would have thought. Then, you said that one could easily be a ‘patriotic internationalist’, and then patriotism didn’t mean one would have to be a nationalist. That seems to me a much happier choice of phrase. ‘Nationalist‘ seems to me to imply an inward-looking mindset, i.e. one primarily concerned with ‘loving’ one’s own country. It is quite another thing to be aware of one’s own national identity, as it were; that is, as you said in your earlier post, a part of self-identification. That latter frame of mind seems to me to be better described as ‘patriotic’ (even that might be putting it too highly; I’m not sure about that).
That should have read ‘and that patriotism didn’t mean one would have to be a nationalist.’
Tobias,
Yes I agree with you that my thoughts here are quite similar to my earlier post about patriotic internationalism. One need not choose between love of country and admiration and deep regard for the virtues in other countries.
Roger Alford
The person who wrote the following does not reveal a deep acquaintance with Asian worldviews like Hinduism, Confucianism, or Buddhism: “Nietzsche scales staggering mountains, but he turns up ultimately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing and Nirvana.” “The Tolstoyan’s will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all special actions are evil.” “…the Christian courage which is a disdain of death; not the Chinese courage, which is a disdain of life.” “No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open. The Buddhist saint has a sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep.” “It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence.” “By insisting specially on the immanence of God we get introspection, self-isolation, quietism social indifference—Tibet.” “To the Buddhists was given a conception of God of extraordinary intellectual purity; but in growing familiar with the… Read more »
Read what Chesterton says about Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics, and compare that with the following:
Epictetus. The Art of Living (A New Interpretation by Sharon Lebell) (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).
Hadot, Pierre. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).
Nussbaum, Martha C. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).
“It’s also slightly amusing for you or most anyone to question Chesterton’s understanding of cosmopolitanism.”
I’m happy to provide you with even the slightest amusement.
“…given the animus against, and misleading characterizations of, both Hindu and Buddhist ideas.”
Is it animus or understanding? I think the interpretation of Chesterton as having a “hostility” toward these world religions is a misleading characterization against his Christian worldview. Of course his woldview informs his understanding of other religious or quasi-religious philosophical thought. One can always raise the red flag of “intolerant” speech, but such intolerance of intolerance doesn’t make it so. Historically, to be tolerant meant simply one didn’t knock the proverbial block of another when disagreeing. It didn’t mean they ceased to disagree and even to employ such robust, colorful language as that of Chesterton. To hold to a certain religious or philosophical belief and to expect it to go unchallenged as to its claim to truth, is a scenario simply the result of pluralism’s reach. Those with firm convictions as to what is truth (even ultimate truth) do not simply shrug our shoulders when it is asked, “Quid est veritas?” We, with Chesterton, answer.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong about making truth claims, about believing others are mistaken, etc., although I would hope our status as fallible human beings allows for a certain sort of modesty or humility that precludes the conviction that one is necessarily in utter possession of absolute truth (which is not the same as believing such absolute truth in fact exists), for that strikes me as idolatrous if not exemplifying the (ancient Greek) sin of hubris or (the Christian) sin of pride. To challenge or deny the truth claims of others is to assume one has an adequate grasp of precisely that which one is denying, which Chesterton clearly did not. To study and appreciate religious difference does not thereby make one “comparatively religious.” I have nothing whatsoever against Chesterton holding a Christian worldview, but however clever, witty, or humorous he was in articulating what he took to be the heart and soul of that worldview does not necessarily spillover into his grasp of non-Christian worldviews. On some of the issues raised here, see a number of works by the late Ninian Smart, including Religion and the Western Mind (1987), Philosophy of Religion (1979), and Concept and Empathy: Essays in… Read more »
Perhaps the authors cited will give light to precisely where, as noted in the original post, it is error for Chesterton to state that the Buddhist finds “peace after the destruction of personality” or that the Hindu’s “heaven” is “a place where they will be each other.” It may seem reductionistic to say such things of such seemingly complex systems of thought, but, from my understanding and study of both of these religions, these comments are accurate. Could it be that in our desire to alleviate discord of thought between major systems (as did Smart) that we innevitably gloss over those differences that are wholly irreconcilable? Is antithesis not the irreducible rule?
Ninian was my teacher, mentor, and friend, and thus I can assure you that he was keenly conscious of possible and actual instances of “discord of thought between major systems” (as well as that within these systems). Ninian in no way “gloss[ed] over…differences,” although he was interested in cross-cultural (i.e., worldview) understanding and dialogue. Ninian never quite warmed up to the Islamic tradition and despite or because of his Anglicanism found much to admire in Buddhism (he was stationed in Ceylon during WW II, which allowed him to learn Pali). Since you raised the issue of qualifications: having studied Eastern religious traditions since I was in high school over 30 years ago and having taught a course in world religions for close to a decade now (my published work is in ‘Islamic Studies’), I can assure you that Chesterton’s characterizations of and polemics against Hinduism and Buddhism fell well short of the mark. When Oliver Leaman’s second edition of Ninian’s World Philosophies (New York: Routledge, 2008?) comes out you might want to have a look at it (I updated the massive bibliography). Meanwhile, you might want to carefully read the following: Clarke, J.J. Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter Between Asian and… Read more »
You have me. I’ve only studied Eastern religions for 20 years. But, seriously, I do admire your devotion to your friend and mentor and certainly meant no disrespect to his memory. If that was the perceived tone, please accept my apologies. As I see it, there is not an “irreducible rule” pointing to the antithetical nature of competing systems of thought (as between major religions). The concept of antithesis is itself the irreducible rule. That was my point. And the writing (dare I say rhetoric) of Chesterton does have significant value. It must be noted that his was not a comparative religion class audience, where there is a wealth of information *about* religious thought provided but, as has been my experience, woefully little substantive discussion as to the truth or logical consistency — or inconsistency — of said thought (please advise if you see otherwise). Chesterton was writing to an audience primarily composed of Christian theists who already were disinclined to other systems of religious thought. Yet, though his insights are regarded by many as keen and greatly loved, he was no theologian. This, perhaps, was the reason for any deficiency in analysis. This is the point of the entire… Read more »