Graded Cosmopolitanism

Abstract

The paper offers a reply to the initial Tribe-or-World dilemma: the indiscriminate cosmopolitanism (good or bad) is not the only rival to nationalism. The actual nationalists know better than their philosopher advocates: there is the third option, the co-evolution of close cultures of different ethnic groups, and she would like to prevent precisely such a co-evolution. Also, we all know deep in our hearts that the constructive cultural future for each Central European or South-East European nation lies not in some distant cosmopolis, but in the very concrete cooperation of local neighboring communities. We tend to forget this when in philosopher's study, and the pro-nationalist philosopher then plays upon our forgetfulness to confront us with her unpleasant dilemma: either a too-wide ranging cosmopolitanism, or his cherished nationalism. But the dilemma is a false one: the politically and historically real third option is usually the actual encompassing region (Central Europe, Balkans), much narrower – and in that sense more ’concrete’ and less confusing than the world as a whole (as an apatrid cosmopolitanism would suggest), and wider than a particular ethnic ’tribe’. This suggests a kind of culturalist cosmopolitanism, that is geared to the reality of varied neighborhoods. An individual typically belongs to several overlapping, but not necessarily concentric circles of cultural proximity. The widest can span continents (for instance, the circle of Catholic traditions), while the narrowest might be confined to one's rather isolated village with a specific micro-culture. A defender of culturalist cosmopolitan alternative will do well to attend to this wide repertory of possibilities.