You are on page 1of 3

Can you be a citizen of the globe while maintaining a national identity?

Ive not yet fully crystallized my thoughts on this motion into a principled position
that one might use to respond to the question in a systematic manner. However, I
believe that close scrutiny of the motion begets some interesting insights into the nature
of what is really being asked, and how one might evolve several responses depending
on ones interpretation, and how one singular principled position can lead to a variety of
practical responses to this question when applied to specific contexts.
Colloquially the term citizen of the globe or citizen of the world is easily
understood by anyone with internationalist aspirations; it seems to mean an individual
who prioritizes their obligations to humanity as species over their particular national
community: the idea is that ones identity transcends geography or political borders
and that the planetary human community is interdependent and whole; humankind is
essentially one. However, since the particular use of the term appears to me to be a
rather recent evolution, which anchors itself in Enlightenment values and the notion of
an essential, universal subject which can take stock of an individuals accidental
properties (such as nationality, gender, sexuality, class, race, etc.). I think this
conception is erroneous, however, Ill return to it in a bit.
What does it mean to be a citizen of X? Common definitions of citizenship
define it as the status of a person, recognized by custom or law, as being a member of a
state, with those who do not have a citizenship being referred to as stateless. If we
take the term citizen of the globe literally then, in order to achieve this status there are
two possible states of global politics that could facilitate this legal or customary
recognition of community. The first state of affairs if for all of the nations of the world to
relate to each other amicably in the manner of Western Europe and the United States.
Such amicable relationships could, in theory, allow for a system of state relationships
which function similarly to the manner in which municipalities, counties, states, etc.
function within nations. The other possible state of affairs that can create the conditions
for a literal reading of the global citizen is one in which the informal unity which I just
espoused is codified and made legal. A new world order or global nation which legally
recognizes all human beings as citizens of this world state. Both of these options are
conceivable, however, I believe that they are both highly unlikely, and would require the
crystallization of other intersecting systems of institutional oppression which can prevent
the concept of global citizenship from ever achieving its ideal.

I believe that the concept citizen of the globe contains within it egalitarian
notions that go beyond the categorization and oppression of human beings by the
existence of nation states. In other words, that one can easily imagine either of the
aforementioned states of affairs wherein patriarchy, systemic racism, institutional
homophobia and transphobia, etc. still exist. I believe that when one speaks of global
citizenship, one is also committed to advocating for the dissolution of systems of
oppression and any other man made forms of social organization which categorize and
atomize candidates for global citizenship from their mutual recognition as such, equal
citizens of a worldwide community of human being.
Im now going to take what might seem like a hard left turn on this motion and
bring into consideration the Marxist arguments that took place around the time of the
First World War about the subjects of imperialism and the right to national selfdetermination between Bakhurin, Kautsky, Luxembourg, and Lenin. My reasons for
taking into consideration a theoretical argument among socialists (and social democrats
in the case of Kautsky) is because communists and anarchists (schools of socialism)
have always been aimed at overcoming the various systems of oppression that exist in
order to establish a social system which promotes equality and autonomy among
individuals. In other words, I believe the this variety of internationalism is the most
coherent theoretical framework which aims itself at achieving concrete solidarity among
all human beings.
You may have heard of Marxs speculation of the rise of a World Market out of
the necessity of capital to properly reproduce itself and undergo expansion. You will
also recall how one of the primary contradictions of capitalism as a mode of production
is the way in which it socializes production while leaving the appropriation of the
produced wealth a private matter for the bourgeoisie, and further, how liberal property
rights provide the foundation for a market economy, within which, according to
anthropologist David Graeber, there must exist systems of legal and political equality in
order for exchange to occur. In this respect, classical liberalism is responsible for
institutions within which we are able to view ourselves as equal, and further, capitalism
organizes production in such a way that involves cooperation among diverse groups of
people anywhere in the world that is reached by the World Market in order to produce
the various products which we all enjoy.
In other words, the global expansion of capitalism and proliferation of liberalism
has constructed a vast economic system in which we are all already, in a sense, global

citizens with respect to production, and when we meet in the market in order to
exchange the proportion of our own contribution to the economy (in the form of money)
for the various other commodities produced by this social organization of production.
Rather than taking up a discussion of why I believe that a class society is a barrier to
assuring that its citizens can truly meet each other as equals I would now like to move
on to the aforementioned Marxist dispute.
Bukharins dialectics of imperialism
Kautskys theory of a new world order (League of Nations, United Nations)
Woodrow Wilson on this
Lenin on imperialism
Lenin vs. Luxembourg on national self-determination
In order to have the understanding of what tactics are required in order to bring
about a state of affairs in which individuals can take their place as citizens of the globe
one must be able to analyze their own national identity and how it situates itself in the
global system. One must first seeks to identify and deconstruct the facets of their
national identity which create borders to global citizenship.
Kurds, Palestinians, Native Americans (black power vs. white power, straight
pride vs. gay pride, feminism vs. mens rights, etc.)

You might also like