Jasper Tyan

ENGL 114- Prof. Karin Gosselink

Nussbaum Paper Final Draft
Think Globally, Act Locally
It is easy to read Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism by Martha Nussbaum and fall into
the trap of believing the essay is a crusade against all identities from religion to nationality.
Nussbaum, in the second paragraph, begins to characterize patriotic pride as morally
dangerous and unable to adequately address moral ideals of justice and equality (4).
Nussbaum introduces cosmopolitanism as her ideal model of citizenship and defines a
cosmopolitan as being, a person whose allegiance is to the worldwide community of human
beings (4). However, while she cautions against nationalistic thinking, Nussbaum is not asking
the reader to completely abandon all local affiliations; rather she references the Stoics, who
stress that to be a citizen of the world one does not need to give up local identifications, which
can be a source of great richness in life (9). At first blush cosmopolitanism and patriotism may
be seen as incompatible polar oppositesone asks for an allegiance to the all-encompassing
world of humans, while the other asks for an dedication to ones own country. In actuality the
two are quite compatible because patriotism is necessary for the complete realization of
cosmopolitanism. Although Nussbaum argues that we should view all people as human beings
first, our histories and local environments play an integral role in ensuring the success of
cosmopolitanism. As long as the ethnic, racial, religious and national affinities make up only a
portion of ones identity and not the primary affiliation, they are not only allowed, but also
encouraged in Nussbaums conception of cosmopolitanism.
As long as the nation or any other identity resulting from the arbitrary location of ones
birth is not respected above the affiliation to the human race, Nussbaum is fine with and even

suggests that special attention to those local identities is a positive action in line with her overall
conception of cosmopolitanism. The overall claim that Nussbaum attempts to make in her essay
can be summarized by her reference to Nikhils quote in Rabindranath Tagores novel The Home
and the World. Nikhil states, I am willing to serve my country; but my worship I reserve for
Right which is far greater than my country. To worship my country as a god is to bring a curse
upon it (3). Nikhil is willing to do things for his country, but he is unwilling to place his
allegiance to India on a pedestal, shielded away from scrutiny. His priority to what is morally
good does not prevent him from serving his country. This foreshadows another point that
Nussbaum later makes; to give ones own sphere special care is justifiable as long as one keeps
in mind that all human beings are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights
(13). Nussbaum provides the parent-to-child relationship as an example of the successful
combination of the two points. Like Nikhil, parents are willing to serve their own children with
more love and care, but they do not do it to spite other children or because they deem them less
worthy (13). Rather than being a detriment, Nussbaum states that this special care is good for the
children and society as a whole. She clearly recognizes the dangers that would undoubtedly arise
if each thinks herself equally responsible for all, rather than giving the immediate surroundings
special attention and care (13). The difference between special attention being good and being
selfish lies solely in the mindset of the individual. Both Nikhil and a parent treat their respective
spheres with additional care, but not because their spheres are better than the others. Because
they understand the moral equality of all human beings, the unique care to their country and their
children is a benefit to society. These two examples demonstrate that Nussbaum is not against
giving special attention to those closer to the reader, as long it is not done out of a belief that
those receiving the care are superior to those that are not.

While it is true that religion and ethnic backgrounds can play an instrumental role in
developing ones personal values, those are not necessarily the universal values of justice and
right that Nussbaum so dearly values (5). Throughout her essay, Nussbaum supports a stance
that asks us to give our first allegiance to what is morally good (5). She claims that there are
moral ideals of justice and equality that are universal to all humans. It is understandable for the
reader to be skeptical at first with her sweeping claim. It may be contested that moral values of
justice and right are not universaleach individuals moral values are uniquely formed as a
result of his special local affiliations. However, without looking at the practices of others, we
risk assuming that the options familiar to us are the only ones there are, and that they are
somehow normal and natural for all humans (12). Often normal and natural are thought of to
be what is right. Those personal values that are formed without the examination of non-local
societies therefore run the risk of being believed to be normal and right, when in fact they are
not. Only through the open interaction between members of different cultures and locations can
humans discover the true universal ideas of good and justice. This examination between
countries cannot be done with the superficial education that currently takes place. Rather than
having students only learn that they ought to respect the basic human rights of citizens of India,
Bolivia, Nigeria and Norway, students and even adults must take the opportunity to sincerely
analyze the people of different cultures and histories with an open mind. The students must be
open to changes and improvements to practices that they may think are normal. Only through a
cosmopolitan education and discussion that Nussbaum advocates, can humans transcend ethnic,
racial, religious and national differences to find what is truly morally good. The values that are a
result of a global discussion are the ones that Nussbaum advocates a primary allegiance to.

In addition to addressing individual care and values, the essay suggests a change to the
current political approach. The Stoics who advocate for a cosmopolitan education argue,
Political deliberation is sabotaged again and again by partisan loyalties a statement that is
all too relatable to the current political culture (8). The partisan particularism has brought a curse
upon this nation, the curse that Nikhil warns about.
Once someone has said, I am an Indian first, a citizen of the world second, once he or
she has made that morally questionable move of self-definition by a morally irrelevant
characteristic, then what, indeed, will stop that person from saying, as Tagores characters
so quickly learn to say, I am a Hindu first, and an Indian second, or I am an upper-caste
landlord first, and a Hindu second? (5)
Once politicians are allowed to define themselves as a certain party representative first, elected
officials will begin to view each other not as fellow humans, but as incompatible political foes.
While it is allowed to have certain party affiliations, those ties should not prevent politicians
from passing legislation that would benefit the country and its people. Nussbaum would argue
that the issues facing the nation are not Democratic, Republican or even American issuesthey
are human issues. Taking a partisan approach into political discussion is okay as long as the
ultimate goal is not for political superiority, but rather the success of all those living within the
country.
Nussbaum reference to the Stoic idea of concentric circles provides an apt analogy to
what cosmopolitanism actually demands. Rather than removing local identities,
cosmopolitanism simply minimizes the difference between various identities. The Stoics suggest
that we think of ourselves not as devoid of local affiliations, but as surrounded by a series of
concentric circles. The first one encircles the self, the next takes in the immediate family, then
the extended family...fellow countrymenand we can easily add to this list groupings based on
ethnic, linguistic, historical, professional, gender, or sexual identities (9). With the individual at

the center, larger and larger circles encompass various groups, but for everyone the largest circle
is humanity as a whole (9). Instead of removing the circles surrounding us, cosmopolitanism
draws the circles together to make all human beings more like our fellow city-dwellers (9).
This forces us to recognize that at the center of all the circles is an individual, a human being.
Instead of interacting as a member of the outer circles, Nussbaum wants the reader to interact
with others as a fellow human. The local memberships will surely still play a part in our
communication with others and we may think of our identity as constituted partly by them
the key word here being partly (9). As long as those particular loves are not the only identity,
Nussbaum allows for people to interact with the larger circle of humanity with all the other
concentric circles.
Nussbaum is not asking for Americans to have a total paradigm shift; rather she is simply
asking for Americans to treat all issues as human issues as opposed to American, Christian or
Chinese issues. While the cosmopolitan view that Nussbaum advocates for may seem daunting at
first, it is just asking for one to step out of ones comfort zone, to explore and reflect, relying on
only reason and the love of humanity (15). Instead of using a surrogate parent who will do
ones thinking for one, Nussbaum is asking for the reader to do to his or her own thinking. In
hindsight the essay serves as an ominous warning that was ignored by American politicians.
Instead of doing their own thinking, politicians have allowed party views to take over their own
individual beliefs. Both the government shutdown in 1994 after the essays initial publication and
the one in 2013 were a result of politicians blindly following party leaders without taking a step
back and thinking about what would be best for the people of the United States. A cosmopolitan
education does not require all special affections to be sacrificedpoliticians can still care for

their parties and constituents; a cosmopolitan way of thinking just prevents the special affections
from dominating their thought processes.

Works Cited
Nussbaum, Martha. Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism. For Love of Country? Ed. Joshua
Cohen. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996. 3-17. Print.