Global Citizenship a Growing Sentiment Among Citizens of Emerging Economies(globescan.com)
globescan.com
Global Citizenship a Growing Sentiment Among Citizens of Emerging Economies
http://www.globescan.com/news-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2016/383-global-citizenship-a-growing-sentiment-among-citizens-of-emerging-economies-global-poll.html
18 comments
What does "global citizen" even mean? I am quite happy to be a citizen of smaller entities. I would like them to be even smaller, not larger. I'm German, and I find the size of that entity in terms of democratic accountability almost too large already. Definitely constructs like the EU are overblown and have too many competencies. I would prefer a small state like Switzerland with a small population, but direct democracy and relatively direct accountability.
I agree, smaller is better.
Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness.
Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US.
China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.
Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness.
Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US.
China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.
It seems everybody is. It's hard to deny the trend away from national identity and closer to a cultural identity, at least in europe.
Global citizen means person without (a national) culture (other than consumer culture maybe). But culture is a human need. Ideally, we should live in a world where free movement allows us to choose the culture that fits us best, and stick with it. In this world, only a few strong cultures would survive.
Global citizen means person without (a national) culture (other than consumer culture maybe). But culture is a human need. Ideally, we should live in a world where free movement allows us to choose the culture that fits us best, and stick with it. In this world, only a few strong cultures would survive.
Global citizen means person without culture
Does it? Seems more like people without a strong connection to a national culture, which doesn't mean they don't have culture. The example of Spain, pointed out in the article as one of the OECD countries where more people identify as "global citizens" versus of their country, is informative, as much of Spanish culture is highly regional. A citizen of Catalonia or the Basque region might have plenty of local cultural attachment without feeling a strong connection to the country overall.
Does it? Seems more like people without a strong connection to a national culture, which doesn't mean they don't have culture. The example of Spain, pointed out in the article as one of the OECD countries where more people identify as "global citizens" versus of their country, is informative, as much of Spanish culture is highly regional. A citizen of Catalonia or the Basque region might have plenty of local cultural attachment without feeling a strong connection to the country overall.
Yes sorry i edited my comment to make that clear. The question is, is a nation without a culture justified?
The article is not about cultural identity. It is about membership in a country/nation/state versus not.
While I don't agree with your sentiment personally (I'm American, I have lived in many parts of the country so I see myself as American above all else), I do think that in many places -- especially the emerging parts of the world -- people identify with smaller groups that aren't bounded by the arbitrary borders the colonial powers drew up after WW2. I would also agree with you that Germany (and many other places in Europe, but Germany stands out for me just because of the local nature of beer there) have more regional identity than the US does.
A perfect example are the Kurdish people spread across Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They identify as Kurdish; and don't view themselves as citizens of Syria, Turkey or Iraq. In the emerging world, this situation is common -- basic services are provided by local tribal groups, not by the national government (which is usually dominated by another ethnic group that diverts resources to its own people). Those tribal groups may or may not be confined within a single country.
Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.
A perfect example are the Kurdish people spread across Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They identify as Kurdish; and don't view themselves as citizens of Syria, Turkey or Iraq. In the emerging world, this situation is common -- basic services are provided by local tribal groups, not by the national government (which is usually dominated by another ethnic group that diverts resources to its own people). Those tribal groups may or may not be confined within a single country.
Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.
>Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.
Nationalism erects walls between ethnic groups by definition. Framing it as "within a country" is missing the forest for the trees.
Nationalism erects walls between ethnic groups by definition. Framing it as "within a country" is missing the forest for the trees.
Democratic accountability does not depend upon the size of an entity. Instead it relies on how said entity is internally structured (e.g. direct democracy vs. more representative models) and how prone to corruption it is.
Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.
Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.
> Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice?
I don't disagree with your inefficiency comment, but upsides are diversity of trying things in 196 slightly different ways, 196 chances to fail without thew whole system going down, and the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy.
I don't disagree with your inefficiency comment, but upsides are diversity of trying things in 196 slightly different ways, 196 chances to fail without thew whole system going down, and the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy.
>the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy
There are very, very few people who are lucky enough to base their current country on their personal philosophy.
There are very, very few people who are lucky enough to base their current country on their personal philosophy.
I see no evidence one government would suffice. There's too much diversity in the world, of both the politically fashionable kinds and the kinds that are currently politically unfashionable to acknowledge but don't cease to apply because of that. Even the EU is frequently criticized for instance for the difficult-to-the-point-of-impossible task of tying together all of its economies under one currency, just to give one example of major structural issues it raises, and is at the very least under a lot of stress, if not outright coming apart. If you can't even integrate Europe you can forget about running the whole world under one government. The EU is your best case.
Valid points but I have some objections.
What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative. That doesn't make your arguments less true but we have to acknowledge the different viewpoints. The problem with the EU is that is not a government, stuck in some sort of limbo in-between sovereign European states and people that would like to see a fully integrated European government. I myself living in Germany would like to see such a European government if the structural issues within the EU are solved (e.g. lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Commission).
I agree with you on the currency issue. But it is solvable through more European integration and solidarity. In the US for example some states are economically weaker, while others are economically stronger. A fiscal union allocates federal taxes to the weaker ones, in order to ease economic differences. Such a model should be considered in the EU.
What worries me most about the current state of the EU is the pessimism. Yes, there are pressing issues and controversies but instead of choosing isolation (e.g. Poland and possibly the UK) we should rebuild and innovate what fundamentally is a rather successful project. Prosperity and peace are at an all time high. These all time highs are in danger now but can't be solved through reverting back to national states. Problems are global now and therefore have to be solved globally.
What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative. That doesn't make your arguments less true but we have to acknowledge the different viewpoints. The problem with the EU is that is not a government, stuck in some sort of limbo in-between sovereign European states and people that would like to see a fully integrated European government. I myself living in Germany would like to see such a European government if the structural issues within the EU are solved (e.g. lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Commission).
I agree with you on the currency issue. But it is solvable through more European integration and solidarity. In the US for example some states are economically weaker, while others are economically stronger. A fiscal union allocates federal taxes to the weaker ones, in order to ease economic differences. Such a model should be considered in the EU.
What worries me most about the current state of the EU is the pessimism. Yes, there are pressing issues and controversies but instead of choosing isolation (e.g. Poland and possibly the UK) we should rebuild and innovate what fundamentally is a rather successful project. Prosperity and peace are at an all time high. These all time highs are in danger now but can't be solved through reverting back to national states. Problems are global now and therefore have to be solved globally.
"What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative"
A normative claim that the world "should" have one government when there's no way to make it work is just fantasy. Nonexistent options don't figure into the moral calculus. If the EU can't be made to work it certainly can't be extended to the entire world. You think the stress of the EU is going to be lessened when it is outvoted on every issue by Asia?
Every major centralization of power right now is under huge stress and in serious danger of flying apart at the seams in the next couple of decades. There's no current "world government" option.
A normative claim that the world "should" have one government when there's no way to make it work is just fantasy. Nonexistent options don't figure into the moral calculus. If the EU can't be made to work it certainly can't be extended to the entire world. You think the stress of the EU is going to be lessened when it is outvoted on every issue by Asia?
Every major centralization of power right now is under huge stress and in serious danger of flying apart at the seams in the next couple of decades. There's no current "world government" option.
> "fundamentally every human has comparable needs"
That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.
That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.
I think you misunderstood. Care to elaborate on experiments?
"comparable needs" does not necessarily refer to tangible goods. The central needs are probably freedom and a justice system protecting individual rights and us from each other, not e.g. everyone driving the same car.
"comparable needs" does not necessarily refer to tangible goods. The central needs are probably freedom and a justice system protecting individual rights and us from each other, not e.g. everyone driving the same car.
"Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice?"
Same reason ships have separate compartments in the hull, so if one floods they all don't. Basically it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
Same reason ships have separate compartments in the hull, so if one floods they all don't. Basically it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
>Spaceship Earth now has 150 admirals. The five admirals in the staterooms immediately above the ship's fuel tanks claim that they own the oil. The admirals with staterooms surrounding the ship's kitchen, dining rooms, and food refrigerators claim they own all the food. Those with a stateroom next to a lifeboat claim that they own the lifeboat, and so forth. They then have an onboard game called balance of trade. Very shortly the majority of admirals have a deficit balance. All the while the starboard-side admirals are secretly planning to list the boat to port far enough to drown the portside admirals, while the portside admirals are secretly trying to list the boat to starboard far enough to drown the starboard-side admirals. Nobody is paying any attention to operating the ship or steering it to some port. They run out of food and fuel. They discover that they can no longer reach a port of supply. Finis.
-Buckminster Fuller
-Buckminster Fuller
The geographic coordinate of your birth should not be the defining factor in your opportunities in life. If you are born in a poor country with low opportunities, why is that your fault? Why shouldn't you be allowed to get the opportunities of someone born in a rich country? Why do we allow countries to deny people their basic human rights? Why should there be segregation allowed under the banner of the supposed egalitarian UN? I don't see how you rhyme nationalism with human rights and equal opportunity.
Why would people from one place on earth be entitled to the wealth of other people somewhere else on earth? Is the neighbor family one block away entitled to live in my flat, because they should have equal opportunity to live there? I think not.
You're making a travesty of what equal opportunity means. It's not about getting things without earning them, it's about getting the same shot at earning them.
Redistribution of wealth to provide equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of many countries and societies. I'm arguing that if you are for this principle, then how could you argue it should stop at a border? And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government, which again makes borders meaningless. Either way, rationally, i see no objective defense for the principle of borders restricting what people have access to.
Compare the US and mexico. A child may be born 5 miles south and lose an incredible amount of opportunity. Why is that fair? What did the child do to earn that station in life? Why are castes accepted when they are cross-border but not inside a country? Why should poverty be inherited? (I'm not arguing against inheriting wealth, just against inheriting poverty and not getting a fair chance at making your own wealth as a consequence.)
Redistribution of wealth to provide equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of many countries and societies. I'm arguing that if you are for this principle, then how could you argue it should stop at a border? And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government, which again makes borders meaningless. Either way, rationally, i see no objective defense for the principle of borders restricting what people have access to.
Compare the US and mexico. A child may be born 5 miles south and lose an incredible amount of opportunity. Why is that fair? What did the child do to earn that station in life? Why are castes accepted when they are cross-border but not inside a country? Why should poverty be inherited? (I'm not arguing against inheriting wealth, just against inheriting poverty and not getting a fair chance at making your own wealth as a consequence.)
> And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government
No. That is just an argument against that type of society and government.
No. That is just an argument against that type of society and government.
The same logic can be applied to your genetics and is a classic argument in favor of a welfare state.
I think smaller governmental entities sounds good but if not met with a corresponding limit on corporate power the unintended consequences will be bad. What I would like to see is to not have power concentrated in too few hands. It seems to me there is way too much money in way too few hands.
Smaller regional entities doesn't work if there exist larger global entities. Government or corporation, doesn't matter. City hall can't fight USA or Walmart.
As the scale of governance goes down, the degree of nepotism, corruption and incompetence goes up, other things being equal.
US seems to do both, with city/county, state, and federal nepotism, corruption, and incompetence.
Eisenhower had to bring in 101st Airborne to Little Rock, in order to rule in the governor and his National Guard.
You can argue things have changed since 1950s, but near every controversial action making the headlines (book bans, stand your ground laws, ID teaching in schools, anti-immigrant action, homophobic legislation, racially motivated police crimes) seem to come from county and state level.
You can argue things have changed since 1950s, but near every controversial action making the headlines (book bans, stand your ground laws, ID teaching in schools, anti-immigrant action, homophobic legislation, racially motivated police crimes) seem to come from county and state level.
Iraq war and the response to Katrina are fairly resent examples of federal boondoggles that I think most people can agree with. More recent examples may be less well known but Secret Courts, F-22, TSA still being broken, and well take your pick.
Don't forget immigration law is a Federal boondoggle.
Don't forget immigration law is a Federal boondoggle.
I had a running theory that the spread of Internet and virtual communities would force free exchange of ideas and bring the people of the world together. I am less inclined to believe that now. Developed and under-developed nations show no difference in nationalism. Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together.
One of the positive attitudes shown in this survey is the acceptance of mixed race relationships.
I know that the 2011 census for England & Wales showed that it has one of the largest mixed race populations in Europe, and projections are that it will continue to grow.
For me this is a positive development - it shows that people mix with others of different ethnicities, and perhaps might also encourage people to be more open and tolerant of others.
I know that the 2011 census for England & Wales showed that it has one of the largest mixed race populations in Europe, and projections are that it will continue to grow.
For me this is a positive development - it shows that people mix with others of different ethnicities, and perhaps might also encourage people to be more open and tolerant of others.
What worries me is that we are increasingly accepting people who are not necessarily accepting the same things we accept and we are increasingly intolerant with those of us who are worried about our excessive tolerance for the intolerant.
Wilful ignorance, I see a lot of it on Facebook.
That was the wishful thinking of the left, but it seems it has backfired. The more people confront each other's differences (they massively do nowadays), the more they feel a need to show they are different (for example, the coming back in vogue of religious dress accessories). It seems group/kin segregation is part of our nature, and we can't really fight nature.
That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world.
That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world.
>That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world.
Interesting, I believe exactly that but I've never heard anyone else express it before. The idea of social constructivism, the notion that everything is a mere social construct, has been so ingrained in (western) societies that people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. It just puzzles me why anyone would be so adamant to put naturally conflicting groups together. What is the goal? What are the benefits that are worth the hassle and friction? Maybe it's nothing but a naive attempt to achieve some utopian fantasy, or perhaps there is a less innocent agenda behind it. I honestly don't know. If you wish to expound on the subject or have any literary recommendations, I'm all ears.
Interesting, I believe exactly that but I've never heard anyone else express it before. The idea of social constructivism, the notion that everything is a mere social construct, has been so ingrained in (western) societies that people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. It just puzzles me why anyone would be so adamant to put naturally conflicting groups together. What is the goal? What are the benefits that are worth the hassle and friction? Maybe it's nothing but a naive attempt to achieve some utopian fantasy, or perhaps there is a less innocent agenda behind it. I honestly don't know. If you wish to expound on the subject or have any literary recommendations, I'm all ears.
> people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering.
I actually believe it can solve many problems, but it is not a lowest-energy solution. Nationalist propaganda requires a lot of resources, and as people are seeing that the benefits outweight the costs, they are giving up on it, i believe. I don't know any books about this, I do think it's an interesting subject as well.
I actually believe it can solve many problems, but it is not a lowest-energy solution. Nationalist propaganda requires a lot of resources, and as people are seeing that the benefits outweight the costs, they are giving up on it, i believe. I don't know any books about this, I do think it's an interesting subject as well.
What does this bring together mean? At the end power is distributive and a zero sum game. Power can never be truly distributed because there is a limited amount of it. Therefore we really can't come together. That's what love is by the way a distributor of power. So as long as we have distributive systems that are resource limited like economics, there is no hope of love conquering all or power no longer playing a factor.
Just because you know someone does not mean you love them, you really can't, because it will effect your own well being and resource utilization. At best you can learn to tolerate people because you understand them... and integrate them into the global slave economy to serve your desires. But there is no hope of ever being together. We don't have that level of capacity to love. Only our ideas do and they too often fail.
At the end of the day why is the Middle East or Africa suffering simply because they are not willing to be a productive part of the global slave economy, therefore they get no respect and are exploited. It's not that we don't understand them. We don't like them because they don't work for us and consume and produce on our terms. Therefore, we don't respect them. We don't love them, and they don't love us. Their distribution of power is based in religion (the Middle East), ours is based on economics.
Why are Jewish people and Israelis held in such high esteem. For the same reason, they produce and consume with us. They have contributed massively to the economy and many other fields. They serve our desires, and we are one with them.
Just because you know someone does not mean you love them, you really can't, because it will effect your own well being and resource utilization. At best you can learn to tolerate people because you understand them... and integrate them into the global slave economy to serve your desires. But there is no hope of ever being together. We don't have that level of capacity to love. Only our ideas do and they too often fail.
At the end of the day why is the Middle East or Africa suffering simply because they are not willing to be a productive part of the global slave economy, therefore they get no respect and are exploited. It's not that we don't understand them. We don't like them because they don't work for us and consume and produce on our terms. Therefore, we don't respect them. We don't love them, and they don't love us. Their distribution of power is based in religion (the Middle East), ours is based on economics.
Why are Jewish people and Israelis held in such high esteem. For the same reason, they produce and consume with us. They have contributed massively to the economy and many other fields. They serve our desires, and we are one with them.
It is very paradoxical because access to Internet on one hand can expose you to new ideas and cultures, but, on the other hand, if you are inclined to, virtual communities can reinforce pre existing closed worldview (or at least pretty weird like otherkins). This is all the point of algorithms governing the Feed and filter bubbles.
I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.
I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.
Give it time, it's inevitable, but not in your current lifetime. It takes generations.
Yea the world is still run by pre-internet people and institutions. The first generation to 'grow up' with the internet in first-world countries is still largely waiting to take over. Farther down the tail, it'll be another decade before may in the 'third' world get their first smartphone. Defacto global/internet citizenship is still a full generation to generation and a half away, and who knows how long it'll take to actually reshape and reform the big institutions after that.
I agree. Sadly, for a "we" to exist, it seems that we need a "they" to antagonize.
Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together.
That wouldn't work either. People would still be divided among fight vs appease vs run away, trying to use the chaos to backstab anyone they don't like or to jockey for power, etc.
That wouldn't work either. People would still be divided among fight vs appease vs run away, trying to use the chaos to backstab anyone they don't like or to jockey for power, etc.
> I am less inclined to believe that now
Internet has created bigger echo chambers, and bigger audiences for extremists of all sides. In that sense, yes, it has brought people together, but often not in a positive way.
Internet has created bigger echo chambers, and bigger audiences for extremists of all sides. In that sense, yes, it has brought people together, but often not in a positive way.
which is sad given that the issues we should confront are all of a global nature, e.g. global warming and resource depletion rather than refugees or religious conflicts. Maybe a future generation of global citizens will do better.
Without passing judgement, is this not just measuring the desire not be lumbered with the negative connotations of their respective countries? And possibly also showing a desire and entitlement to be able to move to a better off country?
We have something similar at a different level here. People in Salford (a not well thought of connurbation of Manchester, UK) are 'from Manchester', where as people from Didsbury are 'from Didsbury'.
That said China being on that list does surprise me.
We have something similar at a different level here. People in Salford (a not well thought of connurbation of Manchester, UK) are 'from Manchester', where as people from Didsbury are 'from Didsbury'.
That said China being on that list does surprise me.
Nigeria is one of them, and while Nigeria has a large diaspora and is still poor, the absolutely massive GDP growth over the last decade and a perception that people with Western educations can live much better in Nigeria on what they can make there than elsewhere has caused many Nigerians to return.
My ex is Nigerian, and keeps complaining about how many of her friends are now moving back for this reason. In most of these cases these are people with dual citizenships (e.g. my ex has dual citizenship as her dad was born in the UK) or who have lived in the UK long enough to obtain indefinite leave to remain, so most of them are leaving entirely out of choice.
I'm sure there's still a desire to move to the UK for a lot of Nigerians, but I'm also unconvinced that this is what drives the higher numbers that says global first.
Perhaps in some cases at least it is more down to rapid growth actually giving them a sense of "joining the world stage" and e.g. actually getting the opportunity to travel and work elsewhere that was limited to very small proportions before.
My ex is Nigerian, and keeps complaining about how many of her friends are now moving back for this reason. In most of these cases these are people with dual citizenships (e.g. my ex has dual citizenship as her dad was born in the UK) or who have lived in the UK long enough to obtain indefinite leave to remain, so most of them are leaving entirely out of choice.
I'm sure there's still a desire to move to the UK for a lot of Nigerians, but I'm also unconvinced that this is what drives the higher numbers that says global first.
Perhaps in some cases at least it is more down to rapid growth actually giving them a sense of "joining the world stage" and e.g. actually getting the opportunity to travel and work elsewhere that was limited to very small proportions before.
Maybe, but even then the differences between the countries are interesting. As a German, I am unpleasantly surprised we rank so low here.
You rank low because of your history. Germans are proud to be Germans, they just don't feel right to say it. An interesting and very good consequence of this feeling is that Germany has not only very open policies towards immigrants, but also an overall good attitude versus expats which you rarely find in Europe.
The relatively small proportion of Germans willing to affirm support for intermarriage between ethnic groups suggests there's more than quiet national pride at play here. Although the country's history is almost certainly why Germans are more likely to answer "don't know" or "depends" than anyone else: even if much of the sample group is paranoid about immigrants and influence from other cultures following recent media coverage, there are still few people willing to commit to aligning themselves with the far right.
It's also highly likely that "global citizen" has been translated into terms which have subtly different connotations in different countries (that's the only real explanation I can think of for China).
I'm surprised by the remarks (in both posts) about China.
People in China cannot be unaware of the country's shortcomings (as a repressive totalitarian state) while also having a strong awareness of, and often direct family or business connections to the rest of the world, which China has influenced and been influenced by for centuries.
Traditionally, Chinese people have had no objection to emigrating, working and settling in other countries, in Asia and beyond - exemplified by how many cities in the world have a Chinatown - and have never struck me as being particularly racist, nationalistic or xenophobic.
People in China cannot be unaware of the country's shortcomings (as a repressive totalitarian state) while also having a strong awareness of, and often direct family or business connections to the rest of the world, which China has influenced and been influenced by for centuries.
Traditionally, Chinese people have had no objection to emigrating, working and settling in other countries, in Asia and beyond - exemplified by how many cities in the world have a Chinatown - and have never struck me as being particularly racist, nationalistic or xenophobic.
I'm reminded of a time when somebody at my university wrote a piece critical of the Chinese government in a student newspaper, and the following weeks were filled by comments from Chinese students infuriated by this slur on their national character and threatened boycotts by student recruitment organizations. The same article written about any Western state - including the apparently highly non-internationalist Germans - would have passed without comment and certainly without the taking of offence. And that was highly-educated, middle class Chinese citizens studying in a foreign language overseas. So whilst Chinese people certainly may have reservations about shortcomings of their government, claims it makes and the people that work for it, I'm not inclined to believe that the vast majority of them are similarly sceptical about the importance of Chinese national and ethnic identity their government works so hard to promote.
In particular, I don't perceive a country which rules dual nationality impossible to be likely to be more internationalist in public outlook than countries where large proportions of the population trace their ancestry to other continents, foreign languages are universally spoken, foreign media is consumed as often as domestic media, international travel is something most people actually do, immigrants are not novelties even in rural areas and the government couldn't give two shits about patriotism.
Sure, there are plenty of people born in China who see things differently, but the survey implies that two thirds of Chinese people living in the People's Republic of China don't really see themselves as Chinese.
You don't have to think that Chinese citizens are disproportionately racist, nationalistic or xenophobic (I don't) to find it quite hard to believe that they're substantially less attached to their national, ethnic and cultural identity than most of the rest of the world.
Even the diasporas - which undoubtedly would give different survey results - are as good at preserving their cultural identity as they're economically successful.
In particular, I don't perceive a country which rules dual nationality impossible to be likely to be more internationalist in public outlook than countries where large proportions of the population trace their ancestry to other continents, foreign languages are universally spoken, foreign media is consumed as often as domestic media, international travel is something most people actually do, immigrants are not novelties even in rural areas and the government couldn't give two shits about patriotism.
Sure, there are plenty of people born in China who see things differently, but the survey implies that two thirds of Chinese people living in the People's Republic of China don't really see themselves as Chinese.
You don't have to think that Chinese citizens are disproportionately racist, nationalistic or xenophobic (I don't) to find it quite hard to believe that they're substantially less attached to their national, ethnic and cultural identity than most of the rest of the world.
Even the diasporas - which undoubtedly would give different survey results - are as good at preserving their cultural identity as they're economically successful.
Any move away from the stupidity of patriotism is good in my books.
So an emotional emotional attachment to a nation which an individual recognizes as their homeland, is 'stupid'. The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism
It is orders of magnitude beyond stupid - it's utterly brainless. So your nation has PROVIDED you with your values, huh? Yay. The objective of patriotism has been achieved. Now go and fight to the death for your beloved nation, because surely no other values should exist on Earth.
>The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely?
Indeed it is important to understand how they relate to other people, but not just people within the artificial boundaries of a nation state.
Those values weren't spontaneously and independently invented by the artificial lines drawn on a piece of paper, they were developed throughout all human history across the whole planet.
Indeed it is important to understand how they relate to other people, but not just people within the artificial boundaries of a nation state.
Those values weren't spontaneously and independently invented by the artificial lines drawn on a piece of paper, they were developed throughout all human history across the whole planet.
I wonder if everyone in this thread and this study is using the same vocabulary. When I hear or use the term "global citizen" I think of someone who doesn't pledge loyalty to any government but instead recognizes the existence of a global human community that they are already a part of.
Judging by some responses, however, it seems as if using the term "global citizen" is seen as implicit support for some kind of central world government.
Judging by some responses, however, it seems as if using the term "global citizen" is seen as implicit support for some kind of central world government.
Right. For me (and maybe other commenters as well) the term "citizen" implies paying taxes to an armed entity in exchange for some protection and rights. So "global citizen" in this sense definitely implies some form of a global government. But of course the article doesn't talk about anything like that. I guess it intentionally uses the flashy term "global citizen" when its main message could be expressed simply as "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states".
> "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states"
The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State.
To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow.
Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.
The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State.
To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow.
Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.
Haven't thought about it, kudos for taking a longer-term view :) But your scenario requires that some sizable majority of people share the same sentiment. E.g. the idea of "world proletarian revolution" rests on the assumption that the majority of people are workers who will be more loyal to their class than their state. On the other hand it is entirely possible for most people to be more loyal to numerous hypothetical global communities which are too small to oppose nation-states. Everything stays the same in this case.
It would not surprise me if the latter is a primarily American interpretation. (The US being the spiritual home of "NWO"/anti-Government sentiment.)
It's impossible to have global citizens without a global government. Those "global citizens" not satisfied by National organization will seek leaders and rules, and there will be conflict until a power fills the desired role.
And ultimately, they'll discover that the "global human community" has as many differences as similarities and not all of those differences are compatible.
And ultimately, they'll discover that the "global human community" has as many differences as similarities and not all of those differences are compatible.
From reading the comments, and having been born in Brazil, raised in Portugal, and for spending a lot of my allotted time on this wandering cosmic orbe on many countries, I feel that many don't get the _global citizenship_ concept.
Nations are abstractions. I belong to a greater human community. Fortunately I could witness the advent of the internet and of massive information exchange between peoples. I rejoice with a untold pride when human beings make some amazing advancement in whatever field of knowledge we happen to strive for: the many fields of science, art, philosophy. I watch with amazement when a new boundary in space travel is surpassed; when we (humans) reach political agreements that make the world a bit less inhumane (insane) and more sustainable; when we stop thinking through the lenses of arbitrary divisions and reach to a higher goal.
I am a citizen of the world (global citizenship) — and I am proud of it. I am glad I am able to learn and to share information with such a vast array of different peoples. I literally live on an utopia (no place) that is an information matrix inside my head. And I am glad to be here today typing this comment within an international community (HN).
This is my interpretation. If you try to make global citizenship a dystopian political agenda then you're talking about something entirely different.
Nations are abstractions. I belong to a greater human community. Fortunately I could witness the advent of the internet and of massive information exchange between peoples. I rejoice with a untold pride when human beings make some amazing advancement in whatever field of knowledge we happen to strive for: the many fields of science, art, philosophy. I watch with amazement when a new boundary in space travel is surpassed; when we (humans) reach political agreements that make the world a bit less inhumane (insane) and more sustainable; when we stop thinking through the lenses of arbitrary divisions and reach to a higher goal.
I am a citizen of the world (global citizenship) — and I am proud of it. I am glad I am able to learn and to share information with such a vast array of different peoples. I literally live on an utopia (no place) that is an information matrix inside my head. And I am glad to be here today typing this comment within an international community (HN).
This is my interpretation. If you try to make global citizenship a dystopian political agenda then you're talking about something entirely different.
As a US citizen, I identify strongly with being a world citizen, but I am very much against the neoconservative one world government movement.
Even the democrats are marching in lock-step on the path to corporate lead world government (e.g., President Obama dutifully going to England and preaching against British EU exit, and of course democrat turned neoconservative Hilliary Clinton).
I like very small countries. I recently spent 2 weeks in Singapore on business and loved it there. I am also drawn to tiny countries like Dominica that are off the usual path.
Ordinary people do much better in local economies where money in return for services and resources circulates, largely staying in the local economy - local economies are I think more resilient to a future of sporadic, or no growth. The current economy relies on continuous growth, which is not sustainable.
Even the democrats are marching in lock-step on the path to corporate lead world government (e.g., President Obama dutifully going to England and preaching against British EU exit, and of course democrat turned neoconservative Hilliary Clinton).
I like very small countries. I recently spent 2 weeks in Singapore on business and loved it there. I am also drawn to tiny countries like Dominica that are off the usual path.
Ordinary people do much better in local economies where money in return for services and resources circulates, largely staying in the local economy - local economies are I think more resilient to a future of sporadic, or no growth. The current economy relies on continuous growth, which is not sustainable.
Generally a positive trend.
I wonder what is keeping Germans from feeling global?
I wonder what is keeping Germans from feeling global?
Germany is a country of assimilation and a very sizable portion of immigrants (I count esp. the Gastarbeiter that we have failed to repatriate) have not managed this and now even 2 or 3 generations later we have certain city districts with over 50% immigrants that mainly speak insufferable Kanakendeutsch or barely any at all (luckily I live in one of the better suburbs in that regard), in which you feel like a foreigner in your own country.
If we have to wait 3 or more generations for assimilation to happen, if ever, no wonder that right-conservative parties can use this as a selling point.
(and no I definitely don't feel global (I'm also young, with academic background), let all regions stay to themselves. Tourism is sufficient if you want to experience others)
If we have to wait 3 or more generations for assimilation to happen, if ever, no wonder that right-conservative parties can use this as a selling point.
(and no I definitely don't feel global (I'm also young, with academic background), let all regions stay to themselves. Tourism is sufficient if you want to experience others)
(As a German) I think lot's of Germans feel global already. But I suspect it's limited to a certain demographic, namely young people with academic background. I don't know about the rest but recently it feels like more people just want to keep to themselves (especially with all the immigrants coming into our country).
> all the immigrants coming into our country
When sorted by % of population that is composed of immigrants, Germany does not have much immigration (it's country # sixty-something in the list) [0])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...
When sorted by % of population that is composed of immigrants, Germany does not have much immigration (it's country # sixty-something in the list) [0])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...
Yes, sorting that way does show that currently Germany doesn't have the largest immigrant population, but that is changing quickly.
Today Germany is the second most popular migration destination in the world, after the United States[0]
Not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing(I feel it's pretty neutral), just pointing out that the parent commenter saying "all the immigrants coming into our country" isn't making a crazy statement.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
Today Germany is the second most popular migration destination in the world, after the United States[0]
Not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing(I feel it's pretty neutral), just pointing out that the parent commenter saying "all the immigrants coming into our country" isn't making a crazy statement.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
Yes, that's certainly true. And we always had waves of immigrants, it's nothing new. However, I think right now many perceive it as a large amount of immigrants that come quickly, maybe because of media coverage.
I also wonder how the question was phrased, in my experience Kosmopolit/Weltbürger has a lot of cultural baggage in the German cultural sphere; that it requires some sort of personal refinement (Herder, Kant, Klaus Mann), a label most people won't assert to themselves.
On the other hand the term was used as a negative propaganda term in the eastern bloc[1]
In my experience German's are way more likely to call themselves Europeans first (more than most other European nationalities), and happily skip the world citizen part for convenience's sake. Even the E in PEGIDA stand for Europeans.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan
On the other hand the term was used as a negative propaganda term in the eastern bloc[1]
In my experience German's are way more likely to call themselves Europeans first (more than most other European nationalities), and happily skip the world citizen part for convenience's sake. Even the E in PEGIDA stand for Europeans.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan
Patriotism is a favorite device of people with something to sell http://www.economist.com/node/21644538/
However I strongly support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
However I strongly support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
The same president is also pushing globalism (TPP, TTIP) so your implication is really a false dichotomy.
Russians are nationalistic, Afghanis divide by religion, and Asian nations are racist. Not super surprising.
Isn't it something similar that poor would want more equitable distribution of wealth and lower rungs in corporates would want a more normal salary rise all the way to CEOs. Pretty obvious thing.
I would think that global citizens would not be so interested in nations with similar number of high aspirants.
I would think that global citizens would not be so interested in nations with similar number of high aspirants.
Not sure about "global citizen" but I certainly don't feel particularly tied to any country.
At first glance it seems to me that all globalism trends are also erosions of democracy. I dare say this is also what most Germans were thinking. Of course there are many ways to interpret the question.
The 22% strongly agree in US worries me
Edit. Wow, 44% in Spain? Seriously guys? 35% Greece. Somebody should correlate this with GDP per capita, I believe there is a negative correlation there to be found...
Edit. Wow, 44% in Spain? Seriously guys? 35% Greece. Somebody should correlate this with GDP per capita, I believe there is a negative correlation there to be found...
Yea 22% seems high. I can think lots of upper middle class and other rich people who can consume cheap 3rd products and services without endangering their jobs / financial wellbeing and students under education loans would think of them as global citizens.
It is like the call to workers of the world unite. But rich and well off workers will be less inclined when there is no upside.
It is like the call to workers of the world unite. But rich and well off workers will be less inclined when there is no upside.
Spain's GDP per capita is significantly higher than Greece's, and both are significantly higher than many of the African countries surveyed which have much lower rates. I think the correlation with bad recent news (economic mismanagement, corruption, governmental paralysis, etc.) is much stronger and more informative.
I don't see a correlation. Spain may be relatively simple to explain, as I pointed in another comment, it's a country composed of very demarcated regions, some of which with their own independence movements. It's not surprising to me that a good number of Spaniards feel little attachment to "Spain" as a whole.
> The 22% strongly agree in US worries me
Why does that worry you? I would generally consider greater global unity to be a positive trend.
Why does that worry you? I would generally consider greater global unity to be a positive trend.
Lets say you had a neighbor who spent too much money and was always broke, would you want to tie their finances to yours and for you to be responsible for them ?
It isn't about money or tying finances together, it's about how people self-identify.
Or correlate it with the level or sophistication of nationalistic/xenophobic propaganda in each country.
Or with the level of real-life experience and awareness a population has with other countries.
Or with the level of real-life experience and awareness a population has with other countries.
I have seen nationalist/culturally inward looking people become very pragmatic for economic gains without actually endorsing liberal thoughts. So I doubt propaganda would have effect on people when it is at cost of economic betterment.
What makes you think this is about economic betterment?
The results on Germany have amazed me.
Especially the huge white spaces.
Especially the huge white spaces.
The full results in the report seem to me be somewhat more complex to interpret than the summary, or the original submission title, suggest. On the first question (Q18jt), a 4 point scale without a "don't know" neutral option, there are large numbers of people putting global citizenship before national citizenship (51%-49%). However, when you get to a later question (M2), that asks people what their most important identity is, national citizenship overtakes global citizenship overwhelmingly (52% national, 17% global, 11% local, 9% religious and 8% race/culture). National citizenship is the largest in all countries besides three, and it's the second largest in two of those. When given a variety of choices in M2 the level of people supporting global citizenship (17%) as a primary identity is even lower than even those who "strongly agree" to global citizenship being more important to national citizenship in first question (22%).
In M2 it seems all of the "somewhat agree" and a few points of the "strongly agree" have gone elsewhere including back to national citizenship which creates a tension between the results of the two questions. It’s quite stark in the case of India where in the first question 67% place global citizenship over national citizenship but in M2 51% have national citizenship as their primary identity and only 6% have global citizenship.
I think the first question (Q18jt) would be more interesting if it was a 5 point scale with a "don't know" option provided rather than trying to railroad people into an answer with a 4 point scale. Even then I think the M2 question is a better instrument as it provides a clear set of choices. For example Pakistan goes from 56% global in the first question to 2% global in the second. Most of those seem to move to religion as their primary identity (43% answer religion on M2). Many religions are globally oriented toward all humanity but the M2 question lets us see more clearly what they believe.
Even though the second question (M2) is better it probably could still do with some examination. For example the only country where global citizenship was higher than national citizenship in M2 was Spain, but was that because many people in Catalonia and the Basque Country are choosing global over "Spanish" because the "local" option was translated in a particular way? If they used a word closer to "neighborhood" you could see how that might happen. Similarly was "local" translated more broadly in the Indonesian translation and became the dominant answer there (56%) as people could identify with an island/state/ethnic/linguistic group that was "local", like Bali for example. It's hard to tell without all the data and the exact translations of the questions.
In M2 it seems all of the "somewhat agree" and a few points of the "strongly agree" have gone elsewhere including back to national citizenship which creates a tension between the results of the two questions. It’s quite stark in the case of India where in the first question 67% place global citizenship over national citizenship but in M2 51% have national citizenship as their primary identity and only 6% have global citizenship.
I think the first question (Q18jt) would be more interesting if it was a 5 point scale with a "don't know" option provided rather than trying to railroad people into an answer with a 4 point scale. Even then I think the M2 question is a better instrument as it provides a clear set of choices. For example Pakistan goes from 56% global in the first question to 2% global in the second. Most of those seem to move to religion as their primary identity (43% answer religion on M2). Many religions are globally oriented toward all humanity but the M2 question lets us see more clearly what they believe.
Even though the second question (M2) is better it probably could still do with some examination. For example the only country where global citizenship was higher than national citizenship in M2 was Spain, but was that because many people in Catalonia and the Basque Country are choosing global over "Spanish" because the "local" option was translated in a particular way? If they used a word closer to "neighborhood" you could see how that might happen. Similarly was "local" translated more broadly in the Indonesian translation and became the dominant answer there (56%) as people could identify with an island/state/ethnic/linguistic group that was "local", like Bali for example. It's hard to tell without all the data and the exact translations of the questions.
Please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait. The submitted title ('People see themselves as global citizens rather than citizens of their country') says something quite different than the original.