Asked where he came from, Diogenes the Cynic answered with a single word: kosmopolitês, meaning, “a citizen of the world”. This moment, however fictive, might be said to inaugurate a long tradition of cosmopolitan political thought in the Western tradition. A Greek male refuses the invitation to define himself by lineage, city, social class, even free birth, even gender. He insists on defining himself in terms of a characteristic that he shares with all other human beings, male and female, Greek and non-Greek, slave and free. And by calling himself not simply a dweller in the world but a citizen of the world, Diogenes suggests, as well, the possibility of a politics, or a moral approach to politics, that focuses on the humanity we share rather than the marks of local origin, status, class, and gender that divide us. It is a first step on the road that leads to Kant’s resonant idea of the “kingdom of ends,” a virtual polity of moral aspiration that unites all rational beings (although Diogenes, more inclusive, does not limit the community to the “rational”), and to Kant’s vision of a cosmopolitan politics that will join all humanity under laws given not by convention and class but by free moral choice. Diogenes, they say, “used to make fun of good birth and distinctions of rank and all that sort of thing, calling them decorations of vice. The only correct political order was, he said, that in the world (kosmos) as a whole”. Cynic / Stoic cosmopolitanism urges us to recognise the equal, and unconditional, worth of all human beings, a worth grounded in moral choice-capacity (or perhaps even this is too restrictive?), rather than on traits that depend on fortuitous natural or social arrangements. The insight that politics ought to treat human beings both as equal and as having a worth beyond price is one of the deepest and most influential insights of Western thought; it is responsible for much that is fine in the modern Western political imagination. One day, Alexander the Great came and stood over Diogenes, as he was sunning himself in the marketplace. “Ask me for anything you want,” Alexander said. He said, “Get out of my light”. This image of the dignity of humanity, which can shine forth in its nakedness unless shadowed by the false claims of rank and kingship, a dignity that needs only the removal of that shadow to be vigorous and free, is one endpoint of a line that leads to the modern human rights movement.
The Cosmopolitan Tradition: Noble, But Flawed
Martha Nussbaum on cosmopolitanism's flaws.
Continue reading
Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.
Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Emmanuel Fantaisie 17 September 2019
Great article - very interesting to see the contribution of the Stoic thought to the modern laws.
There seem to be apparent inconsistencies in what the Stoics say but I believe that a closer look at their doctrine in good faith allows us to see that they were not so extreme in their vision of dignity. I do not see from Marcus Aurelius writings such a strong call to renounce “to renounce close personal ties to family, city, and group” like you said, but rather an invitation to not get so attached to them that any change or destruction bestowed upon these entities by fortune would destroy us as well.
Stoics push for dignity to be self-generated and indifferent to what is not under one’s control such as being tortured, being a slave, etc. It is to help everyone to get to the state of “contentment” in a purely self-reliant way; it builds fortitude of character in the face of fortune. It does not say not to change these circumstances if possible. And Stoic thought also insists on following the natural role one human has to be kind and tolerant towards a fellow human because they are equal on moral grounds and in their capacity to reason.
However paradoxically, Marcus Aurelius was an Emperor and filled his role as such, for example not abolishing slavery which would have destroyed the economy of the Empire and arguably brought more suffering? Again there seems to be a sort of passivity towards the betterment of the political society from an ancient Stoic point of view, because being a slave like Epictetus was should not be an impediment to one’s dignity.
I think though that more modern views on Stoicism completely incorporate the need for each individual to take care of their fellow humans and treat them as they would like to be treated themselves. The ancient notion of “preferred indifferent”, although highly debated in the Stoic community, shows the acknowledgement from the Stoic thought that an individual’s ability to consider their dignity as separate from what happens outside of their control would be made much easier if not constantly pitted against war, hunger and disease.
It feels to me like the principle accepts and encourages that the political structures, fed by the will of each individual in them to do so, also protect people from external indifferents. It is obviously an ideal, but nonetheless from my point of view an integral part of the cosmopolitan movement this train of thought created.
Join the conversation