In the recent discussions of cosmopolitanism a controversial issue that is addressed has been the utilization of Martha Nussbaum’s concept of a cosmopolitan education, in which students learn to consider themselves as “citizens of the world” rather than identify with their cultural ancestry. On one hand, supporters argue that educating students using cosmopolitan concepts is necessary in fulfilling cosmopolitan goals. On this view, critics believe this will result in equality and positive moral conduct amongst all human kind. On the other hand, opponents claim that identifying oneself as a citizen of the world and accepting Nussbaum’s cosmopolitan education view is flawed. According to this group of opponents a cosmopolitan education will lead to a loss of cultural identity, which triggers other conflicts. In sum, one group argues for cosmopolitan education acceptance, while the other refutes and evaluates Nussbaum’s idea of teaching others to view themselves as “citizens of the world”.
It is my view that there is significant importance in learning about other cultures along with their beliefs, and values. However, the latter group is right because Nussbaum’s theory of cosmopolitan education is flawed and has the potential for negative effects. On my view, cosmopolitan education leads to a lost sense of morality through the abandonment of concern for one’s own cultural values. For example, forcing beliefs such as objectification of women in the Middle East risks altering discretions in deciding what values and behaviors are acceptable and which are not. Of course those who believe that favoring world wide views over one’s own local ones might object that imposing cultural beliefs, rather than local beliefs will lead to positive moral conduct. I never the less insist that Nussbaum’s concept of a Cosmopolitan education is flawed and needs to be redefined because of the potential for error. In sum, I argue that Nussbaum’s Cosmopolitan education system is flawed because it entails the abandonment of identity and therefore lacks any foundation for correct moral conduct.
It is important to discuss the cosmopolitan ideology that Nussbaum passionately believes in. She defines cosmopolitanism as pledging one’s allegiance to a worldwide community rather than to a local nation or state. She argues for the Stoic concept of “world citizenship”, where people are not defined by their local affiliations, but rather define themselves as part of the human community. Nussbaum justifies her belief by predicting that the utilization of the Cosmopolitan lifestyle will lead to equality amongst all human beings as well as result in mutual respect and positive moral conduct amongst all mankind.
It is also important to note what exactly Nussbaum means by a “cosmopolitan education” in order to appropriately refute it. Nussbaum’s “cosmopolitan education” insists that students are taught to consider themselves as citizens of the world. She expresses the need for implementing an in depth multi cultural curriculum where emphasis is placed on world wide concerns rather than local ones. She explains America’s ignorance of other cultures. She expresses, “Our nation is appallingly ignorant of most of the rest of the world” (Nussbaum 11). I agree with Nussbaum’s aspiration to shred America’s ignorance of other cultures and her solution of exposing students to different cultures as a part of the curriculum. However, my argument relies on Nussbaum’s desire for emphasis placed on other cultures’ values rather then the students’ own. I believe that placing emphasis on several different cultures before the student has a legitimate foundation of his or her own values begs for potential harm.
It is irrational for Nussbaum to assume that exposing students to foreign cultural values before they substantially understand their own culture’s set of values will benefit a student more than if they are given a clear education of local values before being exposed to foreign cultures. In my opinion, it is crucial for students to understand their own culture’s values before they can even begin to appreciate other cultures and their beliefs. If a student does not have a clear concept of the importance of values, it is unlikely that they will show any interest in learning about foreign values. Author of the essay Don’t attack the little platoons, Michael McConnell further supports my argument by insisting that, “Before a child can learn to value others he needs to learn to value” (McConnell 80). McConnell reaffirms my belief by expressing the need for students to first understand the concepts of values and gain a foundation for their own set of unique values before they can be successfully exposed to an in depth multi cultural curriculum . It is vital for students to fully understand what exactly a value is and what values are prominent in their communities and cultures. The mastery of these concepts improves the student’s ability to comprehend beliefs and differences of foreign cultures.
It is also my belief that emphasis of one’s own local values will lead to a better appreciation for other culture’s differences. McConnell continues to support my view by claiming, “A student who cares not a whit for his own culture’s accomplishments is unlikely to find much value in the accomplishment of others” (McConnell 81). This claim suggests that it is unrealistic to assume a student who is apathetic towards the historical accomplishments of their own culture would be mindful of their culture’s values. If the student does not appreciate the beliefs that sustain their own culture, then morality becomes subjective. There is no set principle of right and wrong because everyone would follow and create their own code of ethics, of what is morally acceptable and what is morally unjust. It is my assertion that Nussbaum’s ideology is not effective as a result of student naivety of his or her cultural values. As previously emphasized, if appreciation of one’s own values is not achieved then the exposure to foreign values will be unappreciated and dismissed. Nussbaum’s cosmopolitan education concepts involving neglect to one’s own culture only stems to a greater morality discrepancy problems.
The abandonment of local values that Nussbaum’s cosmopolitan education promotes a students’ lost sense of morality. Nussbaum disregards the possibility of a cosmopolitan education destroying students’ foundation of moral values by quoting Marcus Aurelius. She quotes, “One must first learn many things before one can judge another’s action” (Nussbaum 10). Nussbaum clings to the idea that learning different cultures’ beliefs and favoring them above one’s own will lead to a better understanding and acceptance of different cultures. Nussbaum fails to recognize that a student who is isolated from their own culture’s beliefs and ways of conduct is incapable of distinguishing between morality and immorality, because of scattered impressions of right and wrong. I consider this situation hazardous because a student with no set of values becomes susceptible to the influence of radical cultural beliefs.
As an example, an impressionable American student exposed to the extreme cultural beliefs such as the harsh objectifications of women in the Middle East risks being influence by these ideas and accepting them as morally correct. Without proper reflection of his or her own culture and ways of proper moral conduct, the student can easily assume that beliefs such as the extreme objectification of women are acceptable moral behaviors. All cultures have different views on morality and many conflict each other. It is impossible to accept all values of all cultures. Placing emphasis in the education of several cultural values on to students, without acknowledging what values their own culture respects only leaves students impressionable to accepting extreme values and conducting their behavior based on those values. So while Nussbaum and her supporters argue that exposure to several cultural values instigate positive, moral conduct amongst all human kind, I must disagree with her by believing that her cosmopolitan education system will only diminish all concepts of morality and leave a student susceptible to valuing radical beliefs above their own culture’s code of moral beliefs.
In closing, while it is accepted that Nussbaum’s idea of a Cosmopolitan education where other cultures are distinctively discussed, it is Nussbaum’s way of prioritizing these other cultures’ over a student’s local culture that triggers a debate amongst observers. Critics arguing Nussbaum’s theory insist on the importance of a clear understanding of one’s own culture and local community values and morality concepts before they learn about others. This is crucial in preventing a confused and harmful outlook of morality. The world has the potential to accept cosmopolitan education, and in the future if it ever takes over it is my hope that morality issues will be delicately handled in order to prevent the acceptance of foreign values that inflict on human rights. If this is achieved then it is possible for the world to successfully transition into a cosmopolitan way of life.
Works cited
Gutmann, Amy. “Democratic Citizenship”. For Love of Country. Boston: Beacon Press,2002.
McConnell, Michael. “Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons”. For Love of Country. Boston: Beacon Press, 2002.
Nussbaum, Martha. “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism”. For Love of Country. Boston: Beacon Press,2002.
