Philosophy in Practice Week 7: National solidarity and the world: are compatriot bonds an obstacle to global justice?

Structure 1.Introduction to global justice and national obligations 2.Last time 3.National identities reconsidered and Miller’s argument 4.How national identities are created 5.How this bears on our obligations 6.Cosmopolitanism from the inside? 7.Conclusion

Introduction to Global Justice and National Obligations &

Global Justice What are our moral obligations to foreigners? With regards to redistribution, institutions, and relations. Broadly speaking: two overarching approaches to global justice: cosmopolitanism and anti-cosmopolitanism (although, there are many positions in between). Cosmopolitans claim that we have comprehensive or demanding obligations to everyone. Anti-cosmopolitans claim that we have comprehensive obligations to co-citizens, but only basic obligations to foreigners. Today: national anti-cosmopolitans.

Global Justice and National Obligations How do our national obligations influence our global ones? If we have special (comprehensive) obligations to co- citizens this could come in the way of our fulfilment of obligations to foreigners. Should we allow that? Cosmopolitans would say no. If we do, how should we weigh our national obligations against our global ones? When might we say that global obligations must give way to our national duties? As we saw last time, national identity is a part of political reality – but how does this affect our obligations?

Last Time Nationalism has a bad reputation, but takes many different forms. Miller defines a form of national identity which is cleansed of these connotations, in which national identity is based on a shared belief, historical continuity, political activity, geographical boundedness, and a basis in distinct traits. National identities are both instrumentally and intrinsically important. Thus, they give rise to special obligations, which should be prioritized over other obligations (e.g. to foreigners).

National Identities Reconsidered Sharing a national identity is intrinsically important: affects one’s life chances in multiple ways; creates possibilities for furthering one’s cultural beliefs and steering and shaping society in accordance with such beliefs; conveys a sense of belonging. In an important sense, national identity makes us who we are. To uphold and maintain national identities, we must give our compatriots priority – we have special obligations to them – at the expense of non-compatriots. Thus, we have comprehensive obligations to compatriots and basic obligations to non-compatriots.

National Identities Reconsidered #2 Importantly, this argument rests on a special assumption about how to do moral and political philosophy; namely that our principles should not set goals, which people cannot live up to (“ought implies can”) This entails treating certain facts of the world as “constants” or “givens” – those that are unlikely to change (although, they could change). This is done to make political philosophy more realistic and increase the chance of compliance.

Miller’s argument 1.People can meet comprehensive obligations to people with whom they share a strong bond, but not towards those with whom they only share a weak bond. 2.For most people, sharing a national identity constitutes a strong bond while mere common humanity is a weak bond. 3.Thus, most people (a) can be brought to meet comprehensive obligations towards people with whom they share a national identity, but (b) cannot be brought to meet such obligations towards people with whom they share only a common humanity. 4.If a person cannot be brought to do something, then justice does not require that she does it. 5.Thus, most people are not required by justice to meet comprehensive obligations towards people with whom they share only a common humanity.

Creating and upholding national identities

Nation States Began with the Peace of Westphalia (1648) Revolutions and the Golden Age of Nation States World War II and its aftermath (decolonisation and internationalisation) The fall of the Berlin Wall and the new wave of nationalism Globalisation of information, economic and political interdependency, international institutions, migration, war, etc.

Nation Building So, importantly, nation states and national identities are not “natural” and have not existed eternally. Even in the beginning of nation states, they were not nation states as we conceive of them now. Rather, they have been actively created through a series of nation building policies. These policies are more or less directly aimed at creating national identities and national solidarity.

Nation Building #2 These policies are many and take up much space in the political realm. –Monuments, cultural institutions, streets, holidays, public celebrations, sports, TV shows, politics, media, etc. They have actively created national identities and national solidarity and they still continue to recreate and uphold these bonds. Enacted by democratic institutions and public institutions, we partake in this recreation and maintenance – we create and uphold national identities and solidarity.

How this bears on our obligations Talk to the hand!

Creating Anti- cosmopolitanism As we saw in Miller’s argument, people cannot be motivated to meet comprehensive obligations to people with whom they only share a weak bond. Our common humanity is such a weak bond. But, are we making it weak by recreating and upholding national identities?

Creating Anti- cosmopolitanism #2 National identities are always imagined as limited So, when we engage in communal acts of imagining and reinforcing our national identity, we are simultaneously imagining ourselves as not sharing such a relationship with foreigners – as not performing these acts with them. Further, the way in which it is imagined is in spite of foreign influences. So, nation building creates a sense of non-identity with foreigners both in form and content.

What does this mean for our obligations? Well, according to Miller, we: –Owe only basic obligations to foreigners –Because we only share a weak bond with them –And thus, people cannot be motivated to meet more comprehensive obligations This, however, becomes problematic if: –We are making people unable to meet these obligations through nation-building policies. So what does this mean? And, importantly, could it be done differently?

Cosmopolitanism from the inside?

Cosmopolitan policies Maybe we should accept that people must have strong bonds towards others to be motivated to make large sacrifices to them – to meet comprehensive obligations. But should we accept the primacy of national identities and solidarity? –If they are making people unable to meet obligations to the world’s poor. –If they are not natural, but being upheld and recreated by ourselves. Could things be done differently? –Cosmopolitan education –Strengthening international institutions Would this mean sacrificing trust and solidarity and all the good things that national bonds bring (according to Miller)?

Conclusion Cosmopolitans claim that we have comprehensive obligations to everyone, anti-cosmopolitans claim that we only have such obligations to co-nationals, while we only have basic obligations to foreigners. In Miller’s national form of anti-cosmopolitanism, he argues that the difference is caused by the different bonds we share with compatriots and foreigners, respectively. These bonds, however, have been created and are being maintained and recreated by nation building policies. This makes it difficult to ground Miller’s conclusion (since we are shaping the bonds on which he bases it). Other policies may be available which could increase the strength of bonds to foreigners: cosmopolitan education and international institutional reform.

Questions Are national identities really created in the quite deliberate way indicated in the article? Is it done with bad intentions? Are the alternative policies outlined in the article (cosmopolitan education and institutional reform) feasible? Would they help reach the desired goal? Would pursuing these policies involve sacrificing too much?