Ding Zijiang

Abstract： Through a diachronic and synchronic comparison of cosmopolitanism in the East and West， this paper examines the evolutionary pattern of classical Chinese cosmopolitanism from the perspective of todays globalization. It first introduces the history， modern interpretations， and six transformational models of Western cosmopolitanism. Next， it critiques arguments concerning cosmopolitanism in modern China， with special attention to Kang Youwei and Liang Qichaos cosmopolitanism and Sun Yat-sens criticism of cosmopolitanism， and explicates contemporary Chinas new tianxia doctrine. The author argues that the Confucian political and ethical views of the world endow Confucianism with a universal authority based on a structure of morality， ritual， and highly secular cultural aesthetics. The traditional Chinese thinkers attempted to combine regionalism， metaphysics， ethics， aesthetics， and the Chinese utopian idealism with universalism and cosmopolitanism.

Keywords： globalization， cosmopolitanism， universalism， new tianxia doctrine， comparison of cosmopolitanism in the East and West

Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among peoples， companies， and governments; it is a dynamic process driven by international trade and investment， assisted by information technology. This process has implications for the environment， culture， political systems， economic development and prosperity， as well as for the physical and mental health of human beings around the world. Globalization is mainly characterized by social， cultural， and economic integration， but international conflicts are also an important part of the history of globalization. Cosmopolitanism is a term often used to describe world citizenship： an enlightened person believes that he or she belongs to a common humanity or world order， not a specific set of customs or traditions. Cosmopolitanism examines the relationships between nations， groups， or individuals and how they achieve moral， cultural， economic， and political unity in a globalized society. Cosmopolitanism can be seen as the norm of globalization， which strengthens the promotion of cosmopolitanism. The expressions of globalization and cosmopolitanism are quite different in various kinds of literature. In terms of mobility and inclusion， the relationship between these two and politics and immigration has also been treated differently in different sources. However， there is both continuity and separation between them. The manifestations of cosmopolitanism are pluralistic， multi-dimensional， and multi-faceted， with different varieties， and each era has its own unique version， which shows the moral attitude， political life， philosophical thought， and religious aspirations of humans over the millennia. The word cosmopolitan implies that the world itself can be regarded as a political community. However， this ideal is full of contradictions. Through internationalization， we can verify and demonstrate the relationship between global justice and universal justice. There seems to be some value of universal justice in the actual world. The interconnections between global justice， cosmopolitanism， and universalism are related and can transform.

Economic， cultural， and political systems that were once bound by the borders of nation-states are increasingly globalized. Whether debates over globalization split apart depends on the extent to which they form a basis for ideology. Some scholars have defined four major focal points that can provide this ideological basis， taking philosophical debates between globalists and nationalists as well as those between universalists and situationists as raw material for activists in the public sphere： border permeability， distribution of authority at various levels， normative dignity of communities， and methods used for decision-making. An ideal combination of these four parts can be labeled as cosmopolitanism， that is， a combination of the arguments for globalism and universalism， while another kind of communitarianism combines nationalist and situationist arguments. In public debates， the more political and ideological these two ideal strains are， the more a new split will emerge in debates on globalization. Other scholars have also revealed that the globalization of the world has gained new vitality in the context of the current global economic restructuring， which makes the concept of nationalism become backward. However， there are three basic misunderstandings in this confrontation between globalization and nationalism： （1） the belief that nationalism is related to the socio-economic base and that the globalized economy must therefore strive to globalize societies， making states and nationalism obsolete; （2） the belief that cultural adaptation， that is， the increasing standardization of cultural forms， inevitably or automatically translates into the assimilation of ethnic minoritism; （3） the idea that global cosmopolitan culture is， to some extent， the ideal that human society should reflect or aim at. The advent of globalization has led scholars to acquire a new awareness of democracy， citizenship， and political community. Because civic ideals conflict with the sovereign nation-states that originally developed， they can no longer cope with the pressures of globalization， and such conceptions of democracy must be changed in order to continue to play a role in this era of globalization. Faced with challenges from researchers， democratic theorists are forced to reconstruct democracy and citizenship because national society has lost its importance. However， the cosmopolitan theorists also have a series of problems of their own in the process of globalization.

A Historical Review of Western Cosmopolitanism：

From Socrates and Kant to Habermas [Refer to page 21 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]

Socratess ideas were based on universalism and cosmopolitanism. He considered himself a member of the universe， and his philosophical investigations extended to all human beings. According to Platos retelling， Hippias， the wise man， said： “I regard you all as kinsmen and intimates and fellow-citizens by nature， not by law： for like is akin to like by nature” （Plato， Protagoras 337c7--d3）. The Stoic School argued that all men are an embodiment of universal values and should live in fraternity and help each other in a brotherly way. Diogenes， for example， claimed to be not an Athenian or a Corinthian， but a citizen of the world. Stoic cosmopolitanism influenced Christianity and even modern political thought. Early Christianity upheld the ideals of cosmopolitanism and St. Paul declared， “There is no difference between the Greeks and Jews， the circumcised and uncircumcised， the barbarians， the Scythians， the slaves， or the free” （Col. 3：11）. Since Socrates， many great thinkers in the West have been more or less influenced by this moral and social ideal. These universal rights and mutually agreed views have been a constant subject of thought， illustrating an important transition from classicism to modernism.

Kant demonstrated cosmopolitanism in a revolutionary way. For him， cosmopolitanism can be defined as “a model in which all of humanitys original abilities can be developed.” He supported internationalized law， whereby individuals have the right to be “citizens of the earth” and not citizens of a particular country. Kant conceived of a multi-ethnic country that included all the peoples of the world， that is， a nation of all the peoples of the world united into civitas gentium. For him， the commonality between the various peoples can lead evils such as the violation of rights to exist in no corner of the world. Thus the idea of world civil rights is likely to become a reality. One can think of oneself as a citizen of the world， that is， a citizen of the world beyond the perceptual world. He believed that，

Purposeless savagery held back the development of the capacities of our race; but finally， through the evil into which it plunged mankind， it forced our race to renounce this condition and to enter into a civic order in which those capacities could be developed. The same is done by the barbaric freedom of established states. Through wasting the powers of the commonwealths in armaments to be used against each other， through devastation brought on by war， and even more by the necessity of holding themselves in constant readiness for war， they stunt the full development of human nature. But because of the evils which thus arise， our race is forced to find， above the （in itself healthy） opposition of states which is a consequence of their freedom， a law of equilibrium and a united power to give it effect. Thus it is forced to institute a cosmopolitan condition to secure the external safety of each state.

As a result， people are forced to establish a universal condition to ensure the external security of each country. There is no precedent in the history of the world for international governments.

Although this government at present exists only as a rough outline， nevertheless in all the members there is rising a feeling which each has for the preservation of the whole. This gives hope finally that after many reformative revolutions， a universal cosmopolitan condition， which Nature has as her ultimate purpose， will come into being as the womb wherein all the original capacities of the human race can develop.

In Kants Perpetual Peace： A Philosophical Sketch， the idea of a negotiated government and a world federation was proposed. He stressed that the laws of states should be based on a federation of free states and that the laws of the citizens of the world depend on generally friendly conditions. Only a worldwide state can guarantee permanent peace. Kants exploration of worldwide rights is widely regarded as the philosophical origin of modern cosmopolitanism. According to his deontological methodology and concept of reason， the international community of peace for all humankind is a principle of worldwide rights. This principle expresses an obligation to regulate relations between all states for the purpose of promoting tourism and trade. Kant systematically expounded cosmopolitanism in the political and philosophical sense. From a theoretical point of view， he defined some of the most relevant aspects of general universality， that is， rational understanding transcending self-interest and the attempt to establish a universal order.

Jürgen Habermas tried to re-establish Kants cosmopolitanism. For him， the development of society provided new challenges for Kants theory of worldwide rights and justice. Habermas combined universalism， cosmopolitanism， and global justice as his general theoretical framework. He proposed an innovative theoretical basis that provided a well-designed rationale for a constitutional and universal global order， that is， for why a universal principle should be implemented. On his view， （1） An international order should be moral， civil， judicial， legitimate， political， pluralistic， democratic， consultative， institutional， international， transnational， and post-state; （2） The emergence of public international law is at the heart of a just global political order; （3） A global political order is a continuation of democratic forms based on human rights; （4） If a political community is based on the universal principles of democratic constitutions， it still forms a collective identity， and in a sense， based on the enlightenment of its own history and the context of its specific form of existence， it interprets and realizes these principles; （5） In the absence of a common moral basis， institutions that go beyond the state must seek a less demanding basis for legitimacy in the form of an international consultative system， which would be an intelligible process of consideration of the various public organizations in international civil society; （6） At the global level， regulated political institutions may be effective only if they adopt governance without a government， and even human rights with legal effects must be constitutionalized in the international system.

Since the turn of the twentieth century， people have offered modern interpretations of Western cosmopolitanism. Arnold J. Toynbee conceived that regional countries must not always be a permanent source of war， or a political machine that dominates the population. People are willing to give their greatest loyalty to all mankind， not to regional countries and their institutions. Generally speaking， universalism， cosmopolitanism， and global justice are interconnected. For example， the concept of binding law or jus cogens can be linked to the assumption of general social communication. This encompasses all participants in international relations， including states and individuals understood in a cosmopolitan approach， as it brings together the core requirements of legitimate public action around the world. The idea of a global political community is articulated in the theory of international relations. We can see that Western cosmopolitanism has applied six transformational models： （1） from natural to artificial， such as Hippias; （2） from theological to secular， such as Epictetus and the Thomist; （3） from teleological to deontological， such as Kant; （4） from nationalism to anti-nationalism， such as Diogenes; （5） from institutional or constitutionalist to the individual， such as Habermas; （6） from the philosophical to the political， such as Kant and Habermas.

Controversies over Cosmopolitanism in Modern China [24]

Traditional Chinese thinkers tried to examine cosmopolitanism through metaphysics， ethics， aesthetics， and utopian imagination. They shifted the discussion of cosmopolitanism from geography to ethical politics. The conceptualization of Chinese cosmopolitanism had four dimensions： （1） to construct a supernatural and superhuman concept through some kind of ontological or cosmological imagination; （2） to construct a concept of natural existence through the geographical environment; （3） for the ruling class to construct a concept of human existence through the centralized domination of the whole society and all its lands; （4） to construct a concept of moral virtue， ethical value， and utopian ideal through self-realization， self-perfection， self-purification， and self-transformation.

Among modern Chinese thinkers， Kang Youwei 康有為 （1858–1927） stated cosmo-politanism rather profoundly. Liang Qichao 梁启超 （1873–1929） praised Kangs The Book of Grand Union [大同书]： “His ideals in the book are quite in affinity with those in todays cosmopolitanism and socialism， and yet his ideas thus expounded are more profound.” Xunzi said，

Since the world （tianxia） is the weightiest burden， only the strongest person will be able to bear it. Since it is the largest thing， only the most discriminating will be able to allocate social responsibilities properly. Since it is the most populous entity， only the most enlightened will be able to make it harmonious. Only a sage is capable of fully meeting these three conditions. Thus， only a sage is capable of being a True King. A sage thoroughly perfects himself in the Way and is a person of complete refinement， so he can be the balance scale of judgment for the whole world. （Xunzi， “Rectifying Theses” [正論]）

In his book A Study of Confuciuss Institutional Reforms [孔子改制考]， Kang Youwei offered the following interpretation： “One who can attract all the people under his leadership is a king; one who cannot attract people but from whom people all disperse is an ordinary man.” He adopted the theory of the Three Ages from the Gongyang School of the Western Han dynasty （206 BCE–25 CE）， and combined China with the West， mixing in some views from modern Western evolutionary theory. He proclaimed that， in terms the Way of Heaven， those who arise later are superior to those who arise earlier; in terms of the Way of Humanity， later people have it easier than the earlier ones. In Kangs view， the Chinese society of his time was “in a state of chaos，” while the European and American countries were generally “in a state of rising peace，” and since the latter is more advanced than the former， it should replace the former; the ideal world of the future should be “in a state of peace and tranquility.” Kang Youwei pieced together the concepts of xiaokang 小康 （lit. small well-being） and datong 大同 （grand union） from the Book of Rites， with the Buddhist doctrines of compassion and the Western ideas of democracy， freedom， equality， and fraternity， and conceived his vision of the datong society. In the world of datong， private ownership has been completely abolished： “The world is held in public. All depends on public principles. Public refers to the equality of all， with no distinctions between superior and inferior， and no classes of rich and poor.” Agriculture， industry， commerce， and all other vocations have been converted to the public sector， and public welfare undertakings， including nurseries， nursing homes， libraries， and schools， are managed as public property by the public sector. In the datong society， all areas of economic activity are determined by planning. The whole production and distribution system is developed and orderly， so that everyones production and consumption can be satisfied to the greatest extent， and social wealth can be most effectively utilized. In this society， countries， clans， classes （ranks）， monarchs， and nobles all disappear， and everyone enjoys a better life.

Liang Qichao was arguably a thinker who talked most about Chinese-style cosmo-politanism， the view of tianxia 天下 （all under Heaven）. He elaborated this concept from multiple perspectives， such as the views of regions， history， knowledge， ethics， and law. It is significant that Liang associated cosmopolitanism with the tianxia view. He once said，

There is nothing more important in the world today than the rise and fall of China， and the biggest problem that the great statesmen have to deal with in their minds is the problem of China. Therefore， the problem of China is no less than that of the world， and the nationalism of China is no less than cosmopolitanism.

The spread of cosmopolitanism in China occurred generally in the twentieth century， around the time of World War I and the rule of the Northern Warlords （1912–1927）. At that time， the German nationalist war policy was criticized， the corruption of the Northern Warlords led the Chinese people try to find another way， and thus cosmopolitanism became an important choice in Chinas ideological and cultural circles. Liang Qichao， Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培 （1868–1940）， Chen Duxiu 陳独秀 （1879–1942）， Dai Jitao 戴季陶 （1891–1949）， Hu Shi 胡适 （1891–1962） and other famous scholars appreciated or even had long-term adherence to cosmopolitanism. Some foreign scholars such as Bertrand Russell also preached cosmopolitanism in Chinese classrooms. Under the influence of such masters in academic circles， young students who admired Western civilization worshiped cosmopolitanism and preached it fervently. In the Chinese cultural circles of this period， cosmopolitanism and anarchism echoed each other， and nationalism was gradually marginalized and finally faded from the view of many intellectuals.

Sun Yat-sen 孙中山 （1866–1925） also believed that cosmopolitanism in Europe was only promoted in the modern world， and that we should keep and expand this spirit. At the same time， it must be noted that cosmopolitanism should be included in the major issues of Marxism， and Marxism， socialism， and communism with Western culture as their background were linked with cosmopolitanism. The British， Russians （Bolsheviks）， and May Fourth New Culture Movement （1919） opposed nationalism and promoted cosmopolitanism. However， cosmopolitanism had existed in ancient China as long as two thousand years ago， namely in the tianxia doctrine. Sun went on with his criticism： “Chinas new youth， advocating a new culture and opposing nationalism， is bewildered by this （cosmopolitan） truth. However， if nationalism is not consolidated， cosmopolitanism cannot develop. Cosmopolitanism is implied in nationalism.” Sun Yat-sen on the one hand vigorously advocated “the whole world as one community，” while on the other hand he criticized cosmopolitanism. He stated that cosmopolitanism does not really apply to China. “Because of Chinas weakness and prolonged loss of sovereignty， it is advisable to seek prosperity and strength first， so that the worlds powerful countries dare not despise China. . . . Only then can we advocate cosmopolitanism.” Since imperialism wants to preserve its special status， it promotes cosmopolitanism and makes the whole world obey. “If nationalism does not exist， when cosmopolitanism develops， we cannot survive and we are going to be eliminated.” Sun Yat-sen further stressed that the status of national freedom and equality should be restored before it is worth discussing cosmopolitanism.

Some scholars have speculated that Sun Yat-sen mainly criticized Britain and Russia. Russells ideas against nationalism and for cosmopolitanism resonated with young students who worshipped Western civilization and began to aspire to socialism. That Sun Yat-sens several speeches on cosmopolitanism against anti-nationalism coincided in chronological order with Russells speeches and the publication of his related works may reflect a certain causal connection. Although Russell believed in pacifism and cosmopolitanism and opposed all forms of nationalism， including national self-determination， the development path he designed for China， namely to be unified and independent， implement national socialism， and develop a moral culture based on the absorption of the outstanding elements of Western civilization， was broadly in line with Sun Yat-sens ideas. Later， Russell in the Business Group Incident clearly supported Sun Yat-sen， hoping that Sun Yat-sens moderate socialism could be successful in China.

In 1931， Lei Haizong 雷海宗 （1902–1962） divided the cosmopolitanism of the time into three categories： cosmopolitanism， internationalism， and pacifism. The first category included Herbert G. Wells， Thorstein Veblen， Norman Angell， and Karl Marx， the second Woodrow Wilson， and the third Leo Tolstoi， Roman Rolland， and Bertrand Russell.

In the 1990s， some scholars believed that China should abandon the nationalist ideology from oppression and replace it with the diplomatic philosophy of the traditional tianxia doctrine. They argued that “in this era of accelerated globalization， after Chinas revival and equal status with the rest of the world， Chinese culture should return to culturalism and the tianxia doctrine， what is today called globalism.” There was also the argument that China “needs a cultural shift from nationalism to the tianxia doctrine， or a revival of the tianxia doctrine.”

By the beginning of the twenty-first century， a new tianxia doctrine was coming into being. For instance， in The Tianxia System： An Introduction to the Philosophy of a World Institution [天下體系——世界制度哲学导论]， Zhao Tingyang 赵汀阳 analyzed the tianxia concept and system of the Zhou dynasty （1046–256 BCE）， so as to put forward the idea of reconsidering China， and even reconsidering the world， and trying to plan the future worlds political institution as an “all under Heaven system.” According to the book， the unique Chinese tianxia view is the most profound theoretical preparation for the world institution. The core concept of the tianxia view is to see the world from the perspective of tianxia and to regard all under Heaven as one family， meaning to take the world as the public political space and common resource of mankind， and to think about the political problems of the world on the scale of the world. Only by understanding the world as an indivisible a priori unit will it be possible to see and define the long-term interests， values， and responsibilities that belong to the world. Chinas tianxia model can fully achieve a top-down transmission of political governance， so it can be used as a method to end the chaos of todays world. The tianxia model recognizes only political uniformity and the universality of human nature， and no longer recognizes any other principles， in particular the universality of peoples and ideologies （especially religions）， and opposes the imposition of any particular values onto people， thus affirming the free existence and natural survival or perishing of all cultures. According to the intention of this book， this tianxia system can finally solve the problem of conflict that Kants theory of peace could not resolve， such as Samuel Huntingtons theory of the clash of civilizations.

Some scholars have commented that there is an intellectual trend of cosmopolitanism latent in Chinese philosophy， from the lower level of cosmopolitanism that breaks through national centralism， to the higher level of cosmopolitanism that breaks through regional centralism， to the highest level of cosmopolitanism that breaks through anthropocentrism. The various forms of cosmopolitanism were all present in the minds of Chinese philosophers， a phenomenon that is rare in the history of world philosophy and deserves to be seriously explored. Daniel A. Bell， an American scholar， questioned Zhaos arguments， arguing that the political implications of tianxia were still unclear， and asked： What kind of political practices and institutions can be derived from the ideal of tianxia？ How are these practices and institutions different from those of the disputed protectors of global freedom and the Marxist defenders of global communism？

In Chinese thought， tianxia involves metaphysical imagination， moral identity， and political application， but the term has a lot of ambiguity and is highly controversial. As Chinas economic and political power grows stronger， thinkers and writers intensely debate the theoretical significance of Chinas traditional world order. The concept of tianxia embodies a worldview rooted in Confucian morality and political thought， which determines a universal authority based on morality， ritual， and the aesthetic framework of a highly secular culture. As a result of systematic changes of discourse， the concept of tianxia has re-emerged in modern China as a moral and cultural way to connect with the international community. This intention becomes part of the international community and integrates into the situation of the world. “As ethical imperatives， philosophical tradition， or cultural politics that attempt to address the condition of the world today， it is not surprising that a variety of perspectives and answers have been presented， yet contemporary discussions of cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitics need a lot of translation work in order to connect with both Chinese history and the contemporary context.”

Traditional Chinese thinkers attempted to combine universalism and cosmopolitanism with Chinese traditional metaphysics， ethics， aesthetics， and Chinese-style utopian ideals. They examined cosmopolitanism from a perspective in which regions transformed into ethical politics. The conceptualization of traditional Chinese cosmopolitanism is as follows： （1） supernatural and superhuman concepts generated by the imagination of a certain ontology and cosmology; （2） the concept of natural existence through the geographical environment; （3） the idea of controlling society and all its lands through centralized rule; （4） conceptions of morality， ethical value， and ideals resulting from self-realization， self-perfection， self-purification， and self-transformation; and （5） the concept of the “superiority” of culture and civilization produced through comparison with the “inferiority” of Chinese minority culture. In the “Major Odes” [大雅] of the Book of Poetry we read， “King Wen is now above， / And reigns over us from Heaven. / Although Zhou is an old state， / Its mandate is thus renewed.” Here， “old state” can be regarded as the whole world under Heaven extended from the core geographical space of China， and “renewed” shows the importance of inheriting and constantly reforming Chinese culture in this world.

Bibliography of Cited Translations

Knoblock， John， trans. Xunzi [荀子]. Changsha： Hunan Peoples Publishing House; Beijing： Foreign Languages Press， 1999.

Translated by Zhu Yuan