Introduction
Although many nations in the world remain politically focused wherein politicians of a country strive to protect their country’s sovereignty, many nations in the world continue stay away from universal inclusiveness, simply because each nation contains citizens with quite different ideologies.
The differences exhibited in ideologies among citizens in a given nation; limit universal integration and inclusiveness of nations of the world. In addition, within a nation, the sense of inclusiveness remains unknown and therefore, the community’s political sovereignty remains imaginable. It is, therefore, true that many nations are far from universal inclusiveness.
Nations universal inclusion
In the present world, nation’s universal integration and inclusiveness continue to diminish with the setting in of political governance, which sets restrictions on both local and national boundaries, which further limits national inclusiveness.
Philosophers observe that communities of many nations in the world today have little knowledge about communities of other nations and therefore, they live in an imagined community in which they just imagine that others do exist, but they have not met them although they all live in the same nation (Benedic 1991, p. 6).
Because of the local boundaries, in this sense, therefore, members of the nations do no integrate freely. Boundaries demarcating nations limit universal inclusiveness as each nation regards and protects its sovereignty. Another limitation involves the definite procedures in membership of different nations to international organizations such as the United Nations.
Many argue that at every definite time, the United Nations contains a definite number of members and therefore, the non-member states fail to enjoy national inclusiveness privileges enjoyed by the member states (Cameron 2007, p.141). The limitation in this sense is the denotatively laid down process of membership, which would prevent willing nations from being members.
These governing procedures deprive nations the prerogative of enjoying the benefits accrued from national inclusiveness of the member states of the organization. This same idea also trickles down to the individual countries whereby political organization in a country would have definite membership procedures, which translates to legitimate memberships and definite number of members accountable to the political movement.
Non-members of these political movements do not delight on the gains generated from the inclusion of different peoples and cultures in the political movement formed. Furthermore, the inherent sense born in minds of many people from different nations in the world belonging to a particular nation limits national and international inclusion since everyone fights to establish and preserve his/her national values and sovereignty.
According to Graema’s observations, “…the today’s nations are imagined to be sovereign because the concept was born in an age in which enlightenment and revolution were destroying national inclusion and emphasised sovereignty to ensure national security” (2008, p. 568). The concept of national independence that emanated from political, social and economic changes led to the exclusion and segregation of nations to preserve national security as sovereign states.
This national independence of nations kills the urge to developing universally inclusive nations of the world. On cultural basis, many nations of the world host citizens who hold fast to the cultures and cultural practices and would reluctantly share their cultural activities with other people from other different cultures simply because of communication barrier.
Diversity of languages within a nation or between nations limits the extent of interactions and integration between its citizens. Unavailability of a common media of communication or expression hinders free exchange of political, social and economic ideas, and opportunities, thus preventing worth national inclusiveness as people cannot freely communicate.
On the other hand, national inclusion entails movement and travelling of people within or outside a nation and these involve a strong economic base. High cost of transportation limits citizens with weak financial backgrounds from moving across the globe as they foster national inclusion. Furthermore, political systems hold back the quest of universal inclusion in the world for in so doing, the political leaders risk losing power over their nations and therefore heated campaigns towards retention of individual independent states limit the pursuits of universal inclusion.
These factors, among others, although solvable, continue to pose a threat to the establishment, propagation, and enhancement of universal inclusiveness of all nations, cultures, and societies of the world. Political movements, on the other hand, remain to focus on nations as units of leadership with definite boundaries. These political boundaries prevent universal national inclusiveness in that most political movements would hesitate to dissolve their boundaries in the pursuit of establishment of universal inclusive world.
National universal inclusion plays a major role in encouraging integration of different social, cultural, and religious groups in a community and the contemporary world at large. Although universal inclusion helps to build up the economy and social interactions in many nations, majority do not ascribe to the idea of universality, especially in the light of the inherent fear of losing nations’ sovereignty.
Political movements, on the other hand, encourage the maintenance of nation’s boundaries and limits inter-state inclusion and therefore, nations are still far from universal inclusiveness
Cosmopolitanism and the sense of belonging
Cosmopolitanism signifies a sense of belonging to the citizens of nations in the world and emphasizes on singleness of communities based on sharing of morals and cultures despite the geographical location of a nation. In essence, cosmopolitanism advocates for togetherness, oneness, and belonging of citizens of the nations without limits by local or national boundaries.
The contemporary society continues to hold fast to the sense of cosmopolitanism in which citizens continue to travel, integrate, share, and exchange cultures freely from one nation to another simply because there are no limits in a cosmopolite contemporary world. Cosmopolitanism entails the idea or sense of human cultural groups or ethnic group belonging to a single community grounded on shared ethical values and motives.
According to Wendy, “Cosmopolitan community may be based on an inclusive morality, a shared economic relation, or a political structure that encompasses different nations” (2005, p. 35). In this sense, cosmopolitanism denotes the free interaction and formation of mutual relationships between members or citizens from different nations or states of the world.
Cosmopolitanism fosters a sense of belonging to the citizens of the interacting nations as they engage in their mutual relationships. In addition, it diffuses acts of discrimination based on ethnic groups as cosmopolitanism emphasizes on consolidation of all ethnic groups together.
Importance of belonging in the contemporary world
The globalization and the present economic changes involving physical interactions and integrations of people from different nations with different cultural values and beliefs call for development and nurturing of the experience of cosmopolitanism and belonging. Michel wonders that, “…an emerging planetary phase of civilization and globalization, creates a latent potential of emergence of cosmopolitan global citizens” (2000, p. 281).
Cosmopolitanism in a global society will help to encourage oneness, togetherness, and foster a sense of belonging to all the people in the worldwide society. This remains evident in the contemporary world whereby, with the wake of globalization people travel across the globe to transact businesses with people of different countries and coexist together peacefully.
Additionally, the development of a sense of belonging among citizens of different nations participating in a cosmopolitan society creates understanding between the people. This understanding is generated from a feeling of belonging reduces cultural and social conflicts between all the people involved and this encourages peaceful coexistence, which on the other hand, encourages economic growth as people can freely interact and carry out business activities with little or no disruptions.
Mindfulness involves compassion and understanding to protect and live in harmony with all people (Michel 2000, p. 283). The values of mindfulness, compassion, and understanding among different people originate from the initial sense of belonging and the concerted efforts of all these values help people to live in harmony.
Furthermore, philosophers argue that cosmopolitanism helps people to recognise the suffering and therefore, controls violence and crime. According to Ulrich, “…cosmopolitanism creates an opportunity for people to explore the constructions and naturalization of races and the hierarchies producing hatred to others” (2002, p.17).
The sediment here is that, through cosmopolitanism, people feel free to interact and explore the activities and behaviours of others, including hatred in the society. These interactions yield to unveiling of hatred attitudes of some people in the community leading to possible interventions to control the propagation of the attitude, which helps to contain any severe outcomes of violence and crime of ravage.
The religious aspect of social life of many people across different cultures hinges on respect and honour on cosmopolitanism where people from different religious backgrounds experience a sense of belonging to a specific religion. Different people ascribing to a particular faith gain respect from the others because of the existence of intercultural and inter social understanding between the interacting communities.
This trend exemplifies the importance of the attitude of belonging exhibited by the different people in a particular religious movement. Another primary importance of the development of a sense of belonging is the subsequent development of a sense of responsibility among the interacting communities. Ulrich feels that, “…even in situations of minimal interactions we ascribe identities to others and simultaneously to ourselves meaning that others are responsible to us and we are responsible to them” (2002, p. 20).
This sense of responsibility helps to check peaceful coexistence between the communities in the cosmopolitan society. Although cosmopolitanism received rejection on the protest of safeguarding the indigenous cultures, it is currently an important aspect of both economic and social advancement and therefore, it plays an important role in the contemporary world.
Conclusion
Nurturing the value of singleness of communities breeds a sense of belonging translating into peaceful coexistence and understanding in the society. These values are important for economic growth and social development of a community as people freely interact, integrate and share cultural values.
Factors such as economic revolution and globalization lead to integration of people in a cosmopolitan society, especially in the field of trade where people enjoy a sense of togetherness and belonging. Cosmopolitanism advocates for singleness of communities regardless of national or local boundaries of the different cultures and social groups across the world.
Reference list
Benedic, A., 1991. Introduction, imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and Spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Cameron, W., 2007. Representing the nation: Australian masculinity on the beach at Cranulla. London: Macquarrie University.
Graema, T., 2008. The cosmopolitan city and its other: then ethicizing of the Australian suburb. Inter Asia cultural studies, 9(4), pp. 568-580.
Michel, F., 2000. Ethics. Essential works of Foucault, 1(1), pp. 281-290.
Ulrich, B., 2002. The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory culture, 19(2), pp. 17-23.
Wendy, B., 2005. Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy, Edgework: Critical essay on knowledge and politics. Princeton: Princeton University press.