Toward a Rhetorical Cosmopolitanism: Stoics, Kant, and the Challenges of European Integration

Abstract

In this article, I present a mode of cosmopolitanism that builds on Stoic and Kantian views toward not just rational cosmopolitan agents but rhetorical ones. I outline a new rhetorical approach to cosmopolitanism that addresses the challenge of “otherness.” This rhetorical cosmopolitanism focuses on the conditions for deliberative and participatory practices that bring us before others; it seeks to help us recognize that the way we develop actual—and not just abstract—political relationships to others is fundamentally rhetorical, not just rational or emotional. I explore the debates over the inclusion of minorities in the European Union, particularly focusing on the Muslim population, in order to outline a rhetorical cosmopolitanism that accounts for the place of emotions in discourses of citizenship.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Ned O'Gorman for his patience and guidance as editor.

Notes

1. For a discussion of Stoic cosmopolitanism, see also Nussbaum 1994; Brown 2006; Forshee 2009.

2. Nussbaum addresses “global aggression” (1997b, 3) and “inherent wickedness” (1997b, 18).

3. See also Nussbaum (1997a, 46–47).

4. The Treaty of Maastricht (2009), signed in Maastricht on February 7, 1992, and subtitled “Provisions Amending the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community with a View to Establishing the European Community,” states in Article 8 (part 1), “Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.” Article 8 (part 2) continues, “Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.”

5. Aristotle teaches us that character and emotions, along with well-supported arguments, are important aspects of citizenship, as people learn and develop the customs, norms, habits, and practices that are appropriate for the situation. These practices are flexible, and citizens can and should change them to adapt to evolving rhetorical situations. Aristotle's focus on involvement and personal motivation becomes the most essential characteristic of his model of citizenship. As the first advocate of participatory citizenship, Aristotle argues that citizens must have a share in the government so they feel they can deliberate and make decisions about what influences their lives. Citizens are those who have a “share in the executive and judicial part of the state,” and while they do what they are best at, they all contribute to the well-being of society. Only by having a share in the affairs of the state and taking turns participating can citizens feel they are part of the government and live well together. See Aristotle 2000 and 1941.

6. See Seneca 1932, De Otio, 3.3–4, De Brevitate Vitae, De Tranquillitate Animi.

7. See also Kant 1965.

8. See European Union 2007.

9. This is captured by what Giambattista Vico calls ingenium.

10. Ever since Plato's discussion of the charioteer guided by the black and the white horses in the Phaedrus, the ethical and moral question of the human will has presented a dilemma that addresses the fundamental ethical problem of the separation of what humans ought to do, as rational agents, from what they actually do, as passionate and sensual beings. Kant called this the tragedy of reason, a tragedy because as rational animals, reason makes demands that the resources at our disposal are unable to meet. See Plato 1973.

11. For a discussion of the EU motto and other information, see the EU (2011) official website, “Europa: Gateway to the European Union.”

12. Kant saw states as rational agents, which must renounce “the lawless condition” of war and “their salvage (lawless) freedom” in order to establish a “growing state” that ought to encompass, eventually, all nations of the world (1957, 19). Kant realized that in the state of nature nations may “injure one another” in the pursuit of security and selfish interests. However, he argued that, just like savages, states must renounce “senseless freedom” for “rational freedom” (1957, 16). Only this constraint to public law can unite nations, in the same way that it unites people within the nation.

13. The number of Muslims living in Europe is estimated at about 50 million, with about 16 to 18 million living in the EU. There are reports, often presented in alarming terms, that the number of Muslims living in Europe may reach 100 million by 2050. See Michaels 2009; “Muslims in Europe: Country Guide” 2005; Beasley Von Burg 2010.

14. See Franz 2007; Hellyer 2007; Salvatore 2004; Shore 2006.

15. See “A Bad Idea …” 2010; “Pious, Loyal, and Unhappy” 2009; “The New Dutch Model?” 2005; Traynor 2009.

16. Muslims may consider themselves nonpermanent, nonintegrated citizens both because the host countries are non-Muslim and because many reside there on a temporary basis, as immigrants. Often, however, Muslims are full-fledged EU citizens, as nationals of a member country, or consider the nation where they live home as permanent residents, and Hellyer (2007) argues that their status is one of “belonging.” The mistaken perception of Muslims as “temporary” guests relegates them to the status of “others” and is a debilitating myth. Hellyer believes Muslims do not think in temporary terms and can do “away with ideas of ‘return’ while still remaining committed to Islam.”

17. Eurobarometer findings and the European Social Survey revealed that about half of the EU population is “resistant to immigrants” and diversity, while about 58% perceive a “collective ethnic threat” posed by migrants and minorities. One in five respondents “avoided social interaction” with immigrants as they seek to create “ethnic distance,” particularly in some Mediterranean countries and in places where nonnationals are more numerous. The survey found that little or no contact with ethnic minority groups was positively related to “ethnic exclusionism,” especially in rural areas and in zones of high unemployment. The results also indicated that more and closer contact “lessens attitudes of ethnic exclusionism” (European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia 2005, 22). Similarly, a recent survey in the United States revealed that more than half of those who fear and distrust Muslims have never actually met or talked to one. See Pew Research Center for the People and the Press 2010; Pew Research Center 2006.

18. See Goodstein 2010; Kleinfield 2010.

19. The problem that Kant discussed is a re-exposition of the moral and ethical dilemma of the human will: “Given a multitude of rational beings requiring universal laws for their preservation, but each of whom is secretly inclined to exempt himself from them, to establish a constitution in such a way that, although their private intentions conflict, they check each other, with the result that their public conduct is the same as if they had no such intentions” (Kant 1957, 30).

20. See “Un Maiale Day Contro la Moschea” 2007; Leone 2007. Many residents and Italian citizens did respond with outrage at this incredibly racist “day” and condemned Calderoli's comments and policies against the Muslim and other minorities.