Expecting Too Much, AKA Travelphilosophism
How Travel Will Save the World is the latest post at Brave New Traveler. That’s a very brave statement. I think it’s taking travel to a level it does not belong:
The belief that humanity is encompassed within a single community is called cosmopolitanism. A philosophy with ancient roots, its lineage begins with Diogenes: when asked where he came from, he answered, “I am a citizen of the world.”
Cosmopolitan has come to mean “worldly” or “sophisticated” (a word itself derived from the love of wisdom), but in the original sense meant a universal love for all people that rejects borders.
Since his declaration, cosmopolitanism has become a banner for the globally conscious – a dedication to preserving dialogue and variety among all ways of life. It has found many adherents throughout the ages, notably in the work of Immanuel Kant, who long ago predicted a union of nations to end war (the forerunner of today’s United Nations).
What? Far too many assumptions, and those are erroneous at best. Cosmopolitan has nothing to do with rejection of borders. If anything, being cosmopolitan requires the full recognition of borders; cosmopolitan is defined as having worldwide international sophistication. Now how can one have international anything without nations? And nations are determined by borders.
I can be philosophical, and I can be a traveler. I can even be a philosophical traveler (and I think I am). But this travelphilosophism (a newly invented word, thank you) is a ridiculous assumption. It breaks down the very essence of travel, which is to visit a different place filled with different people, events, traditions, etc.
After going off on numerous platonic tangents, the post wildly continues.
There are endless opportunities for the discovery of new and mutual cultures on the roads that bind us together – for every stone in the walls of fear and apathy, there’s a traveler to break it down.
Cosmopolitanism is a fluid, tenuous idea, threatened often by patriotic fervor and the blindness of dogma.
But it is also a bold and optimistic statement – one that declares citizenship to a state which defies supremacy, transcending any one nation to close the spaces between us.
The traveler nation is the global echo of Diogenes, the actual moment of cosmopolitanism. It is the thrill of finding oneself among fellow seekers all, on the fringes that compose the City of Humanity.
Do you see what I mean when I detect underlying assumptions? If we are all the same and all the same is us, why travel? There is a deficient view of the basic definition of “nation” here. People in groups are often defined by their borders, specifically, their geographic borders. It is within these borders that culture, tradition, dress, food, and etc develop.
And people within nations do not war because they “misunderstand” each other. They don’t even war because they “hate” each other (hate usually comes later). They war because of conflict or greed. World travelers will never change that, because world travelers will never change the heart of mankind (which is bent on conflict and greed).
I dislike posts like this because it makes the simple and enjoyable adventure of travel into a “political” action with “political” repercussions.
I’m still forming my thoughts on this. Stay tuned for the continuing saga…
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you travel on a regular basis? If you are in need of cheap hotels, where are you going to look? Our website is the only website you will need to find all of your luxury hotels! Wether you are looking for campgrounds & rv parks or you want to find pet friendly hotels, we can help!
Shucks, I didn’t think I was being “wild.” I didn’t even have a Red Bull when I wrote it.
Sorry to tell you, but cosmopolitanism DID originally mean a rejection of borders. Look it up. From the Greek: cosmos, meaning “all” or “everything,” polis meaning “city.” When Diogenes declared himself a citizen of the world, it was an unconditional recognition of the similarity he shares as a human. If he said we’re all the same, I guess it’d be called Greekopolitanism. There’s nothing assumed about any of this. It’s Humanities 101.
I didn’t write that we’re all the same. We’re all human beings, though. I think. Maybe that’s an assumption?
You’re entitled to your view, but I’m afraid you misunderstood a lot more than these points. For example:
1) I don’t think cultures are defined by borders. If they were, Americans would all be the same.
2) You really think “the heart of man” is “bent on conflict and greed?” What exactly are you looking for when you go traveling? Arguments? Plunder? Booty? (OK, you’ve got me there. Hard to turn down booty.)
3) “We war because of conflict…” is like saying “we fight because of arguments.” You’re making me a little nervous.
4) “Hate usually comes later.” OK. War first, THEN everybody’s miffed with each other. Got it. Thanks for the help.
5) Travelphilosophism. Good word. Almost German in a way. It’s kinda fun if you say it really fast about five times.
You have me at a genuine loss. Why do you say I’m demanding political action of any kind? I never even used the word in my article. My editor put the article in the Politics section because… well, it’s not exactly Spirituality, Relationships or a book review. I make no demands.
On the other hand, how can you say that travel has nothing to do with bridging differences? I’m really trying to see this through your eyes. Cosmopolitanism acknowledges the differences between people and cultures. Read the Appiah quotes - both of them - again. Either you read the Bizarro version of my article, or… wow, I don’t even know. Please, let’s not make this a “continuing saga.” Read it again after some time has passed. About the only thing I agree with you on is that “you’re still forming your thoughts on this.”
Can’t we all just get along?
I’ll try to be a little more clear with my next article. Thank you for your feedback.
I wish my Wordpress theme formatted the comments better. Sorry. I’ll have to look into that.
OK. I suppose our differences stem more from a “basic worldview” to several little items. But I’ll address what I can.
No, cosmopolitan does not mean rejection of borders. I know Greek, I READ Greek. If it means “all cities” how can a city be a city without borders? A border is the fundamental component of what makes a city a true city. Cosmopolitanism acknowledges the fundamental limits of geography otherwise there is nothing to be cosmopolitan about!
1) Cultures ARE defined by borders. Borders are defined by geography. Why were the Athenians so different than the Spartans? Why were the Navajo so different than the Oneidas? The environment in which one dwells has almost everything to do with one’s way of life (culture).
2) Yes. You proved my point, anyway.
3) Sorry I made you nervous. But what I said was true as well.
4) Your welcome.
5) Isn’t it? It just kind of flew off my fingers from the keyboard. I am a little German…. mostly Scot, though.
I think you’ve confused modern-day “political action” with the meaning of politics. (Although, globalism is just as much a political action as a religion). I have no intention of polarizing you, but what you say already has a distinctive name and philosophy behind it, and it’s political. Having to do with policy of a “state.” here, the state is globalism.
Travel CAN bridge differences, absolutely. However, your title was “How Travel Will Save the World.” Was that just a flashy billing to get the reader’s attention (which was effective, by the way), or did you really mean it?
I think your article was well-written and well-thought; and I always love a good laugh when people quote Kant and Hegel… but your fundamental belief is erroneous. Sorry about that.
I really appreciate you visiting my blog and leaving a comment. Thanks. I again apologize for my sloppy theme formatting. It’s a new theme, and I’ve yet to tinker with this section.
Happy trails!
Oh, one more thing… it’s morning here and I’m preparing my kids for their lessons, so I’m quite distracted… but… you’d asked what I look for when I go traveling. What a great question.
I look for information.
I love to learn about other’s cultures and their history. I also use it as a teaching tool for my kids and blog readers.
I am sorry to say that I am one of many who does not utilize travel to save the world. I think the world needs saving in other areas first (like the heart).
Thanks so much for the discussion.
Right.
I’m getting the gist of your response to center on your hangup with the “rejects borders” line. Fine, uncle. Consider it poetic license. I know cosmopolitanism isn’t about erasing borders. But it does acknowledge unity of all sets within one set. 1 doesn’t equal 3, but they’re both still numbers. I’m not preaching relativism and I think the rest of my piece bears that out.
So, to the rest:
1) You’re confusing labels with components. It’s too simplistic to describe culture solely by geopolitical lines on a map. If you try to define what an American is precisely, you’re gonna start running into hyphenated nationalities. Know why? Borders don’t sum it up. If it did, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be hugging each other as Iraqis and all that mess would be over. I know what you’re trying to say: Mexicans are Mexicans because they come from Mexico. But it falls apart when you say Mrs. Macomber is a Macomber because she was born on the lot where the Macombers live. And what does a nationality mean, anyway? When you say he’s Polish, what does that refer to? If you answer “he comes from Poland,” there’s little to work with unless I know what’s entailed by Polish culture.
You contradict yourself when you say you’re German and Scot(tish). You’re not. Your ancestors come from those places, but though some of their culture is undoubtedly passed on to you, you’re neither a German or Scot. Where do you plot gay or deaf cultures on a map? Or Jewish? To say all Jews come from Israel is seriously missing a point.
2) Need isn’t the same as greed. If I want a sandwich, it doesn’t mean I want everyone’s sandwiches. If you seriously believe people are only about conflict and greed… well, I feel sorry for you, but I don’t want to fight with you.
3) and 4) Okay. There are many reasons for wars starting. Sometimes it’s hate (Hutu and Tutsis), sometimes it’s money (guess who).
5) Someone out there must be proud of you.
I think it’s a mistake to describe “globalism” as a state. I know many anti-globalists do, but it’s a poor choice of words. Nobody wants to be against global unity or cooperation. I’m not sure how you could put the brakes on communication or transportation technology even if you wanted to. If you’re going to condemn smaller cultures being wiped out by dominant interests (often not nations, but multinationals - you know, groups that can’t be conveniently placed on a map?), call it by a more fitting name. I consider myself a feminist, but the problem with that is that it has so many different meanings - especially among feminists.
I’m all for globalization in the cosmopolitan sense. The continuum isn’t cosmopolitanism-globalism, it’s cosmopolitanism-nationalism. I don’t makes the rules, I just follows ‘em.
I didn’t name my article. My editor did. I submitted it as “The City of Humanity,” he changed it. I don’t think it’s such a big deal, but you can sort it out with Ian if it matters so much.
Oh good, glad to amuse you by quoting Kant and Hegel. Tell me, are you as much a snob with your students when they do the same, or just with faceless people on the ‘net? Or do you just tell them “what a load of crap” when they don’t match your master’s? I’m not into “conflict” as much as you are, sunshine, and I’d appreciate it if you don’t throw it my way. Thanks.
If my version of cosmopolitanism is wrong, so’s Kwame Anthony Appiah’s. He’s taught at six ivy league schools and you can “conflict” your edumacation with his if it floats you.
I think we’re looking for the roughly the same when we travel. As far as I’m concerned, “the world” starts with “the heart” right next to me. When I go abroad, I honor my hosts by not treating their country as an ashtray, and by doing so I pay respect to my heritage. If that’s a “political” attitude, I wouldn’t have it otherwise.
A few weeks after September 11, I met some young ladies from the Middle East on a train in Holland. I asked them what language they were speaking.
“Dari,” they replied. “It’s similar to Arabic, but it’s what we speak in our country.” I asked where they were from. “Afghanistan,” one replied. “And you?”
“Um, I’m from America…”
Considering what was happening then, there was a few seconds of awkward silence. I said, “Well, this is an interesting situation…” Some people on the train laughed, and so did the young ladies.
I asked them why they were so far from home. “It was difficult under the Taliban, but then the Americans came. A bomb fell on my neighbor’s house, and a family of 14 is now a family of 2. We decided we had to go, and now we live in a refugee camp in Frisland. We’re looking for work in Amsterdam.”
I asked them if it bothered them that I was talking to them, as an American and with recent events being what they were.
They said, “No, it does not. We’re only people on a train.”
That’s the spirit in which I wrote my article, and I wouldn’t change any of it.
Awwww! Can’t we just all get along?
I am enjoying the banter and the post. I have to say I agree with Mrs. Mecomber about human nature and greed. As long as man exists, so will war. It’s all about those precious resources.
Life is (motivated) self-interest. I don’t deny either need or conflict. But neither war nor greed are necessary conditions of life. Greed is about taking more than is needed; war is violent conflict. They exist, they will likely never be eliminated. But they aren’t mandatory. And they can both be reduced if we manage what we’ve got in by sustainable practices.
This doesn’t happen if people turn up their iPods and refuse to get involved. In that case, yeah, greed and war are inevitable. But I can’t take the cynical view that we’ve come so far just to throw up our hands and say “too hard, too confusing, I want my MTV.” I’ve been places where that way of thinking just doesn’t enter in to the picture, and I’ve been places where it IS the picture. Which category does this country fall into?
Conflict is boring. I want to see what people can do when they pool resources. That’s the real rush - not competition.
[sentenced edited due to explicit language] As long as people focus on money as the source of “happiness,” they’ll discard the larger resources of tradition, volunteering, community…
We’ve got to move beyond the acute narcissism we’re living under, turn off the TV and TALK to one another. Not via the ‘net, not via texting: eyes-open, roll-up-your-sleeves, hands-on “What-ails-thee-brother.”
I’m not talking about hippies and communists, and we’ll never progress if we keep reverting to those icons. They’re extinct. We need a new table to work from.
I’ve seen it work and I’ve seen it fail - and the traveler’s laments are always the same: “Why don’t we have that back home?” joined with “Why can’t these people have what we do back home?” But I promise it’ll never happen if people wait to have it sold to them.
It may never be paradise but it doesn’t have to be hell, either.