Finding the Intersection between Global and National Identities:
Internationally-minded National Citizenship
As advances in technology have accelerated globalization in recent decades, the world has become more interconnected and interdependent. Borders have become less meaningful as people, goods, and ideas flow more freely from one region to another. As a result, individuals are increasingly identifying as global citizens, with 56% of people in developing countries identifying as such. Nevertheless, the trend in industrialized countries is going in the opposite direction. Populist and nationalist politicians have caused a turn towards national identity as they argue it better serves local interests, like reducing migration and increasing jobs for citizens (Grimley). So, which identity is better for progressing a country and the world? Could they be combined?
Although some argue that global and national citizenships contradict each other, I believe that these identities are not mutually exclusive. While there is no clear definition for global citizenship, many highlight a sense of responsibility about the worldwide impact of one’s actions, awareness and inclusion of other perspectives and cultures, and even participation in the local community to create global change (Liu; Olds). On the other hand, national identity relates more to the link between people within a nation’s borders (whether it be ethnicity, culture, or history), acting to advance one’s country, and solving problems that affect the nation. Eric Liu argues that for a community to have “being” it must describe what it is and reject what it is not, making it impossible to fuse these identities. Despite that, I believe it is possible to combine these identities because they do not entirely contradict each other; global citizenship focuses on a way of thinking, and national citizenship on a direct community that provides a stage for action.
Some would object, how may we refer to this mixed identity if there is no concept for it? I would respond with: internationally-minded national citizenship, with the first part referring to a way of thinking and the latter as a stage for action. By combining these citizenships, we can make the most out of their advantages while eliminating some limitations. For example, even though global citizenship encourages empathy and inclusion of other ethnicities and cultures, it could also lead to homogenization and imposing Western ideology. Since national identity emphasizes individuality and cultural relativism, combining these two would allow individuals to maintain their local identity while being aware of others and how they must be inclusive of them.
For instance, while global citizenship encourages teamwork and solving global problems, Westphalian Sovereignty prohibits international organizations or other countries from intervening in a state’s local affairs. This concept hinders global citizenship as it prevents global measures from being imposed onto all countries, which would still be ineffective as there is no one global solution applicable to nation specific problems (Murphy & Gleek 12–13). Along the same lines, national citizenship focuses on a nation’s specific issues and provides a sovereign government with legitimate power to enforce solutions. However, it could result in a search for dominance and disregard for problems that affect all countries. A mixed citizenship would allow a state to focus on their specific problems and have the power to act, while still considering how global issues affect them and work with other countries to solve them.
In short, this fused identity provides a way of remaining aware of the global impact of one’s actions, inclusive of other cultures, and push for greater interconnection, while recognizing the need for a local sovereign government to serve as an effective vehicle for collective action. It prevents imperialism and westernization as it encourages awareness for each country’s local identity, culture, and ideology to solve specific local issues rather than imposing one global solution or culture. It limits violations of state sovereignty and the need for supranational organizations, as each country has the power to take local actions (sometimes in cooperation with other states) to address issues that impact the nation and the world.
For example, rather than relying on international organizations to impose climate change regulations, each country could enact national regulations that consider how this worldwide issue affects them within their borders. Nations would be able to focus on problems related to climate change that are existent within their borders, like air pollution, contaminated waterways, or unmanageable waste. This way, they would target local problems with their sovereign power and national ideology while still ameliorating the issue on a worldwide scale. In other words, this notion of “thinking global and acting locally” and of networked localism would allow states to take local actions to cooperate with other countries to address global problems (Liu).
Nevertheless, there are still limitations to this new notion that many would be quick to point out. For instance, where is the line between these citizenships drawn? Or, how could a country look after its national interests while considering global ones? As neoliberalist theory highlights, while cooperation and conflict are equally likely among states, nations will cooperate if results are equally positive (Murphy & Gleek 10–11). After all, radical views will cause further problems, but compromise and cooperation can provide a road for mutual advancement. For example, nations are more likely to engage in economic treaties even though they increase market competition because they also expand the market for national goods and services and promote mutual development. This is seen in the world’s economic progress since international trade expanded.
Admittedly, there are some instances when this combination of interests is inapplicable and the identities seem to most contradict each other, like in wars or other issues like human rights where cultural relativism exists in opinions. Granted, in these instances, each country will look after their interests and disregard others. However, the number of instances where this mixed citizenship is applicable are more numerous. Thus, it seems like the best option as it allows more compromise in actions to try to advance both the nation and the world.
In conclusion, although some believe that global and national citizenships are opposites, I believe that they are not mutually exclusive, specifically when taking global citizenship as a frame of thinking and national citizenship as a stage for action. Internationally-minded national citizenship can provide a way of combining these two identities to make the most out of their advantages and decrease their limitations. It allows the mixed citizen to be more aware and inclusive of others, and more responsible for the global impact of their actions while emphasizing action within a sovereign nation-state that considers local problems and ideologies and remains the most efficient vehicle for large-scale problem-solving. This mixed identity would be very beneficial to target both local and global problems and advance the nation and the world at the same time.
For future studies, it would be interesting to analyze how the COVID pandemic has changed people’s notion of global and national citizenship. Maybe some will be more appreciative of the world’s interconnectedness now that it was abruptly halted and lean towards global citizenship. On the other hand, others could lean towards a national identity as they emphasize how the permeability of borders allowed the disease to spread more quickly and cause more damage to their country. Perhaps some would be more open to considering a mixed citizenship, as it would allow for awareness of the global issue and openness to worldwide cooperation while focusing on effective national actions to stop the spread of the virus.
Works Cited
Grimley, Naomi. “Identity 2016: ‘Global citizenship’ rising, poll suggests.” BBC, 28 Apr. 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-36139904. Accessed 30 Aug. 2015.
Liu, Eric. “Why There’s No Such Thing as Global Citizenship.” The Atlantic, 14 Aug. 2012, www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-global-citizenship/261128/ . Accessed 30 Aug. 2015.
Murphy, Robert, and Charles Gleek. Global Politics. Harlow, Pearson Education, 2016, pp 10–13.
Olds, Kris. “Global Citizenship — What Are We Talking About and Why Does It Matter?” Inside Higher Ed, 11 Mar. 2012, www.insidehighered.com/blogs/globalhighered/global-citizenship-%E2%80%93-what-are-we-talking-about-and-why-does-it-matter. Accessed 30 Aug. 2015.
