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 (Grimley). 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 (Liu), 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. While some could think that we might get the worst of both worlds by combining these citizenships, I believe that we can make the most out of their advantages while alleviating some limitations. From global citizenship, this mixed identity would include the increased awareness and inclusion of other ethnicities and cultures, the encouragement of teamwork and cooperation to solve worldwide problems, and the responsibility for the global impact of one’s actions. However, the combined citizenship must reject the homogenization of cultures, the imposition of Western ideology, and the use of one global solution that might not be effective in all nations due to differences in situations and ideologies. It must also consider that due to Westphalian Sovereignty, international organizations or countries cannot interfere in a state’s local affairs nor impose global measures onto all nations (Murphy & Gleek 12–13).
These limitations lead to the benefits of national citizenship that the combined identity should include as they often alleviate the negatives of global citizenship. National citizenship emphasizes individuality and cultural relativism, focuses on nation-specific issues and local ideology to solve them, and provides a sovereign government with legitimate power to enforce solutions. However a mixed citizenship should not include limitations that stem from nationalism, such as the potential search for dominance, disregard for other cultures, and lack of cooperation to address global problems, which is where the advantages of global citizenship offer a counterweight.
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 that addresses nation-specific issues and serves as an effective vehicle for collective action (Liu). 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 global 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 ameliorating the issue on a worldwide scale. In other words, the notion of “think global, act local” and of networked localism would allow states to take local actions to cooperate with other countries to address global problems while targeting local ones (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 cases 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, national and global citizenships can be combined through internationally-minded national citizenship, which provides a global frame of thinking and a local stage for action. It allows the mixed citizen to be aware and inclusive of others, responsible for the global impact of their actions, and emphasize action within a sovereign nation-state that is the most efficient vehicle for large-scale problem-solving of nation-specific issues. A perfect example of where this identity could be beneficial is in governments’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Countries should not solely rely on international or local actions to stop the pandemic and should adopt a global consciousness and responsibility while finding effective local solutions. They should strive to cooperate with the world in providing information about cases and possible treatments and attempt to coordinate efforts to keep global economic chains working. They should acknowledge the global impact of national mandates and implement effective actions to stop the spread of the virus, such as requiring masks in public and reducing the capacity of indoor businesses. This networked localism that focuses on solutions specific to the nation while being cooperative with other nations could be a way to change the course of this pandemic and could be applicable to ameliorate many other global issues.
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.
