Global Identification: A Critical Way of Thinking
In today’s over-connected world dominated by high technology and barrier-free communication, we’ve seen an increasing demand for global engagement. With more and more of us become willing to open our eyes to global issues, the notion of global citizenship seems to have become a buzzword in the present society. However, on the opposite side of this trend remains a large group of people who loyally support their native countries and advocate for their national identities. Although those nationalist proponents argue that dealing with global issues from the perspective of maximizing national interest ensures high efficiency in problem-solving, I believe global identity allows us to face those issues from multiple layers critically, which promotes more effective and impartial participation in world affairs that provide the best benefits.
Naturally, as individuals start to approach other cultures, they are more likely to broaden their basic world views and perspectives. Take myself as an example. “With age, comes wisdom. With travel, comes understanding.” This saying by Sandra Lake best illustrates how I started cultivating global thinking at an early age through traveling. While exposing myself to a variety of countries and cultures with a curious mind and observed eyes, I couldn’t help but to make certain comparisons and explore ongoing issues around the globe. When I went to Cambodia, I saw poor suffering locals living in slums; when I went to Copenhagen, I saw a prosperous society with great social welfare. Such juxtaposition made me realize that beneath the surface lied a serious problem of global inequality. I felt sympathy for those who were suffering, as the same situation existed in my home country as well. As I noticed how we share similar needs, I was aware of how everyone is connected. Considering myself a global citizen became a natural attraction for me. As I did, when individuals experience a world-centric view of consciousness via traveling, they gradually facilitate their global identification.
Taking advantage of our global identities, global citizens develop critical perspectives that allow us to approach the world in a more impartial and effective way. After identifying as a global citizen, I started to see the issue of world inequality differently. I wouldn’t necessarily blame the poverty problem in Cambodia, India, or other third-world countries that suffer economically on the flaws in the nation’s domestic policies; instead, I’d explore how multiple factors have caused the problem. For instance, I’d relate the poor national condition in Cambodia back to its turbulent past under the communist regime, Khmer Rouge, in the 1970s: the suppression of the Cambodian population and rampant government corruption have severely exacerbated the country’s poverty rate (Beauchamp). Also, the lack of participation of foreign investors in infrastructure development, limited access to human resources, and marginalization in global political engagement have contributed to the problem. On the other hand, I’d attribute the prosperity in developed countries like Denmark to various reasons like their thorough industrialization and urbanization, active participation in world organizations, advanced social development, etc. Applying such a critical way of thinking has enabled me as well as other global citizens to constantly face global issues like this less from one perspective and more from a holistic point of view. This impartial multidimensional approach of question consideration can further bring global benefits, as we can address problems from economic, political, religious, and cultural dimensions efficiently rather than a single aspect. I believe the value of becoming a global citizen truly lies in such a diversified way of thinking and problem-solving.
By contrast, some may argue that thinking globally is against the pursuit of national interests, which provides a powerful guarantee for solving issues. Many political realists have pointed out that the fundamental truth about the way that states interact with one another lies in the pursuit of self-interests. Since ancient times, each country has spared no effort to further its interests in global engagement. For instance, the Brexit happened because the U.K. wished to maximize its benefits in economic gain and sovereignty preservation. What’s more, certain domestic decisions don’t necessarily need a whole global approach. A country can take care of its problems without global interference; a better national understanding of the most appropriate coping style can even lead to more efficient solutions. However, nowadays, as the world becomes more interconnected, we have to face lots of issues like global warming, food security, refugee crisis together. That is to say, globalization has caused specific problems that require a global solution. In this case, if each country thinks these issues only in its own terms rather than in a global perspective, and if each country wants to safeguard its own interests rather than make some compromises that serve the global interest, can those global issues truly be solved successfully? As Morgenthau stated, indeed, we need to secure state interests, but at the same time, we have to see things from the point of view of others (23). In other words, it is important to think globally while working with others rather than solve problems in a bubble. Only in this way can states make objective and rational decisions in tackling world affairs.
To put it another way, sticking to a paradigm of understanding based on national identity is not beneficial for ensuring citizens’ benign and just political engagement at all. Mere obedience to national citizenship prevents citizens from seeing things objectively. The more we only focus on the national perspective, the more we don’t see the multiple sides of matters. In this case, we will continue to neglect how different parties interact with each other, what other nations want and what they are struggling with, what our nations still need to improve in international participation, etc. Such a limited perspective at the state level can become toxic — it might give rise to intolerance, hatred, or other negative emotions when we participate in real politics. For example, in my home country China, we citizens’ political views are heavily built up at our government’s will through media regulation. During the Hong Kong Protests in 2019, citizens’ standpoints were shaped within a mainstream culture infiltrated by the Chinese one-sided point of view. We were exposed to a collection of images that vividly depicted the brutality of rioters under trending hashtags like “Hong Kong Riot” and “Protect Hong Kong” on Chinese social media platforms. Those real-time pictures have stirred up citizens’ nationalist sentiment. Also, large amounts of Chinese people were into the conspiracy theory about the dark secrets behind the protests: it was the U.S. government who supported and instigated those riots in Hong Kong. For a moment, feelings of distrust towards our compatriots in Hong Kong and hatred towards Western countries have spilled over Chinese society. Objectively speaking, the information we gained about the protests was neither representative of the views of the protesters nor inclusive of international voices. It is due to the fact that the channel for speaking those perspectives was prohibited and the posts that remain on the discussion page were preselected by the Chinese government. Under such a circumstance, it is so hard for lots of Chinese to keep objective attitudes and behaviors while considering any global issue that is against our national identity. Through this, we can easily see how thinking from a narrowly one-minded perspective is damaging for a country’s political impartiality.
On the other hand, United States, as a country with the ability to think globally among others, does well in maintaining a transparent and fair platform for public engagement in world affairs both nationally and internationally. In the U.S., freedom of speech and freedom of the press have been legally protected by the Constitution, playing an essential role in keeping a healthy democracy. Individuals, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, have the access to hear and express different kinds of critical voices and are given rights to participate in politics freely. Democracy in its essence allows people to consider things from multiple layers. And the more we can critically analyze things, the more capable we are of becoming global citizens. The government itself incorporates a global mindset as well. Following its victory in World War II, the U.S. led the effort to create global institutions like the United Nations and NATO as a way to ensure that diversified voices could be heard in international participation. The U.S. could have used its leadership and American power to satisfy its own interests, but instead, it created fair opportunities for other countries to partake in global issues. Those institutions functioned as a community of democracy operated on the basis of consensus, which was usually achieved through the exchange of different nations’ interests and appeals. And it was due to their successful operation that the long peace has prevailed in international relations since 1945. Although we can’t say that the U.S. is completely impartial in global participation, it is undeniable that it has set a good example in transcending national interests to benefit the whole world.
By extension, as a result of global identification, even when it comes to events that go against our country, global citizens will not be irritated but rather think deliberately in a broad context. Having a global mindset, we tend to be more rational when judging things. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect illustration. As a global citizen, I have been following international news with different perspectives every day. Inevitably I saw lots of anti-Chinese comments with words like “China virus” coming out of some Western nations during the pandemic. On one hand, as a Chinese, I was offended since those reports hurt China’s privilege severely. But on the other hand, I understood rationally that such voices existed for a reason. I would relate it to a history of racism and xenophobia against Asian people that probably emerged from excessive nationalism in those countries. If I didn’t have that global understanding, I might act like some of my fellow countrymen who used strong words to counterattack on the Internet, which could only worsen the problem. But instead, I stepped back thanks to this impartial thinking style. I tried to actively speak out in support of public efforts against xenophobia and racism during coronavirus like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s condemnation of racism against Chinese Canadians while attending a Lunar New Year festival in Toronto on 29 January 2020 (“Trudeau Condemns Racism Linked to Coronavirus Outbreak”) and the U.S. civil rights groups’ petition for the House of Representatives and Senate leadership’s effective prohibition to the anti-Asian racist actions in March 2020 (Yam) via media participation. Global identification can positively create a good sense of justice for citizens in dealing with complicated problems without seeking nationalism blindly. Hence, we can tackle global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic with unbiased and tolerant attitudes more effectively.
To sum up, global identification constantly pushes citizens and states to transcend beyond the national boundary and tackle global issues through multiple lenses. National citizenship can help states preserve their interests, but only at the cost of limiting people’s ability to see global issues from a holistic perspective. Bias, violence, racism, xenophobia, and hatred might arise if national citizens tend to be extreme. That would further worsen the problem rather than lead towards an effective resolution. Thus, we need global citizenship to ensure a critical way of thinking that promotes fair treatment towards world affairs. If the whole world can incorporate such an ideology, collective global issues and challenges can be addressed more efficiently and we can live in a better world community that satisfies the global interest.
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Nicholas. “Poverty Rate in Cambodia Declining Despite Corruption.” The Borgen Project, 12 June 2020, https://borgenproject.org/poverty-rate-in-cambodia/.
Morgenthau, Hans J., and Kenneth W. Thompson. Politics among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace. Knopf, 1985.
“Trudeau Condemns Racism Linked to Coronavirus Outbreak: Watch News Videos Online.” Global News, 1 Feb. 2020, globalnews.ca/video/6494388/trudeau-condemns-racism-linked-to-coronavirus-outbreak/.
Yam, Kimmy. “More than 200 Civil Rights Groups Demand Congress Publicly Reject Coronavirus Racism.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 13 Mar. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/more-200-civil-rights-groups-demand-congress-publicly-reject-coronavirus-n1158116.
