The term cosmopolitan means citizen of the world.

Like many other notions in political science, cosmopolitanism is an essentially contested concept in that it can mean different things to different people and thus it raises the fundamental question whether it is in fact achievable or not. The exact meaning of cosmopolitanism has evolved over time reflecting the changing nature of political and economic structures, as well as of social and cultural interactions around the world. This essay establishes the points of tension between nationalism and cosmopolitanism in order to determine whether cosmopolitan is desirable but not possible. The principle of individualism, which forms the basis of cosmopolitan, is definitely desirable in promoting (e.g. gender) equality. It puts the morally autonomous individual at the center of its outlook. According to Stoic, it emphasized the significance of the creation of a world state and held that we should not be separated by nationality but rather to recognize humanity as determined by reason and moral capacity. It contradicts with the doctrine of nationalism which places its emphasis on the collective dimension of human life instead. The emphasis for nationalism is collectivity the nation. It is this sense of belonging to a community that can be considered common and unifying to nationalist thinking. Cosmopolitanism extends membership beyond what it sees as the narrow confines of a particular nation to the world at large. Yet, it is arguable that this universality destroys the very basis of belonging in cosmopolitanism due to the lack of nationalist identity. This is closely related to the fact that the deterriorialization of cosmopolitanism as opposed to the centrality of the territorial dimension in nationalism. One of the key motivations for cosmopolitanism is to increase the mobility of ideas, people, cultures and cannot be tied up to any specific territory. It is based on the belief that the individual is capable of moving beyond territorial attachments. Refugees and migrants are said to represent the spirit of cosmopolitanism. By contrast, the concept of a territorially based homeland remains key to nationalist ideology. Nationalist struggles revolve around territory as the object of emotional attachment of the members of the nation. The ongoing dilemma between the two outlooks makes it difficult to achieve one without undermining the other The creation of the European Union and the promotion of peacemaking is a significant innovation for the cosmopolitan ideology. Yet, some may view the EU as a further centralization of political power and integration of state administration. For political cosmopolitanism, they argue that it is impossible to change the current system of states and to form a world state or a global federation of states. Some argue that the surrender of state sovereignty required by cosmopolitan is an undue violation of the autonomy and the democratic selfdetermination of states. While the realists employ the Hobbesian approach in stating that it is useless to subject states to normative constraints. Again, the contradicting views on state sovereignty between nationalism and cosmopolitanism makes it difficult to achieve one without undermining the other.

From the economic cosmopolitanism perspective, it encourages capitalist markets by promoting free trade. The ideal of capitalism is self-destructive as a result of excessive consumption and exploitation of nature, thus making the world inhabitable in the long-run. Moreover, the lack of democratic control means that MNCs are able to exploit the use of labour or the use of raw materials in Third World countries. Furthermore, the principle of cosmopolitan is typically viewed to be only accessible to the elites and the privileged. The cost of the experience of the traveling required to become a cosmopolitan is simply not affordable for the poor, and thus further undermines the goal of equality. There are further side-effects of a global free market, namely the increase in migration and thus the loss of ties and the effects of income disparities. Another criticism that cosmopolitanism is impossible is that humans have a stronger attachment towards members of their own nation. All the abovementioned tensions certainly deserve attention as indicators of the incompatibility relationship between the two outlooks, nationalism and cosmopolitanism. Ultimately, it can be said that the desire for cosmopolitanism is fundamentally undermined by its contradiction with the nationalist ideology.