Current Cosmopolitanism is a

theory of civilization creation

& blindly moves the global
community towards a Third
World War.
Current Cosmopolitism is Theory of Civilization Creation Not
International Relations its proposals to transform world politics are
not a convincing response to contemporary insecurity, injustice and
blindly push the global community towards a Third World War.

This article will argue that current Cosmopolitism is a theory of

sociological Civilization Creation and not International
Relations. Further that its proposals to transform world politics are
not a convincing response to contemporary insecurity and injustice.
This essay will first define Helds cosmopolitanism including its eight
principles of cosmopolitan order and its proposed institutional
dimensions. It will then express and define the terms International
Relations, Civilization, Spiral Dynamics, Levels of Existence and
Civil War. This article will then cross reference these proposed
principles and dimensions of Cosmopolitanism against an Antimony
of a Civilization to demonstrate the parallel thought and theory and
show they are one and the same. Further to this, it will argue that Held
proposals are an unacceptable and unconvincing response to
contemporary insecurity and injustice. This will be done by
illustrating these shortcomings against the values and moral creation
and analysis concepts Levels of Existence and Spiral Dynamics and
International Relations theories such as Realism of Soviet Union with
the expectation of a free open society and market and Afghanistan and
the retreat to tribalism. It will also demonstrate how these
unaddressed issues in the current form of Cosmopolitanism can lead
to more insecurity and injustice by artificially creating a clash of
civilizations and blindly push the global community towards a Third
World War.

For the purposes of this article, Cosmopolitanism is defined first in

general as the refection of ethical, cultural and political issues from
the position that states (Parson, 2007). Its political communities are
not the exclusive centers of political order or force (Parson, 2007)
and allegiances are to humankind (Dunne, 2016) or that people are
global citizens. Further to this is the ethical and political space
occupied by the (8 ) eight principles cosmopolitanism also lays down
universal or regulative principles which delimit and govern the range
of diversity and difference that ought to be found in public life (p.79
Held, 2010) or in other words basic values that set standards or
boundaries that no agent should encroach upon (p.79 Held, 2010) .
These cosmopolitan principles are a derivative from two
metaprinciples the first is cultural and historical the other
philosophical. These principles provide a modern form of autonomy
and modern citizenship is a derivative from these principles (Held,
2010). The eight principles are and include, Equal Worth and Dignity,
Active Agency, Personal Responsibility and Accountability, Consent,
Collective Decision Making, Inclusiveness and Solidarity, Avoidance
of Serious Harm and Sustainability (Held, 2010).
Further to this these principles can only be enacted effectively within
a single, circumscribed, territorial-based political community (p.84
Held, 2010). and the belief that cosmopolitan principles shed the
contingent link with the idea of borders of nation-states (Held, 2010)
or current forms of sovereignty.

Moving on from cosmopolitanism other vital definitions for the

understanding of this article are as follows: International Relations is
defined as diplomatic strategic relations of states, trade between
nations or about war and peace (Brown & Anisley,
2009). Civilization: with the Latin root word Civis or Citizen is
defined as a human society with its well developed social
organisations, or culture and way of life of a society or country at a
particular period of time (Cambridge Dictionary, 2017). Spiral
Dynamics is defined as a model of personal and cultural values
systems which proven itself useful in both managerial and
governmental applications (Combs, 2005). The short version
subsistence categories of Spiral Dynamics are as follows: Automatic:
The expression of self as if just another animal (p. 194, Combs,
2005), Tribalism: Achievement of safety sacrifice ones self to the
traditions of ones elders (p. 194, Combs, 2005), Egocentric:
Express self but to the hell with others (p. 194, Combs, 2005),
Deferentialistic: Sacrifice now to achieve reward later (p. 194,
Combs, 2005), Materialistic: Conquering the physical universe so to
overcome want (p. 194, Combs, 2005), Personalistic: Sacrifice now
in order to gain acceptance now and to for all to get now (p. 194,
Combs, 2005), Cognitivistic: Express self for what self deserves, but
never at the expense of others and in a manner that all life will profit
(p. 194, Combs, 2005) and Experientalistic this is adjusting to the
realities of ones existence and automatically accepting dichotomies
as they are and go on living (p. 194, Combs, 2005). Levels of
Existence is defined as states and values developed from the
existential states of man and again including the identical subsistence
categories Spiral Dynamics (Graves, 1970).

The term civil war is defined as unrest in which one of the parties is
the government and the conflict has caused at least 1,000 battle
deaths (P.2 Shapoatov, 2009). In addition to this a civil war can be
defined as a strategic game which is played among the ready to revolt
minority group, the reluctant group and local government (P.2
Shapoatov, 2009). The term Minority Group is defined as
subordinate group whose members have significantly less control or
power over their lives than members of a dominant or majority group
(R. Schaefer, 2005). Minority groups have (4) four main
characteristics this includes: distinguishing physical or cultural traits,
unequal treatment and less power over their lives, Involuntary
membership in the group (no personal choice), awareness of
subordination, a strong sense of group solidarity and high in-group
marriage (R. Schaefer, 2005).

Cosmopolitanism has been grouped with other theories of

International Relations however the various definitions of
International Relations and the definition of cosmopolitanism dont
reconcile. Cosmopolitanism deals with values, morality, its eight
principles and two metaprinciples, first is cultural and historical the
other philosophical (Held, 2010). It aims to use this value and
morality code to create political order (Held, 2010). In addition to this
cosmopolitanism sets out institutional requirements including legal,
political, economic and cultural (Held, 2010).

While International Relations is defined as diplomatic strategic

relations of states, trade between nations or about war and peace
(Brown & Anisley, 2009). International Relations addresses theories
that primarily deal with state to state issues some of these theories
include Liberalism, Realism, Constructivism, and Marxism. While
cosmopolitanism attempts to impose integration and creation a new
values, morality systems and institutional requirements onto
individuals and states.

If we now review what civilization is, the make up or construct of a

civilization it will become clear that cosmopolitanism is a form of
civilization building or creation and not realistically facilitating the
relations of states but just imposing its view of universal values,
morality at this point in time, in these economic and environmental
conditions. Civilization is defined from its Latin word cvis or
citizen as a human society with its well developed social
organisations, or culture and way of life of a society or country at a
particular period of time (Cambridge Dictionary, 2017). This should
be enough confirmation of the fact the cosmopolitanism and the idea
that allegiances are to humankind (Dunne, 2016) or that people are
global citizens is a precursor to civilization creation. If we then
explore the antimony of a civilization further then its noted that the
state or a civilization is the product of the mind (Kemp, 1995.) but
also an idealized image of itself (Kemp, 1995). Ideology is founded
on local tradition, containment of unrule, architecture as a political
statement, culture and established bureaucracy (Kemp, 1995). As
Skowronski puts forward that our its our ability for abstract thinking
shapes social relationships (p.118, Skowronski, 2008) and that these
relationships come together in culture (Skowronski, 2008). This
culture then puts in place the practical ethical, political, social norms
so critical as components to the civilizational development of
mankind (p.118, Skowronski, 2008).

This article demonstrates demonstrate the flaws and interactions of

Cosmopolitanism through Spiral Dynamics, Levels of existence but
also include exposing the failings Cosmopolitanism through some
International Relations Theories.

The cosmopolitan principle which would be applied universally have

been tested time and time again has been found wanting. TFhe first
illustration of this is the fall of Communism. Ronald Reagan,
Margaret Thatcher were both driven by the Materialistic:
Conquering the physical universe so to overcome want (p. 194,
Combs, 2005) or orange life condition as described by Keith Rice or
full of resources to develop and opportunities to make things better
and bring prosperity for those with initiative and willingness to risk
(Rice, 2017). The west assumed the USSR had a blue order level of
existence (Rice, 2017) which is described controlled by obedience to
a higher power that directs living, punishes wrongs and eventually
rewards good works and righteous living (Rice, 2017). However as
Keith Rice notes few western leaders have any understanding of how
human motivation systems develop (Rice, 2017). In the case of the
USSR or now Russia when a Blue level of existence is threatened
Spiral Dynamics takes place and the person, state or civilisation
spirals down to a lower level of motivation in this instance (Rice,
2017). Red level or Egocentric defined as the ability to Express self
but to the hell with others (p. 194, Combs, 2005) or as Rice explains
it Like a jungle where the tough and strong prevail, the weak serve,
nature is an adversary to be conquered (Rice, 2017). This then
translated to International Relations theory is Realism the idea of
power is central to this theory of International Relations (Dunne,
Kurki, Smith 2016). Realisms other central features are the state is
obliged to pursue security and survival. The idea was to introduce
democracy, freedom and western values systems however this clearly
is an example where the reverse happened.

Another example of leaders in the west to take into consideration the

nature of Tribalism in Afghanistan and Iraq. These societies live in
the purple level of existence as defined by Rice as Physical world
and realm of spirit beings overlap, collaborate for safety and survival
or as Tribalism: Achievement of safety sacrifice ones self to the
traditions of ones elders (p. 194, Combs, 2005). The west attempted
to introduce western style Democracy a combination of orange and
blue values and morals systems (Rice 2017). however, the outcome
was inhabitants of these nations divided into tribes and sects (Rice,
2017).
This raises my concerns about trying to impose this from of
cosmopolitan value and moral systems onto the wider world with the
aim to form a global government or create the global citizen. The
evidence shows the introduction of so called universal values via this
theory will cause a spiral down or up cause more conflict and lead to
larger wider wars or world wars. This application illustrates that the
world and its fringe cosmopolitan civilization has been the source of
the current Civil World War clashing on values and morals. Its in
imaginable the negative impacts this class of cosmopolitanism would
have on contemporary insecurity and injustice. The evidence shows
that contemporary insecurity and injustice would intensify not
decline. To complicate things further these values of cosmopolitan
civilization or global citizenship spiral up and down due to any
number of reasons like economics, the United Kingdoms recent
withdrawal from the European Union and Catalonian referendum for
independence being good examples. The cosmopolitan principles,
values, culture are fixed and Levels of Existence. Cosmopolitanism
empathizes the fluidly of individual identity (p.110 Held, 2010) but
does not deal with the eternities of the changeup and down the spiral.

In conclusion, Cosmopolitanism is a theory of sociological

civilization creation and not International Relations. Further then that
its proposals to transform world politics appear on the surface
desirable and noble however they are not a convincing response to
contemporary insecurity and injustice. Its main (8) eight main values
and morals principles in addition to its metaprinciples cannot be
applied universally without negative externalities such as wars,
conflicts, and civil unrest. This is due to the inability to be applied
universally across all of levels of existence and account for the current
theories fluidity and changes up and down. This is evidenced with the
fall of the USSR spiraling down to a more realist posture of
International Relations and the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts shifting to tribalism not a democracy.

All three of these examples have had massive undesirable impacts on

International Relations and the world. Current indications contend
Cosmopolitanism is a theory of civilization creation and not
International Relations. Its proposals to transform world politics are
not a convincing response to contemporary insecurity, injustice and
blindly push the global community towards a Third World War.

Kristijan Gjikoski 2017