In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

149 6 Evolving Nationalities, Ethical Cosmopolitanism: Hegel Beyond the Nation State In the previous chapters, I have argued that Hegel’s depiction of political identity is rooted in the pattern of earning and owning inherited characteristics as described in his “Anthropology”; that his definition of patriotism is focused on citizenship and not nationality; and that national identity is nevertheless a central component of identity in Hegel’s description of modern political agency. I have suggested that his conception of history places individuals in the center of the development of freedom and establishes standards from which to judge cultural norms. I outlined the ways in which art both enables national understanding and highlights the particular tensions of modern political agency. Finally, I argued that philosophy itself is meant to shape our understanding of political identity by defining the rational institutions of the state while establishing the place of the nation within the state. These steps in Hegel’s argument indicate how humans can be truly free: how they can achieve what I have been calling concrete freedom. Concrete freedom, we recall , describes the individual’s ability, developed through her interactions with others and within rational institutions, to shape her desires in such a way that she can reflectively endorse them. Through recognizing others as humans, as partners in contract, as moral agents, family members, workers, members of nations, and citizens of states, she recognizes them concretely. This recognition requires her to modify her desires in order to take others’ needs into account. Through the reflection this modification demands, she gains freedom in and through her desires. This process of reflection and recognition is best facilitated, Hegel thinks, within the state as he describes it. Much has changed since Hegel articulated his description of the citizen’s ideal identity. It is not obvious that a vision of political identity conceived in early nineteenth-century Prussia—one that includes all the stereotypes and condescension Hegel sometimes illustrates so well— can be useful to us now. Beyond the worry that these prejudices undermine Hegel’s philosophy altogether, I will mention two other facts that 150 H E G E L O N P O L I T I C A L I D E N T I T Y cast doubt on the usefulness of Hegel’s fundamental claims. First, we have experienced a series of global wars that make a mockery of Hegel’s hopes for increasingly civilized warfare. During and since these wars, we have seen genocide and mass extermination on a scale Hegel clearly did not imagine. All too often, the impetus for these wars has been what we now call nationalism. The atrocities perpetuated in the name of the nation have challenged the value of the cultural grounding and selfunderstanding Hegel describes as the basis of theVolk als Staat. If, from the genocides of the Second World War to the conflicts that continue to ravage Africa, something like national identity is to blame, perhaps we should jettison it as quickly as possible. The second major change I will mention falls under the broad heading of globalization. Globalization entails many things: technological advances, international trade, cultural homogenization, and worldwide instant communication are just a few of its characteristics. Some have predicted, in the face of these developments, the demise of the nation state. By some estimates, we should actively pursue the end of the nation state as a political form since it contributes to endemic global problems such as extreme poverty, environmental destruction, and chronic warfare . Some argue that the system of nation states protects the privileges of the few and condemns the disadvantaged to further disadvantage. As Christopher Bertram says: “Of all the unlucky things that can happen to a person, being born into the wrong state has to be one of the worst.” Our fixation on the nation state prevents, Martha Nussbaum claims, “any serious consideration of economic inequalities and inequalities of power among states.”1 Questions about its ethical status aside, the very ability of the nation state to protect its citizens effectively has come into question. Since many countries’ resources are profoundly determined by foreign investment and global markets, a government may have only limited control over its citizens’ interests. International organizations such as the World Bank are just as decisive in the well-being of some countries as are their own governments.2 Finally, many of the most urgent problems we face today are global and cannot be solved by any single nation. Environmental changes and...

Share