Global Citizenship a Growing Sentiment Among Citizens of Emerging Economies

http://www.globescan.com/news-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2016/383-global-citizenship-a-growing-sentiment-among-citizens-of-emerging-economies-global-poll.html

by f_allwein • 10 years ago

70 90 10 years ago

globescan.com

Havoc• 10 years ago

Not sure about "global citizen" but I certainly don't feel particularly tied to any country.

dang• 10 years ago

Please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait. The submitted title ('People see themselves as global citizens rather than citizens of their country') says something quite different than the original.

corv• 10 years ago

Generally a positive trend.

I wonder what is keeping Germans from feeling global?

maufl2• 10 years ago

(As a German) I think lot's of Germans feel global already. But I suspect it's limited to a certain demographic, namely young people with academic background. I don't know about the rest but recently it feels like more people just want to keep to themselves (especially with all the immigrants coming into our country).

alphydan• 10 years ago

all the immigrants coming into our country

When sorted by % of population that is composed of immigrants, Germany does not have much immigration (it's country # sixty-something in the list) [0])

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...

RGamma• 10 years ago

Germany is a country of assimilation and a very sizable portion of immigrants (I count esp. the Gastarbeiter that we have failed to repatriate) have not managed this and now even 2 or 3 generations later we have certain city districts with over 50% immigrants that mainly speak insufferable Kanakendeutsch or barely any at all (luckily I live in one of the better suburbs in that regard), in which you feel like a foreigner in your own country.

If we have to wait 3 or more generations for assimilation to happen, if ever, no wonder that right-conservative parties can use this as a selling point.

(and no I definitely don't feel global (I'm also young, with academic background), let all regions stay to themselves. Tourism is sufficient if you want to experience others)

mxfh• 10 years ago

I also wonder how the question was phrased, in my experience Kosmopolit/Weltbürger has a lot of cultural baggage in the German cultural sphere; that it requires some sort of personal refinement (Herder, Kant, Klaus Mann), a label most people won't assert to themselves.

On the other hand the term was used as a negative propaganda term in the eastern bloc[1]

In my experience German's are way more likely to call themselves Europeans first (more than most other European nationalities), and happily skip the world citizen part for convenience's sake. Even the E in PEGIDA stand for Europeans.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan

jdimov92• 10 years ago

Any move away from the stupidity of patriotism is good in my books.

vixen99• 10 years ago

So an emotional emotional attachment to a nation which an individual recognizes as their homeland, is 'stupid'. The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

jdimov92• 10 years ago

It is orders of magnitude beyond stupid - it's utterly brainless. So your nation has PROVIDED you with your values, huh? Yay. The objective of patriotism has been achieved. Now go and fight to the death for your beloved nation, because surely no other values should exist on Earth.

alanwatts3• 10 years ago

The nation has provided that person with certain values which she/he deeply appreciates and feels strongly about: is that stupidity? Isn't it a good idea to determine what those values are and how they relate to other people before you generalize so crudely?

Indeed it is important to understand how they relate to other people, but not just people within the artificial boundaries of a nation state.

Those values weren't spontaneously and independently invented by the artificial lines drawn on a piece of paper, they were developed throughout all human history across the whole planet.

lsd5you• 10 years ago

Without passing judgement, is this not just measuring the desire not be lumbered with the negative connotations of their respective countries? And possibly also showing a desire and entitlement to be able to move to a better off country?

We have something similar at a different level here. People in Salford (a not well thought of connurbation of Manchester, UK) are 'from Manchester', where as people from Didsbury are 'from Didsbury'.

That said China being on that list does surprise me.

f_allwein2• 10 years ago

Maybe, but even then the differences between the countries are interesting. As a German, I am unpleasantly surprised we rank so low here.

kfk2• 10 years ago

You rank low because of your history. Germans are proud to be Germans, they just don't feel right to say it. An interesting and very good consequence of this feeling is that Germany has not only very open policies towards immigrants, but also an overall good attitude versus expats which you rarely find in Europe.

notahacker3• 10 years ago

It's also highly likely that "global citizen" has been translated into terms which have subtly different connotations in different countries (that's the only real explanation I can think of for China).

hartpuff5• 10 years ago

I'm surprised by the remarks (in both posts) about China.

People in China cannot be unaware of the country's shortcomings (as a repressive totalitarian state) while also having a strong awareness of, and often direct family or business connections to the rest of the world, which China has influenced and been influenced by for centuries.

Traditionally, Chinese people have had no objection to emigrating, working and settling in other countries, in Asia and beyond - exemplified by how many cities in the world have a Chinatown - and have never struck me as being particularly racist, nationalistic or xenophobic.

vidarh• 10 years ago

Nigeria is one of them, and while Nigeria has a large diaspora and is still poor, the absolutely massive GDP growth over the last decade and a perception that people with Western educations can live much better in Nigeria on what they can make there than elsewhere has caused many Nigerians to return.

My ex is Nigerian, and keeps complaining about how many of her friends are now moving back for this reason. In most of these cases these are people with dual citizenships (e.g. my ex has dual citizenship as her dad was born in the UK) or who have lived in the UK long enough to obtain indefinite leave to remain, so most of them are leaving entirely out of choice.

I'm sure there's still a desire to move to the UK for a lot of Nigerians, but I'm also unconvinced that this is what drives the higher numbers that says global first.

Perhaps in some cases at least it is more down to rapid growth actually giving them a sense of "joining the world stage" and e.g. actually getting the opportunity to travel and work elsewhere that was limited to very small proportions before.

simula67• 10 years ago

I had a running theory that the spread of Internet and virtual communities would force free exchange of ideas and bring the people of the world together. I am less inclined to believe that now. Developed and under-developed nations show no difference in nationalism. Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together.

brador• 10 years ago

Give it time, it's inevitable, but not in your current lifetime. It takes generations.

cagenut• 10 years ago

Yea the world is still run by pre-internet people and institutions. The first generation to 'grow up' with the internet in first-world countries is still largely waiting to take over. Farther down the tail, it'll be another decade before may in the 'third' world get their first smartphone. Defacto global/internet citizenship is still a full generation to generation and a half away, and who knows how long it'll take to actually reshape and reform the big institutions after that.

seren• 10 years ago

It is very paradoxical because access to Internet on one hand can expose you to new ideas and cultures, but, on the other hand, if you are inclined to, virtual communities can reinforce pre existing closed worldview (or at least pretty weird like otherkins). This is all the point of algorithms governing the Feed and filter bubbles.

I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.

x5n1• 10 years ago

What does this bring together mean? At the end power is distributive and a zero sum game. Power can never be truly distributed because there is a limited amount of it. Therefore we really can't come together. That's what love is by the way a distributor of power. So as long as we have distributive systems that are resource limited like economics, there is no hope of love conquering all or power no longer playing a factor.

Just because you know someone does not mean you love them, you really can't, because it will effect your own well being and resource utilization. At best you can learn to tolerate people because you understand them... and integrate them into the global slave economy to serve your desires. But there is no hope of ever being together. We don't have that level of capacity to love. Only our ideas do and they too often fail.

At the end of the day why is the Middle East or Africa suffering simply because they are not willing to be a productive part of the global slave economy, therefore they get no respect and are exploited. It's not that we don't understand them. We don't like them because they don't work for us and consume and produce on our terms. Therefore, we don't respect them. We don't love them, and they don't love us. Their distribution of power is based in religion (the Middle East), ours is based on economics.

Why are Jewish people and Israelis held in such high esteem. For the same reason, they produce and consume with us. They have contributed massively to the economy and many other fields. They serve our desires, and we are one with them.

f_allwein2• 10 years ago

which is sad given that the issues we should confront are all of a global nature, e.g. global warming and resource depletion rather than refugees or religious conflicts. Maybe a future generation of global citizens will do better.

vanilla-almond• 10 years ago

One of the positive attitudes shown in this survey is the acceptance of mixed race relationships.

I know that the 2011 census for England & Wales showed that it has one of the largest mixed race populations in Europe, and projections are that it will continue to grow.

For me this is a positive development - it shows that people mix with others of different ethnicities, and perhaps might also encourage people to be more open and tolerant of others.

leaveyou• 10 years ago

What worries me is that we are increasingly accepting people who are not necessarily accepting the same things we accept and we are increasingly intolerant with those of us who are worried about our excessive tolerance for the intolerant.

malka• 10 years ago

I agree. Sadly, for a "we" to exist, it seems that we need a "they" to antagonize.

spriggan3• 10 years ago

I am less inclined to believe that now

Internet has created bigger echo chambers, and bigger audiences for extremists of all sides. In that sense, yes, it has brought people together, but often not in a positive way.

return04• 10 years ago

That was the wishful thinking of the left, but it seems it has backfired. The more people confront each other's differences (they massively do nowadays), the more they feel a need to show they are different (for example, the coming back in vogue of religious dress accessories). It seems group/kin segregation is part of our nature, and we can't really fight nature.

That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world.

dracht• 10 years ago

That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world.

Interesting, I believe exactly that but I've never heard anyone else express it before. The idea of social constructivism, the notion that everything is a mere social construct, has been so ingrained in (western) societies that people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. It just puzzles me why anyone would be so adamant to put naturally conflicting groups together. What is the goal? What are the benefits that are worth the hassle and friction? Maybe it's nothing but a naive attempt to achieve some utopian fantasy, or perhaps there is a less innocent agenda behind it. I honestly don't know. If you wish to expound on the subject or have any literary recommendations, I'm all ears.

tbrownaw• 10 years ago

Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together.

That wouldn't work either. People would still be divided among fight vs appease vs run away, trying to use the chaos to backstab anyone they don't like or to jockey for power, etc.

kfk2• 10 years ago

The 22% strongly agree in US worries me

Edit. Wow, 44% in Spain? Seriously guys? 35% Greece. Somebody should correlate this with GDP per capita, I believe there is a negative correlation there to be found...

ForHackernews• 10 years ago

The 22% strongly agree in US worries me

Why does that worry you? I would generally consider greater global unity to be a positive trend.

Mendenhall2• 10 years ago

Lets say you had a neighbor who spent too much money and was always broke, would you want to tie their finances to yours and for you to be responsible for them ?

geodel3• 10 years ago

Yea 22% seems high. I can think lots of upper middle class and other rich people who can consume cheap 3rd products and services without endangering their jobs / financial wellbeing and students under education loans would think of them as global citizens.

It is like the call to workers of the world unite. But rich and well off workers will be less inclined when there is no upside.

hartpuff5• 10 years ago

Or correlate it with the level or sophistication of nationalistic/xenophobic propaganda in each country.

Or with the level of real-life experience and awareness a population has with other countries.

geodel3• 10 years ago

I have seen nationalist/culturally inward looking people become very pragmatic for economic gains without actually endorsing liberal thoughts. So I doubt propaganda would have effect on people when it is at cost of economic betterment.

icebraining2• 10 years ago

I don't see a correlation. Spain may be relatively simple to explain, as I pointed in another comment, it's a country composed of very demarcated regions, some of which with their own independence movements. It's not surprising to me that a good number of Spaniards feel little attachment to "Spain" as a whole.

azernik• 10 years ago

Spain's GDP per capita is significantly higher than Greece's, and both are significantly higher than many of the African countries surveyed which have much lower rates. I think the correlation with bad recent news (economic mismanagement, corruption, governmental paralysis, etc.) is much stronger and more informative.

geodel3• 10 years ago

Isn't it something similar that poor would want more equitable distribution of wealth and lower rungs in corporates would want a more normal salary rise all the way to CEOs. Pretty obvious thing.

I would think that global citizens would not be so interested in nations with similar number of high aspirants.

lumberjack2• 10 years ago

At first glance it seems to me that all globalism trends are also erosions of democracy. I dare say this is also what most Germans were thinking. Of course there are many ways to interpret the question.

twoarray• 10 years ago

The results on Germany have amazed me.

Especially the huge white spaces.

known• 10 years ago

Patriotism is a favorite device of people with something to sell http://www.economist.com/node/21644538/

However I strongly support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota

lumberjack2• 10 years ago

The same president is also pushing globalism (TPP, TTIP) so your implication is really a false dichotomy.

elcapitan4• 10 years ago

What does "global citizen" even mean? I am quite happy to be a citizen of smaller entities. I would like them to be even smaller, not larger. I'm German, and I find the size of that entity in terms of democratic accountability almost too large already. Definitely constructs like the EU are overblown and have too many competencies. I would prefer a small state like Switzerland with a small population, but direct democracy and relatively direct accountability.

staticelf• 10 years ago

I agree, smaller is better.

Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness.

Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US.

China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.

philippnagel3• 10 years ago

Democratic accountability does not depend upon the size of an entity. Instead it relies on how said entity is internally structured (e.g. direct democracy vs. more representative models) and how prone to corruption it is.

Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.

elcapitan4• 10 years ago

"fundamentally every human has comparable needs"

That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.

mistermann2• 10 years ago

Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice?

I don't disagree with your inefficiency comment, but upsides are diversity of trying things in 196 slightly different ways, 196 chances to fail without thew whole system going down, and the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy.

jerf2• 10 years ago

I see no evidence one government would suffice. There's too much diversity in the world, of both the politically fashionable kinds and the kinds that are currently politically unfashionable to acknowledge but don't cease to apply because of that. Even the EU is frequently criticized for instance for the difficult-to-the-point-of-impossible task of tying together all of its economies under one currency, just to give one example of major structural issues it raises, and is at the very least under a lot of stress, if not outright coming apart. If you can't even integrate Europe you can forget about running the whole world under one government. The EU is your best case.

Mendenhall2• 10 years ago

"Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice?"

Same reason ships have separate compartments in the hull, so if one floods they all don't. Basically it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.

yequalsx• 10 years ago

I think smaller governmental entities sounds good but if not met with a corresponding limit on corporate power the unintended consequences will be bad. What I would like to see is to not have power concentrated in too few hands. It seems to me there is way too much money in way too few hands.

return04• 10 years ago

It seems everybody is. It's hard to deny the trend away from national identity and closer to a cultural identity, at least in europe.

Global citizen means person without (a national) culture (other than consumer culture maybe). But culture is a human need. Ideally, we should live in a world where free movement allows us to choose the culture that fits us best, and stick with it. In this world, only a few strong cultures would survive.

icebraining2• 10 years ago

Global citizen means person without culture

Does it? Seems more like people without a strong connection to a national culture, which doesn't mean they don't have culture. The example of Spain, pointed out in the article as one of the OECD countries where more people identify as "global citizens" versus of their country, is informative, as much of Spanish culture is highly regional. A citizen of Catalonia or the Basque region might have plenty of local cultural attachment without feeling a strong connection to the country overall.

hawleyal2• 10 years ago

The article is not about cultural identity. It is about membership in a country/nation/state versus not.

varjag2• 10 years ago

As the scale of governance goes down, the degree of nepotism, corruption and incompetence goes up, other things being equal.

Retric2• 10 years ago

US seems to do both, with city/county, state, and federal nepotism, corruption, and incompetence.

exelius• 10 years ago

While I don't agree with your sentiment personally (I'm American, I have lived in many parts of the country so I see myself as American above all else), I do think that in many places -- especially the emerging parts of the world -- people identify with smaller groups that aren't bounded by the arbitrary borders the colonial powers drew up after WW2. I would also agree with you that Germany (and many other places in Europe, but Germany stands out for me just because of the local nature of beer there) have more regional identity than the US does.

A perfect example are the Kurdish people spread across Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They identify as Kurdish; and don't view themselves as citizens of Syria, Turkey or Iraq. In the emerging world, this situation is common -- basic services are provided by local tribal groups, not by the national government (which is usually dominated by another ethnic group that diverts resources to its own people). Those tribal groups may or may not be confined within a single country.

Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.

alanwatts3• 10 years ago

Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.

Nationalism erects walls between ethnic groups by definition. Framing it as "within a country" is missing the forest for the trees.

Joeri2• 10 years ago

The geographic coordinate of your birth should not be the defining factor in your opportunities in life. If you are born in a poor country with low opportunities, why is that your fault? Why shouldn't you be allowed to get the opportunities of someone born in a rich country? Why do we allow countries to deny people their basic human rights? Why should there be segregation allowed under the banner of the supposed egalitarian UN? I don't see how you rhyme nationalism with human rights and equal opportunity.

api• 10 years ago

The same logic can be applied to your genetics and is a classic argument in favor of a welfare state.

elcapitan4• 10 years ago

Why would people from one place on earth be entitled to the wealth of other people somewhere else on earth? Is the neighbor family one block away entitled to live in my flat, because they should have equal opportunity to live there? I think not.

hawleyal2• 10 years ago

Smaller regional entities doesn't work if there exist larger global entities. Government or corporation, doesn't matter. City hall can't fight USA or Walmart.

jkldotio• 10 years ago

The full results in the report seem to me be somewhat more complex to interpret than the summary, or the original submission title, suggest. On the first question (Q18jt), a 4 point scale without a "don't know" neutral option, there are large numbers of people putting global citizenship before national citizenship (51%-49%). However, when you get to a later question (M2), that asks people what their most important identity is, national citizenship overtakes global citizenship overwhelmingly (52% national, 17% global, 11% local, 9% religious and 8% race/culture). National citizenship is the largest in all countries besides three, and it's the second largest in two of those. When given a variety of choices in M2 the level of people supporting global citizenship (17%) as a primary identity is even lower than even those who "strongly agree" to global citizenship being more important to national citizenship in first question (22%).

In M2 it seems all of the "somewhat agree" and a few points of the "strongly agree" have gone elsewhere including back to national citizenship which creates a tension between the results of the two questions. It’s quite stark in the case of India where in the first question 67% place global citizenship over national citizenship but in M2 51% have national citizenship as their primary identity and only 6% have global citizenship.

I think the first question (Q18jt) would be more interesting if it was a 5 point scale with a "don't know" option provided rather than trying to railroad people into an answer with a 4 point scale. Even then I think the M2 question is a better instrument as it provides a clear set of choices. For example Pakistan goes from 56% global in the first question to 2% global in the second. Most of those seem to move to religion as their primary identity (43% answer religion on M2). Many religions are globally oriented toward all humanity but the M2 question lets us see more clearly what they believe.

Even though the second question (M2) is better it probably could still do with some examination. For example the only country where global citizenship was higher than national citizenship in M2 was Spain, but was that because many people in Catalonia and the Basque Country are choosing global over "Spanish" because the "local" option was translated in a particular way? If they used a word closer to "neighborhood" you could see how that might happen. Similarly was "local" translated more broadly in the Indonesian translation and became the dominant answer there (56%) as people could identify with an island/state/ethnic/linguistic group that was "local", like Bali for example. It's hard to tell without all the data and the exact translations of the questions.

andrewclunn• 10 years ago

Russians are nationalistic, Afghanis divide by religion, and Asian nations are racist. Not super surprising.

mark_l_watson• 10 years ago

As a US citizen, I identify strongly with being a world citizen, but I am very much against the neoconservative one world government movement.

Even the democrats are marching in lock-step on the path to corporate lead world government (e.g., President Obama dutifully going to England and preaching against British EU exit, and of course democrat turned neoconservative Hilliary Clinton).

I like very small countries. I recently spent 2 weeks in Singapore on business and loved it there. I am also drawn to tiny countries like Dominica that are off the usual path.

Ordinary people do much better in local economies where money in return for services and resources circulates, largely staying in the local economy - local economies are I think more resilient to a future of sporadic, or no growth. The current economy relies on continuous growth, which is not sustainable.

allemagne2• 10 years ago

I wonder if everyone in this thread and this study is using the same vocabulary. When I hear or use the term "global citizen" I think of someone who doesn't pledge loyalty to any government but instead recognizes the existence of a global human community that they are already a part of.

Judging by some responses, however, it seems as if using the term "global citizen" is seen as implicit support for some kind of central world government.

dunkelheit2• 10 years ago

Right. For me (and maybe other commenters as well) the term "citizen" implies paying taxes to an armed entity in exchange for some protection and rights. So "global citizen" in this sense definitely implies some form of a global government. But of course the article doesn't talk about anything like that. I guess it intentionally uses the flashy term "global citizen" when its main message could be expressed simply as "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states".

librvf2• 10 years ago

"more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states"

The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State.

To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow.

Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.

librvf2• 10 years ago

It's impossible to have global citizens without a global government. Those "global citizens" not satisfied by National organization will seek leaders and rules, and there will be conflict until a power fills the desired role.

And ultimately, they'll discover that the "global human community" has as many differences as similarities and not all of those differences are compatible.

hartpuff5• 10 years ago

It would not surprise me if the latter is a primarily American interpretation. (The US being the spiritual home of "NWO"/anti-Government sentiment.)

henriquemaia• 10 years ago

From reading the comments, and having been born in Brazil, raised in Portugal, and for spending a lot of my allotted time on this wandering cosmic orbe on many countries, I feel that many don't get the _global citizenship_ concept.

Nations are abstractions. I belong to a greater human community. Fortunately I could witness the advent of the internet and of massive information exchange between peoples. I rejoice with a untold pride when human beings make some amazing advancement in whatever field of knowledge we happen to strive for: the many fields of science, art, philosophy. I watch with amazement when a new boundary in space travel is surpassed; when we (humans) reach political agreements that make the world a bit less inhumane (insane) and more sustainable; when we stop thinking through the lenses of arbitrary divisions and reach to a higher goal.

I am a citizen of the world (global citizenship) — and I am proud of it. I am glad I am able to learn and to share information with such a vast array of different peoples. I literally live on an utopia (no place) that is an information matrix inside my head. And I am glad to be here today typing this comment within an international community (HN).

This is my interpretation. If you try to make global citizenship a dystopian political agenda then you're talking about something entirely different.

Global Citizenship a Growing Sentiment Among Citizens of Emerging Economies

Related Stories