For the Stoics, cosmopolitanism did not necessarily replace one’s local
affiliations. Instead, cosmopolitanism recognized the importance of and need for
membership in multiple communities. The most lucid model is Hierocles’ who presented
citizenship as concentric circles: identity begins with the individual, extending next to the
family, then to the fellow neighbors, townsmen, countrymen, and final to the world. The
series of circles grow throughout one’s life as he or she develops more and more
relationships. The goal is to find a way to “draw the circles somehow toward the center,”
allowing individuals to understand and appreciate the various levels’ interconnection.
Through this process, the individual need not give up the more local allegiances. Quite
the contrary, the Stoics believed that each level was important and added to the robust
development of individuals and their cultivation of reason. The danger rested in
becoming too aligned with particular affiliations.
Aligning oneself solely with one way of thinking resulted in complacency and
stagnancy. At its worst, it caused individuals to pursue one way of thought at any
expense or consequences to others. Stoic Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius warned his
fellow citizens not to become too allied with either the lightly armed or heavily armed
gladiators at the Circus. Otherwise, they would learn to relish the victory of one over the
death of the other (Meditations). In practical terms, this translated into Cicero’s war
policies outlined in his work On Duties which stated that the conduct of war must be
conducted in an honorable manner. This meant respecting the human rights of all persons
—even enemies and prisoners of war.
Contemporary Debates: Political, Legal, and Moral Cosmopolitanism
For the Stoics and Romans, the world remained relatively “small” and disconnected
compared to what it is today. Rapid advances in technology culminated with economic
and political cooperation present new possibilities for global community building. In
recent decades, scholars have sought to redefine the meaning and significance of
cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is often used interchangeably with the term “global
citizen” or “global citizenship” to describe the affiliation with humans across the globe
based on a political (Archibugi and Held 1995; Archibugi and Kohler 1998; Archibugi et
al. 1998; Archibugi 2003; Held 2003), legal (Giddens 1991; Falk 1994; Franck 1999;
Bennett et al. 2000), or moral (Havel 1986; 1993; 1997; 1998; Hitt 1998, Nussbaum
9
Convention