The global relevance of Tagore’s cosmopolitan educational philosophy for social justice in a post-Westphalian world

ABSTRACT

This article suggests that Tagore’s conception of cosmopolitan education can provide the basis for advancing matters of global social justice, when considering the problem posed by Nancy Fraser in her essay ‘Reframing Justice in a Globalizing World’: ‘How can we integrate struggles against maldistribution, misrecognition and misrepresentation within a post-Westphalian frame?’. To this end, the article briefly reflects on the perspective of cosmopolitanism, setting the scene for an exploration of Tagore’s distinctive cosmopolitan educational philosophy. The article develops the argument that framing pedagogy centred on Tagore’s principles of cosmopolitan education to produce cosmopolitan-minded citizens can help bring about social, political, and economic change at local, national, and international level, in order to integrate the three-dimensional struggle for social justice outlined by Fraser. The article concludes by suggesting what can be done at the institutional and curriculum levels to help foster the cosmopolitan attitude.

Introduction

The Westphalian system of nation-states is based on the principle in international law that recognizes exclusive sovereignty for each nation over its territory. It concedes to each state the right to determine and address inequalities within their domestic jurisdiction, and does not allow intervention by other nations/states. This system of nations, recognized by United Nations, is also coupled intricately with an international agreement on the Keynesian model of monetary systems and fiscal management, that delegates the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank the authority to regulate capital controls across nations. Fraser (2007) suggests that this Keynesian–Westphalian frame ignores cross-border claims of justice, in its focus on territorial security and borders, smoothing the flow of capital, and the deregulation of markets. In this context, Fraser argues that any claim for justice, whether it is economic redistribution, legal or cultural recognition, or political representation, requires an approach that frames justice around what she calls ‘post-Westphalian’ principles. Fraser suggests that in today’s world, the debates on justice do not focus solely on first-order questions about redistribution and recognition purely in economic terms, that is, how much redistribution should take place and to whom and by what means to achieve justice; they are also concerned with the frame within which these matters should be considered. She argues that in the age of transnationalism and neoliberal globalization, recognition of relevant groups in matters of justice should not be confined to nation-state boundaries and national economies. She proposes a theory of post-Westphalian democratic justice that encompasses three fundamental dimensions of the economic, the cultural, and the political, which, as a result, not only renders ‘visible, and criticisable, the mutual entwinement of maldistribution, misrecognition, and misrepresentation’ (Fraser 2007: 29), but in addition, addresses the problem of the ‘frame’ as a matter of justice. This alternative frame setting, according to Fraser, allows a focus not only on the ‘what’ of justice, but also on the ‘who’ and the ‘how’. Within this framework of democratic justice, addressing the ‘who’ and the ‘how’, and focusing on participatory parity that takes into account political representation in a globalizing world, Fraser poses this question: ‘How can we integrate struggles against maldistribution, misrecognition and misrepresentation within a post-Westphalian frame?’ (p. 29). In considering her question, this article contends that a starting point might be cosmopolitanism-centred education. In a Keynesian–Westphalian neoliberal world that privileges nation-states, education underpinned by a cosmopolitan worldview as espoused by Tagore offers the prospect of making matters of global social justice viable by producing cosmopolitan-minded citizens who can embrace Tagore’s conceptions of pluralist political and social ethos.

The exigency of Tagore’s cosmopolitanism-centred education

The idea of cosmopolitan education is not new. Indeed, Tagore’s commitment to his ideal of cosmopolitan education is exemplified in the university he established in India more than a hundred years ago, in 1921, called Visva-Bharati,¹ which has in its vision and mission the aim of fostering Tagore’s ideas of cosmopolitan education and a sustainable environment. Tagore envisaged Visva-Bharati as the place where knowledge and culture of the world would come to one place to ‘nest’. In Sanskrit, the word ‘Visva’ means ‘the world’ and ‘Bharati’ means ‘India’, and situated in the university town Santiniketan (‘abode of peace’), founded by Tagore’s father, Maharshi Devendranath Tagore, in West Bengal, the university attracted scholars from all over the world. Over the years, a number of Tagore scholars—most notable amongst them Nussbaum (2002, 2011b); Harvey and Nussbaum (2009); Radice (2010, 2015); Quayum (2004, 2015, 2017); O’Connell and O’Connell (2008); O’Connell (2008, 2011); Chaudhuri (2012); Bhattacharya (2011); and Collins (2011)—have strongly argued for cosmopolitan education and for Tagore’s ideal of education to be realized in schools and universities in democracies around the world. So, what has changed now to make the arguments for cosmopolitan education even more persuasive and exigent? Elsewhere, Fraser (2019) has recently argued that the world is facing a crisis of hegemony of ‘progressive neoliberalism’, a hegemony formed of an alliance of a neoliberal, expropriative, capitalist, and plutocratic programme of economic redistribution (namely allocation of goods and income) with a progressive politics of recognition (specifically liberal movements in society seeking recognition on the basis of identity, gender, status, and culture). She argues that the authority of progressive neoliberalism is now weakening, as it has failed to deliver material gains to a large majority of the people and has benefited the upper classes most. Fraser further suggests that as progressive neoliberalism recedes, it is leaving a gap which is currently occupied by ‘reactionary populism’, a combination of hyper-reactionary politics of recognition with populist politics of distribution, symbolized by the rise in racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and misogyny. This can be seen in the rise of the Far Right and increasing ethnocentrism and anti-immigrant sentiment across large parts of the world. Fraser contends that ‘progressive populism’, which combines an inclusive politics of recognition with anti-neoliberalism, is a viable candidate for counterhegemony, which can help the world in the current crisis.

Even though Fraser’s work does not focus on education directly, her conceptualization of social justice has been invaluable for scholars in mapping out what a socially just education system would like. In particular, scholars have highlighted the undesirable impact of neoliberal regimes in the development of a more equitable and inclusive education system across many countries (Vincent 2020). In the context of two papers by Fraser under discussion above (2007, 2019), which reframe matters of social justice in a neoliberal and reactionary populist world order, this article refocuses the attention on cosmopolitan education and brings to the fore cosmopolitan education’s essential role in shaping society, civil and political. As a critical theorist, Fraser’s conception of justice makes space for recognitive, distributive, and representative notions of justice, but these remain confined within the boundaries of nation-states, with the states having a free choice of which principles of social justice should be adopted and applied locally. Her argument for a reframing of matters of justice in a post-Westphalian system therefore assumes great importance if some form of universal ethics and norms are to be applicable in an international system of nation-states. This article argues that the project of developing notions of justice that may be appropriate in the post-Westphalian world should be underpinned by an education system that builds on a more inclusive sense of community outside the political boundaries. As Gramsci noted, ‘every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational relationship and occurs not only within a nation, between the various forces of which the nation is composed, but in the international and world-wide field, between complexes of national and continental civilisations’ (Gramsci 1971). Efforts towards creating a socially just social, political and economic order through policies of distribution, recognition, and representation, as outlined by Fraser, may not be sufficient on their own to resolve the issues of cross-border justice the world faces. Tagore’s ideals of cosmopolitan education have much to offer in this regard to current educational practice, as embedding cosmopolitan educational philosophy in practice and policy would help to shape the broader political–moral, social, and cultural agenda of a new progressive populist order.

Cosmopolitan education for international social justice

The cosmopolitan notion of human togetherness, whether defined by the Stoic ideas of kosmopolitēs (Held 2010), or the Kantian principles of universal morality, freedom, and autonomy (Kleingeld 1998), clashes with the post-Westphalian world of nation-states. The world seems to be besieged by wars and political conflict across the globe, from North Korea to Syria and Sudan to the Americas; the recent attempts to suppress democracy and freedom in Hong Kong and Kashmir; and the rise of the nationalist Far Right in Europe and the United States. These challenges are global, and present a significant ecological, economic, and social justice risk to society. Against this backdrop, globalization is also changing the way people live and think. Many societies are now diverse, comprising groups and individuals that think differently, and where information is available at the click of a mouse on a computer. Often cited as a reason to embrace cosmopolitanism, globalization, when viewed as a matter of increasing links, primarily economic, between nation-states, rather than calling into question the distinctions between nation-states, on the contrary reinforces the principle of societies organizing territorially. This has manifested as increasing conflict between nation-states in recent years, as nation-states endeavour to protect their national interests on global issues such as environmental crises, migration for economic or humanitarian reasons, and intensification of competitiveness to control industry, telecommunications, energy, finance, and supply chains ranging from food to semiconductor chips. Indeed, human beings in most societies identify themselves first and foremost as citizens of a particular nation, inextricably bound with the nation-state to which they owe allegiance. But then again, the magnification of national identity across many nations in the world, in response to calls from populist Right and Far Right political parties, from Republican Trump’s ‘Make America great again’ to Bhartiya Janta Party’s (BJP) Modi’s cultural and religious nationalism, in addition to growing discontent arising from the increasing inequalities generated by the hegemony of ‘progressive neoliberalism’ policies, has intensified conflict within nations too. That there is still a sharp division between international and national space, despite the rhetoric of the world becoming ‘flatter’, is best exemplified by Brexit, with many in the United Kingdom still not able to come to terms with the result of the 2016 referendum.

It is no surprise then that cosmopolitanism is a much-debated term, not just in terms of the distinctions between moral and universal aspects of cosmopolitanism on one hand, and its political manifestations that attempt to establish a worldwide or supranational order to enable the expansion of economic and administrative links on the other; but also with regard to the recognized complexities of cosmopolitanism in its relation to democracy, identity, nationalism, and patriotism (Kleingeld 2004; Held 1995, 2010, 2019; Nussbaum 1994, 2006b, 2008). It is clear that the Keynesian–Westphalian frame is no longer apposite when thinking of justice in a globalized world, so what can then be done? Brown (1998) makes a case for viewing justice both globally and from a perspective of nation-states, arguing that the position expounded by communitarians such as Michael Walzer, which gives primacy to nation-states, means that any work on international social justice has to be done in this context of an international system of nation-states. Brown, however, presents two issues with this position—first, what reasons can be given for asserting the primacy of a particularist local account of justice? and second, if this primacy of particularist justice can be sustained, then what would international justice look like in the international system of nation-states? Rejecting the arguments in favour of particularist justice, such as ethno-nationalism, or the Rawlsian idea of society as a self-contained co-operative for mutual advantage, Brown contends that the conceptual gap between global justice and justice in a world of states cannot be bridged by the two communitarian and cosmopolitan positions.

In this regard, given that the Keynesian–Westphalian system of nation-states will possibly continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and that the contestation between advocates of cosmopolitanism and promoters of national identity will continue as long as the system of nation-states persists, the key question of concern is how can students be prepared for global citizenship at a time when national interest is prioritized above all things? Where else can the space for new kinds of thinking about international ethics be opened up if not in the educational sphere? In setting out why education should adopt a cosmopolitan approach, Nussbaum (1994) offers four main arguments for making cosmopolitanism (or world citizenship) the central focus in education. First, through this approach, people learn more about others and themselves, and themselves in relation to others. Second, global issues, economic and ecological, can be progressed through dialogue that recognizes a shared future for humanity. Third, individuals recognize moral obligations to others, such as equality and respect for human dignity. Finally, fourth, society is prepared to defend values that bind all citizens together rationally and consistently.

While a discussion on the various conceptions of cosmopolitanism, including the contractualist and utilitarian formulations of ethics, is outside the scope of this article, I argue that even though democratic principles and identity remain rooted in the concept of nation-state territories of political community, Tagore’s conception of cosmopolitan education offers the prospect of developing universal ethics and morality that all societies could potentially embrace in the pursuit of global social justice.

Tagore’s conception of cosmopolitan education

While several of Tagore’s works are in English, there is no complete account of his educational philosophy in either English or Bengali. It is left to the reader to glean his views on educational reform through his vast body of work, made all the more problematic due to the nature of translated work that fails to capture the nuances and sophistication of his writing. Another reason for this may be the insufficient appreciation of, and indeed sensitivity to, the colonial intellectual and social context of British India in which his ideas were shaped (see Tagore’s essay ‘The Mismatch of Education’). The Nobel prize for literature in 1913 for his masterpiece Gitanjali (Tagore 1914) established Tagore’s reputation worldwide, subsequently leading to his knighthood in 1915, which he eventually returned in protest against the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in Amritsar.

Although better known in the West as a poet and artist, Tagore was a polymath committed to social justice and education. This is evident in all his work, which includes empowerment and education for women, condemning the oppression of the weak and poor, independence for India and the right of self-determination of its citizens, concerns about environmental degradation, rural reconstruction, and most importantly, educational reform. He produced a vast body of work as a poet, philosopher, artist, painter, educationist, and social reformer. Most of his work is situated in the context of British rule in India, however, this does not lessen the enduring relevance of his thought, which is all the more relevant today particularly in the context of his cosmopolitan views on education. It would be practically impossible to see his work in its entirety; however, the core of Tagore’s philosophy is his belief in harmony. This was an ideal that he believed could be inculcated through education that would lead to individuals integrating with society locally, globally, and with the environment, which ultimately would lead to justice in a fragmented world.

Tagore is often compared to the likes of Rousseau, Froebel, Dewey, and Montessori for pioneering the development of modern educational thought. Tagore created an alternative non-authoritarian pedagogy, envisioning a life co-existent with nature and with the central aim of peace and harmony in the world. O’Connell (2003, 2011) describes Tagore’s vision of education as rooted in one’s own surroundings, but connected with cultures of the wider world. Tagore was not only recognized in Europe and the United States for his ideas, but also enjoyed a high standing in Russia (Chatterjee 2017), China (Zhao 2021), and several other countries around the world (Malaviya 2021). Indeed, Tagore’s influence on several Latin American Nobel Laureates, such as Gabriela Mistral and Pablo Neruda (Bhattacharya 2017) and Octavio Paz has been documented in the literature (Hansen and Diego 2014). Tagore’s cosmopolitan model was thus one of the first educational models that promoted global interconnectedness.

In Tagore’s view, the focal aim of education was to achieve fulfilment and completeness, the self-realization of the individual in harmony with nature and the social world. Tagore called it AtmaShakti, or strengthening of the soul. Drawing on Hindu literature, Tagore describes the concept of ‘universal man’ (Anand 1960), someone who he himself desired to be, with a faith in universalism and humanity. He described this aspiration as the highest form of realization of human nature, to know oneself through the development of personality in its completeness, transcending to a level above the material world and physical life. He also believed that arts and music gave expression to this personality (O’Connell 2008). According to Tagore, with this supreme realization of oneself, humans become ‘one’ with God, or ‘Manav Brahma’, the ‘complete man’ and soul. Rooted in the spiritual basis of the Upanishads, Tagore’s ideal of complete man transcends a narrow nationalistic focus and calls for a non-hegemonic global society.

Tagore condemned nationalism and imperialism. He viewed the struggles between European powers as inevitable, given the exploitative nature of their imperialistic ambitions. He found European nationalism at odds with the syncretic Indian civilization, which had always been pluralistic and open to intercultural exchange and understanding. For Tagore, nation was a Western idea, an economic and political union of people for power (imperial), and distinct from ethnic, cultural, or linguistic groups. Indeed, as Mulk Raj Anand observes in his review of Tagore’s Towards Universal Man, the foregrounding of national interest in the West failed to reconcile with Tagore’s philosophy that sought to synthesize Eastern and Western thought:

The fact is that the political leaders of the technically supreme, intensely commercialist and highly armed nation states of the West have generated a tradition of conformism among the intelligentsia, in which the teaching of a genius, who saw through the thin disguises in which they wrap their alibis for the suppression of others, in the interests of money and power, are likely to seem merely the outpourings of a vague mystic (Anand 1960: 191)

Tagore rejected parochialism and believed that through education the story of human beings as having a shared history and destiny could be told, establishing the dignity of human relationships across boundaries (Tagore 1917b). His anti-nationalism views are a testimony to the strength of his character given he lived and died during the British rule in India, with nationalistic fervour all around him. Tagore expresses his anguish in ‘Nationalism’ as follows:

History has come to a stage when the moral man, the complete man, is more and more giving way, almost without knowing it, to make room for the commercial man, the man of limited purpose. This process, aided by the wonderful progress in science, is assuming gigantic proportion and power, causing the upset of man's moral balance, obscuring his human side under the shadow of soul-less organization. We have felt its iron grip at the root of our life, and for the sake of humanity we must stand up and give warning to all, that this nationalism is a cruel epidemic of evil that is sweeping over the human world of the present age, and eating into its moral vitality. (Tagore 1917b: 20)

Indeed, an objective of education in Tagore’s view was to bring about an end to relationships of domination and oppression. Returning his knighthood in protest against the Amritsar Massacre, Tagore exhorted:

no people will be able to claim superiority in virtue of imperial power or alleged racial privilege; instead, the future of all peoples must be based upon reciprocity, equal respect, and shared effort toward a common good: I ask them to claim the right of manhood to be friends of men, and not the right of a particular proud race or nation which may boast of the fatal quality of being the rulers of men. (cited in Nussbaum 2011b: 20)

Tagore’s philosophy of education emphasized education not as a means of learning knowledge but also connecting individuals and humanity at large, without which there could be no individual, social, or universal growth. Distinct from liberal views that emphasized the liberatory potential of education, or libertarian outlooks that rejected all authority and sought more democratic methods in pedagogy, Tagore’s conception of freedom in education was about seeking connections between nature, society, and a learner’s understandings and feelings. In other words, for Tagore, education as a practice of human freedom was about encouraging the all-round development of the learner’s personality, which laid great emphasis on learning to be situated in a natural environment where the learners, especially children, can learn from their own experience and activities. He believed that learning in natural surroundings was essential for the nourishment of body and soul, and for an appreciation of truth about laws of the universe rather than by rote learning in a classroom. He passionately believed that fine arts, music, dance, crafts, and literature all encouraged creativity and encouraged connections with other human beings. In essence, at the heart of Tagore’s vision of cosmopolitan education is the idea of freedom—freedom to engage critically with traditional values and beliefs; and freedom to imagine citizenship in a globalized world, that enables an exploration and negotiation of multiple allegiances in sympathy with others. These ideas are briefly outlined below.

For Tagore, the freedom to engage critically with traditional values and beliefs meant that students should be able to think independently, test logic, and explore alternatives, but also crucially to interact and exchange ideas with others in a mutually respectful way. India has a long history of argumentative thought, a deep-seated acceptance of heterodoxy, and a strong dialectical and dialogic tradition (Sen 2006). Tagore believed that students should have the freedom to question knowledge and beliefs handed down by tradition or traditional learning in the classroom. He condemned rote learning, and felt that the contemporary (British) educational system was repressing individual independence and merely preparing children to become ‘clerks’ in the colonial administration with no awareness of their own voice or place as equal citizens in the world. He believed in the ancient Indian belief ‘sa vidya ya vimuktaye’ (education liberates the mind), satirizing the disjointed educational system in his short piece in Bengali ‘Tota-Kahani’ which he subsequently translated into English calling it ‘The Parrot’s Training’ (Dutta and Robinson 1995: 328–32).

Tagore believed that world citizens have an understanding of differences between cultures and religions; and have recognition, respect, and sympathy for fellow human beings. In the novel ‘Home and the World’, Tagore (1919) reveals how nationalism can threaten humanitarian values. Tagore had a unique sense of security for his culture and ideology, which he saw as very distinct from nationalism that was the order of the day under British rule. He argued for a synthesis of Indian and Western philosophies, particularly through his educational endeavours which placed at their centre a cosmopolitan cohabitation of beliefs and values, alongside specific activities that were rooted in his mission for social improvement through vocational skills development and rural reconstruction. In his essay ‘A Poet’s School’, Tagore emphasizes the importance of sympathy in education as that which instils a sense of interconnectedness with the world; and offers opportunities to learn through creativity and from each other. His educational pedagogy places emphasis on learning through literature, arts, and crafts, which he thought were a source of joy, noting:

We have come to this world to accept it, not merely to know it. We may become powerful by knowledge, but we attain fullness by sympathy. The highest education is that which does not merely give us information but makes our life in harmony with all existence. But we find that this education of sympathy is not only systematically ignored in schools, but it is severely repressed. From our very childhood habits are formed and knowledge is imparted in such a manner that our life is weaned away from nature and our mind and the world are set in opposition from the beginning of our days. Thus the greatest of educations for which we came prepared is neglected, and we are made to lose our world to find a bagful of information instead. We rob the child of his earth to teach him geography, of language to teach him grammar. His hunger is for the Epic, but he is supplied with chronicles of facts and dates. … Child–nature protests against such calamity with all its power of suffering, subdued at last into silence by punishment. (Tagore 1917a: 116–17)

A way of being in the world

Tagore’s educational ideals go beyond political, ideological, or geographical boundaries without sacrificing local/individual ties (Datta 2018). Nobel prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in his forward to Dutta and Robinson (1995) observes: ‘Tagore’s insistence on the need to be both strongly local and strongly global—at the same time—is a persistent theme that influenced his practical work in politics, education, social reform and literature.’ So, Tagore’s conception of universality was not of the abstract Kantian kind as suggested by Nussbaum (1994), and in a later work by Sen (2006), but rather a pluralist ethos that sought to ‘dissolve instances of otherness altogether by enriching one’s own tradition’ (S. Tagore 2008). Sarandindranath Tagore argues that Tagore’s philosophy of cosmopolitanism was richer than that presented by both Sen and Nussbaum’s account of Tagore’s cosmopolitanism as being derived from a universalist conception of moral rationality, which ‘runs the risk of rendering the notion too thin’ (2008: 1072). This conception of ‘thin’ cosmopolitanism to which S. Tagore refers arises from the view taken by communitarians that cosmopolitanism devalues particularist interests and traditions, and that this devaluation renders the ‘thick’ cosmopolitan position of assimilation and absorption of otherness indefensible. Providing unequivocal evidence from Tagore’s writings, S. Tagore makes a strong case for Tagore’s thinking of cosmopolitanism as being of the ‘thicker’ variety, asserting that ‘it is to Tagore’s everlasting credit that his great cosmopolitan vision never sacrificed the richest possible sense of tradition’. S. Tagore submits that Tagore’s cosmopolitanism was not grounded in the abstract theoretical approach of the Stoics or Kant, rather that the ‘motivation to be a cosmopolitan is ultimately grounded in an existential orientation, a way of being in the world’ (p. 1076).

What exactly was Tagore’s educational philosophy in the context of ‘thick’ cosmopolitanism, and how did it differ from the other varieties in existence? In broad terms, recent discussions of cosmopolitanism have largely centred on cosmopolitanism either as a matter of culture, or as a matter of justice. Other varieties have considered cosmopolitanism as a matter of politics, as a matter of morality and ethics, or, to a lesser extent, as a matter of economics in the context of globalization. Perspectives of cosmopolitanism as a matter of culture have been in the argumentative corner of communitarians and universalists, the former arguing that cosmopolitanism devalues local traditions and allegiances, homogenizing the world; while the latter argue for a Kantian conception of universality that transcends a nationalistic and ethnocentric particularism. Perspectives of cosmopolitanism as a matter for justice, on the other hand, have tended to marginalize the inconsistency between matters of global and local justice raised by the two communitarian and cosmopolitan positions, leading to calls for new thinking about international ethics (Brown 1998).

A few cosmopolitanism approaches have sought to situate cosmopolitanism within national and cultural boundaries, in order to find a middle ground between the two militating positions of communitarians and cosmopolitans. For example, cosmopolitanism has been juxtaposed with patriotism (Ackerman 1994; Appiah 1997) as a form of ‘rooted’ cosmopolitanism, suggesting that one could be ‘rooted’ to local society and be patriotic by sharing the political culture, but foregrounding respect for human dignity and personal autonomy. Similarly, Scheffler (1999) suggests a more ‘moderate way’ of understanding cosmopolitanism, where a citizen of the world, in addition to their relationships and affiliations with particular individuals and groups may also have an ‘ethically significant relation to other human beings’. A Panglossian case is presented by Shapcott (2008) for a cosmopolitanism understood as ‘stemming from an ethical predisposition of universal friendship’, which means that obligations to fellow nationals are not exclusive of obligations to outsiders. Shapcott’s conception of cosmopolitanism extends the liberal ‘do no harm’ argument to a ‘cosmopolitan harm principle’ that calls on states or bounded political communities to go beyond a principle of mere tolerance or co-existence to a commitment to do no harm. Relatedly, Dobson (2006) suggests that cosmopolitanism’s appeal may be limited as long as the motivation for cosmopolitanism depends on ‘thin’ connections between human beings, arguing that cosmopolitanism that involves a stronger sense of obligation in human beings towards others, through identifying relationships of causal responsibility, that is, identifying actions that cause harm to others, would work better than higher-level ethical appeals to a common humanity.

The approaches outlined above, while paying sufficient heed to local allegiances and to the importance of inheritance of culture and tradition, appear to assume that matters of culture or justice are static and disengaged with the wider world. The history of human migration and experiences of diaspora demonstrate that being ‘rooted’ does not necessarily mean rooted forever, or in the words of Tagore, one can equally be ‘at home in the world’ (Tagore 1919). The supposition that the constitution of the human condition is to be ‘rooted’ locally but at the same time somehow able to transcend nationalistic and ethnocentric ties in the pursuit of universal ideals of justice oversimplifies the conflict between local attachments and cosmopolitan obligations. Notably, Erskine (2002) proposes an alternative conception of ‘embedded cosmopolitanism’, that builds on O’Neill’s (1996) ideas of identity being indeterminate and malleable, to suggest that there is a multitude of identities in morally constitutive communities that intersect and overlap; and that these communities are not territorially bounded. Erskine elevates embedded cosmopolitanism over an impartialist (universalist) variety, but concedes, by her own account, that an ‘inclusive moral purview is possible when the moral agent assumes a particularist starting point … however, it cannot be guaranteed’ (emphasis in original) (Erskine 2002: 20). Erskine’s theory of embedded cosmopolitanism appears to be contingent on the multiple ‘intersecting circles’ of identity for passively diffusing any moral commitments beyond borders.

This article contends that Tagore’s account of cosmopolitanism was much richer. His concept of cosmopolitanism was not static, but one that sought to evolve through multiculturalism. Tagore reflected on the ontological status of humankind, expressed through his ideas of harmony in interpersonal relationships and how each human being is situated in nature. Tagore equally emphasized physical, mental, and spiritual freedom with the freedom to be open and engage with the wider world; where the identity of the individual is shaped by the richness of tradition but also evolves as it comes into contact with others. Thus, a cosmopolitan orientation for Tagore meant people having the capacity to reason and engage with ideas from the outside world. Hansen (2017) offers the metaphor of a prism which perhaps best describes this view—that as the prism changes angles it allows the colours of the light passing through to be viewed in new ways. Similarly, a cosmopolitan orientation will allow people to view things in different perspectives. Hansen et al. (2009) describe this cosmopolitan orientation as being neither elite nor aloof towards human affairs, but instead a vision of how people can retain their individual and cultural identity while keeping themselves open to the larger world. For Tagore, this meant encouraging heterodoxy, and being liberatory; that is, having the capacity to reason—to be unshackled from traditionalism as a blind faith. The importance which Tagore ascribed to freedom of reasoning is beautifully expressed as a poem in his Nobel prize-winning Gitanjali:

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;

Where knowledge is free;

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;

Where words come out from the depth of truth;

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;

Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake. (Tagore 1914)

Conclusions

Having framed Tagore’s conception of cosmopolitanism and his philosophy of education, this article suggests that the answer to Fraser’s question posed at the beginning:—‘How can we integrate struggles against maldistribution, misrecognition, and misrepresentation within a post-Westphalian frame?’—might lie in embedding Tagore’s cosmopolitan education philosophy in practice and policy. Tagore’s conception of universality and pluralism embraces otherness, through a non-authoritarian pedagogy that envisions harmony with oneself and others, and a peaceful co-existence with nature, bringing about a synthesis of education, environment, and cosmopolitan society. Thus, Tagore’s ideal of education is based on the freedom of learners, encouraging individual development in natural surroundings focusing on a love for all humanity, and moral and spiritual development leading to self-realization, with a primary commitment to fellow humanity and the planet rather than the nation-state. The challenge for educational systems is to incorporate Tagore’s ‘thicker’ variety of cosmopolitanism into the curriculum that includes the richness of local traditions, recognizes individual identities, and establishes the primacy of human relationships and harmony in today’s fraught world.

Nussbaum (2011a) calls Tagore’s model the liberal arts model, which focuses on ‘empowering thoughtful and unsubmissive citizens through the liberal arts, critical thinking, and the cultivation of imagination and sympathy’. She calls these principles Tagorean capacities (2009), and further drawing on Tagore’s ideas, proposes a model of three capacities focusing on critical thinking, world citizenship, and imaginative understanding (2002), arguing for the development of young people’s capabilities through education (2006a).

There is a wealth of literature that looks at incorporating some of these Tagorean capacities and ideas in school curriculum and development of pedagogy, for example, multicultural and international education (Thornton 2005; Samuel 2011); teaching global citizenship and attitudes across all subjects, such as science and humanities (Noddings 2005); integrating conflict resolution in school curriculum (Laurie et al. 2002; Smith and Fairman 2005); purpose and balance in education for a richer, broader, and a moral view of education (Noddings 2010, 2015); teaching religious pluralism (Nash and Bishop 2006); and extensive literature on environmental sustainability, social and cultural diversity, and educating for peace.

This article has argued that any efforts towards creating a socially just social, political, and economic order through policies of distribution, recognition, and representation will not be sufficient on their own in a post-Westphalian world. The challenge in the models of citizenship curriculum that focus on a primary allegiance to the nation-state can perhaps be overcome through citizenship education that embraces the Tagorean philosophy of cosmopolitanism of the ‘thicker’ and more nuanced variety, which seeks to evolve through hermeneutic multiculturalism, going beyond political and national boundaries without sacrificing local and individual identity. The hermeneutic conception of multiculturalism is an ontological understanding of an existential cosmopolitan identity that seeks to destabilize alterity as it negotiates cultural boundaries, and in the process enriches one’s own traditions even though recognizing that there is no final closure of one’s own identity (S. Tagore 2008). Tagore’s belief that Indian and Western values could be synthesized to enrich traditions and cultures of both, underpinned by his strong desire for relational and ecological harmony, is what makes his ideas of cosmopolitanism compelling. In this regard, cosmopolitanism in Tagore’s philosophy of education involves inculcating an attitude in the learner that sought to enrich tradition rather than just tolerate otherness. Enriching tradition necessarily means a constant evolution of attitudes and identities, an ongoing process that recognizes that there is no universal conception of morality, freedom, and autonomy that is devoid of local tradition and culture. In essence, being cosmopolitan is a way of being in the world.

Schools and universities need to build Tagore’s cosmopolitan education principles in the curriculum in order to produce democratic ‘citizens of the world’, who can contribute effectively to democracy as well as respond to global issues requiring interstate co-operation. The imperative for educationists around the world therefore is to condemn ethnocentrism of any kind that impedes a sympathetic understanding of differences between people in educational institutions, and foster a synergetic appreciation of all humanity that is necessary to allow people to overcome their suspicion and hostility of ‘others’. Tagore’s ideas of cosmopolitan education can thus be the vehicle for social justice in a globalized world.

To conclude, Tagore sums it up perfectly in Creative Unity, a collection of some his essays and lectures given abroad:

The first step towards realization is to create opportunities for revealing the different peoples to one another. This can never be done in those fields where the exploiting utilitarian spirit is supreme. We must find some meeting-ground, where there can be no question of conflicting interests. One of such places is the university, where we can work together in a common pursuit of truth, share together our common heritage, and realise that artists in all parts of the world have created forms of beauty, scientists discovered secrets of the universe, philosophers solved the problems of existence, saints made the truth of the spiritual world organic in their own lives, not merely for some particular race to which they belonged, but for all mankind. (Tagore 1922: 172)

Footnotes

References