I am not a citizen of the UK or the EU but of the Cosmos!
—Socrates (a slight misquotation )
In 2016 the United Kingdom was offered a choice between leaving or remaining in the “Ever Closer Union” of the EU. At the time, many saw it as a debate between petty nationalism and cosmopolitanism. I chose to vote Leave. This post is about how I square that with my Cosmopolitanism and my favourite ancient philosophers — the Stoics.
Like many Leavers, I have an itinerary of complaints against the EU: its structural democratic deficit, its anti-democratic actions and attitudes of its leaders, and its wasteful policies on fishing, agriculture and trade that destroy the environment, hurt poorer nations and still manages to inflate the cost of food and essential goods like clothing and sanitary products for poor families in Europe. Ardent Remainers think these complaints are myths, and can list all the wonderful benefits that only the EU could possibly bring for Britain.
But most of us agree that deep down people voted on this issue on the basis of feelings more than they voted on the basis of facts. I didn’t believe most of the claims made by the Leave campaign and Remain friends I know didn’t believe most of the claims made by the Remain campaign. For Remainers, the EU inspires the feeling of being a small part of something big. It represents an ideal of political unity– and diverse peoples working together on something bigger than ourselves. For Leavers, the EU inspires the same feeling — the feeling of being a small part of something big — too big. It gives us the feeling of shrinking.
How should Stoic philosophers feel about ever closer union? It’s this point that I want to examine because I think it is applicable almost wherever you are: Alberta, California, Catalonia, Kurdistan, Scotland or Hong Kong. Should stoics care, in general, whether humanity is more or less politically united?
At first, it may seem obvious that Stoics should want the world to be more politically unified. Zeno’s political theory expressed in his lost work “The Republic” was based on the idea that
“household arrangements should not be based on cities or parishes, each one marked out by its own legal system, but we should regard all men as our fellow-citizens and local residents, and there should be one way of life and order, like that of a herd grazing together and nurtured by a common law”
—Zeno, Republic
Stoics believe that we are citizens of the cosmos, not the particular place of our birth. Why ought there be one human law here and another human law there when by nature there is one law for the whole cosmos?
On the contrary, I argue Stoics should be absolutely indifferent to the ‘size’ or ‘population’ of the community governed by a given set of human laws. It is to the character of the cosmos that we should seek our states to be aligned, not its extent. You should, therefore, hope that your political community is structured in a way which works with, and not against nature – particularly human rational social nature. If that means choosing to to break free of a larger political union so be it. In fact, I think that aligning human government to nature does often mean that we should support separation, independence and self-determination over large scale political unions, power-sharing and sovereignty pooling.
The Cosmopolis is Here in your Midst
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
—Luke 17:20-21
The primary reason why we should not seek to establish a single human law for the whole cosmos is simply that we are too late. According to Stoic cosmopolitanism, the law is universal across both space AND time. Cicero puts it this way:
“There will not be a different law at Rome and at Athens, or a different law now and in the future, but one law, everlasting and immutable, will hold good for all peoples and at all times.”
—Cicero, Republic 3.33
For Stoics, the cosmos is already a well-managed city and its law is reason or Logos. Therefore Stoic Cosmopolitanism doesn’t prescribe the creation of a Utopian future state- but rather it is a description of the fundamental reality which is true now. Right now though there seem to be many laws each exercising authority in different nations — this is not fundamentally true. Really humans are judged only by reason – and human laws exercise authority only insofar as they are instructive to human reason.
During the EU referendum we often heard people declare that they wanted to vote Remain because they “felt European”. After all, they enjoyed European cities, wine, coffee, fashion and food and most importantly friends — who would want to vote against that! I don’t particularly think this was a worse line of reasoning than their counterparts who “felt British.” However it was a strange argument to me. As an English Canadian, I had always thought of myself as being European (after all, I’m not Algonquin) without having any kind of real awareness of or affinity to the EU as a political body. Now that I’ve moved to Europe, I feel North American, but the last thing I want is for my country of birth to become the 51st state of a United States of North America. Similarly, as a Cosmopolitan, I don’t need a global political union to enforce the power of reason or Logos over the whole human race.
Just a larger Anthropolis
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
The converse is also true– which is why Zeno argues that all vicious men are ‘enemies and alienated from each other.’ Simply pledging allegiance to the same human country doesn’t actually unite us – it only appears to. If underneath we still are seeking to plunder each other, then our laws are simply a facade behind which we hide our inner anarchy. Thus Zeno gives us reason to think that global federalism isn’t just undesirable — it’s impossible. When vicious people unite, they do not establish a state of law and governance but disorder and war. As Augustine, a Christian strongly influenced by Stoicism argues
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince; it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.
—Augustine of Hippo, City of God 4.4
Simply extending a bad state over a larger population doesn’t bring people together. By contrast, reforming the state to make it more just does bring its people together. Aristotle, who shares much of the stoic worldview writes in Politics 7.4.
Most persons think that a state in order to be happy ought to be large; but even if they are right, they have no idea what is a large and what a small state. For they judge the size of the city by the number of the inhabitants; whereas they ought to regard, not their number, but their power.
—Aristotle, Politics 7.4
Aristotle goes on to state that a city of mostly slaves or non-citizens would not be as powerful as a city where everyone was a citizen and free. A citizen for Aristotle is someone who governs and is governed. A great state doesn’t possess a great number of people deprived of political agency or personal rights and liberty “for a great city is not to be confounded with a populous one.” In the corporate world we make a distinction today between management and leadership. For the Greeks leadership is the art of politics and management is the art of households. In the same manner, many of the Asiatic empires, Aristotle didn’t even consider to be polei at all: they were ‘large households’ with no citizens but many slaves. If the bonds of unity are coerced by law and not inspired by leadership the unity is unnatural.
Returning to my decision to vote Leave, although I find it compelling that the British should work with other nations on important issues like trade fisheries and the environment, it is more important to me that I’m governed by a just law than that it is the same law that governs other people in Europe. Reluctant Remainers accept that the EU has an unjust constitution and creates great injustice in the world. However they ask, “why should we lose our influence over the EU by leaving it? While we are in the EU we have a vote: once we leave we don’t.”
It is true that the EU constitution gives member states political power to influence EU decisions. It isn’t what Leavers would like it to be, but it is something and we lose that something by leaving. However, the power we lose is political in nature—and not, I believe, the power of reason. In other words, as members the UK can forcibly stop the EU from doing certain damaging things. However, this kind of influence is not to me as valuable as the rational influence we will retain however the map is drawn. Consider the influence that trials (both failed) in Finland and Canada are having on the problem of unemployment and poverty. Consider the influence the UK’s own universal credit system is having (the Finish are going to trial that system next). Consider that the Netherlands has influenced many parts of the world by giving us reason to think that substance legalisation is a viable policy. Once we Leave the EU, we could likewise set an example to the EU of trade, agriculture and fisheries policies. If we choose good policies that are beneficial to us and our world, then we will give the EU reason to join us. The power of reason is not in the gift of the EU constitution, but to my mind, it is the powers gifted by any human constitution.
Centralist vs Decentralist Cosmopolitanism
The City State © 2019 AP World History 101
You might accept that global application does not make the law just, and that a small just rule is preferable to a cosmic unjust rule and still yet wonder: “Isn’t it still better that just human laws apply globally?” It’s clearly true that it’s better that just laws apply everywhere; but from that, it doesn’t follow that the same just laws apply everywhere.
Reason itself is situation sensitive. It is primarily the cause of individual human activities, but it can through dialogue be the cause of collective human activities. Historically these dialogues have started small and worked their way up. What we have are two contrasting visions of global justice. The centralized cosmopolitan thinks that because there is one natural law for human action, there should be one just government over the whole world. The decentralized cosmopolitan thinks that nature lends itself to many thousands of small just nations across the whole world each with their own local application of common law. The question therefore is: “Isn’t the one just and global rule more just than the many just rules which apply locally?” I think not. In fact, I think that social justice demands that politics is local.
An Augustinian Genealogical Argument for Decentralised Cosmopolitanism
Let [Pagan Romans] ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good men to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of those with whom just wars are carried on favours the growth of a kingdom, which would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of neighbours had not by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and human affairs being thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been small, rejoicing in neighbourly concord; and thus there would have been very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very many houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity. But because it would be worse that the injurious should rule over those who are more righteous, therefore even that is not unsuitably called felicity. But beyond doubt it is greater felicity to have a good neighbour at peace, than to conquer a bad one by making war.
—Augustine of Hippo, City of God 4.15
Ever closer union is a fairly modern the trend. Albeit, in the last 100 years, there have been about 62 new countries formed – these can mostly be attributed to the Soviet and British empires splitting into their colonial units. However the era of European colonialism was itself an era of centralisation as modern Canada has 634 first nations not counting the first nations that were completely lost. European countries are also concoctions of smaller independent states. Germany, for instance, is an amalgamation of a few hundred states. For most of human history decentralisation has been the norm.
We may never know, however it seems reasonable to think as Augustine does, that it was due to war that we banded together into large states. We banded together to wage war, to defend ourselves from conquest or after being conquered we were grouped together by our conquerors into colonies which are merely mechanisms for a small group of conquerors to manage large subjected populations. Given that war, and subjection exist because people fail to reason—it follows that it is our failure in the art of politics not our success which has led to the political unification we see today.
We can make the a similar argument without the risk of a potential genealogical fallacy. Today economists have identified two main advantages to living in a large state: large states have bigger armies and larger internal markets. Both of these facts mean that large states can be more resilient against war, either open war or trade wars. If we are to be Utopian and work towards a cosmopolitan ideal, surely we should aspire to a world in which these two factors don’t matter?
An Aristotelian Argument for Small Countries
Aristotle gives several arguments to the effect that a just city will necessarily be limited in size. From an Aristotelian perspective the state exists as an extension of natural phenomena—human rational cooperation. Politics is an art which perfects nature. By nature, humans reason together and cooperate, but by the art of politics we exercise our social rational powers cooperatively to our highest ability. However, if the state becomes too big, it actually gets in the way of the very social rationality which is its basis and true nature:
“For law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly: to introduce order into the unlimited is the work of a divine power- of such a power as holds together the universe. Beauty [Glory] is realised in number and magnitude, and the state which combines magnitude with good order must necessarily be the most beautiful [glorious]. To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements; for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. For example, a ship which is only a span long will not be a ship at all, nor a ship a quarter of a mile long; yet there may be a ship of a certain size, either too large or too small, which will still be a ship, but bad for sailing. In like manner a state when composed of too few is not, as a state ought to be, self-sufficing; when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, as a nation may be, it is not a state, being almost incapable of constitutional government. For who can be the general of such a vast multitude, or who the herald, unless he have the voice of a Stentor?”
—Aristotle, Politics 7
Aristotle ends his argument with two rhetorical questions which seem quite naive today. I suppose Aristotle never would have thought we’d replace the local town crier with a multi-billion pound news media industry. But on second thought, how is that going for us? Is the news industry industry fostering rational deliberation on a societal level? Or is it not true today as Aristotle says:
“Experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if ever, be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population.”
Aristotle points to two ways in which an over-sized state breaks down: the governors lose touch with the people they govern, and the people being governed lose touch with each other: “For both governors and governed have duties to perform; the special functions of a governor to command and to judge. But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters”
The breakdown is a two-way breakdown of representation—if the state is too large the governors cannot possibly represent a population they cannot possibly have taken the time to understand. Conversely an individual in a large state is so crowded out by her fellow citizens she cannot possibly make her voice heard—even by electing a representative that will defend her interests. I can definitely see both sides of the breakdown occurring today.
A Republic too large is no Republic at all.
As I write, this the UK parliament is voting down the two year process of striking a withdrawal agreement with the EU. The Prime Minister has throughout the whole negotiation process tried her hardest to represent all of the 72 million people who make up the country that she governed: Leavers and Remainers alike. Arguably that’s just where she went wrong. The “nay” lobby is full of people from both sides of the house. Remainers think that she has recklessly charted a course towards a ‘hard brexit’. Leavers think that she has treacherously betrayed the referendum result with a ‘soft brexit’. There simply was never going to be a deal that 72 million people were going to like.
If Westminster had granted sovereignty to the Scottish in 2014, the 2016 referendum result would have been more decisive and there might have been an easier chance at attaining majority support for a specific outcome in parliament. But it seems that the UK is just too large and too diverse to have a consensus on this issue. This is not a specific issue to the UK. France is facing mass riots, Belgium and Germany respectively failed to form governments for months. Could it be that western democracies are simply too large and too diverse to actually function democratically anymore? It’s arguable that even the United States is too big. The great republic has not had a government for many weeks. Coping with change requires decisive action. Decisiveness requires a clear mandate. So while these populous democracies flounder politically, they flounder economically too. It has not escaped the notice of contemporary economists that small democracies have significant advantages over large democracies and that the advantages large countries have are becoming less relevant in a world where trade barriers are low. They seem to be better governed and more entrepreneurial than comparable larger countries. Could Aristotle have been on to something?
There is an alternative to being an overly populous democracy of course: that is being a populous non-democracy. This is I think is the route taken by the EU, Russia, China and India. The advantage is that government can get things done. One of the key issues the 72 million people of the UK cannot agree upon is whether complex policies such as trade among numerous other things can sensibly said to have the rational consent of the 512 million people of the EU. To be sure, the Europeans fear a revision to a time when Europe was at war – and they like the idea of a Europe of peace and prosperity. Who wouldn’t? But when it comes to the details of who should make what decision and whose money should go where — the unanimity begins to unravel. Nevertheless the EU presses onwards towards it’s own goals.
This is why most Europeans consistently feel that Europe is headed in the wrong direction. While only the Czech republic would up and go today, a sizeable minority in other countries (40% in Finland and Italy and 46% in Greece want to leave (here and here). Do to its size and democratic headwinds, it’s a fundamental that EU doesn’t really even try to rule by consent of the governed. While the European parliament can apply brakes and tweak the course of action, the overall direction and agenda of the EU is set by the un-elected commission. When democratic opposition comes, the commission plows on. For example, the Greeks voted against their EU brokered bail out– they were forced to take it anyway. The Italians formed a government with a eurosceptic finance minister—and he was gone: replaced by an EU love-in. As president Junker puts it (in this case in relation to a French referendum) ““If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it’s a No we will say ‘we continue’”. Even if there is an appearance of democracy in this hoard of 512 million people: is it representative democracy? When he says that a republic which is grows in excess of it’s nature ceases to be a republic at all, could Aristotle be on to something?
A Democracy in which the citizen cannot be heard is not a Democracy
To be heard in today’s constant news cycle, you certainly must have the voice of Stentor. No wonder we judge others without listening to their views. The task of engaging with millions people rationally is just beyond the scope of human powers. It’s literally impossible for the human brain to comprehend the rational of the 17.5 million people who voted for Brexit. So the news cycle caters to our monkey brain and feeds us a generalisation: Brexiteers are left behind, uneducated, racist, nationalist and gullible souls who “didn’t know what they were voting for” and whose main concern in the referendum was “how can I make life hard for immigrants” or “how can I bring back the British empire?” Similarly, I needn’t dialogue with the 14 million people who voted against me, the news media will portray them all to me as macchiato drinking university educated elites whose main concern will be “Who will serve me avocado toast?” or “Will I have to pay roaming charges in Ibiza?” No wonder the country is polarised. There are not enough categories for the human brain to rationally engage with all the real people that we are forced to cooperate with and so we must generalise them before we’ve even heard their voices.
Individuals therefore moulded into manageable categories: republican, democrat, Liberal, conservative—which are basically meaningless affronts to the diversity of human interests and thought. If the citizens cease to have a voice, and what we hear in parliament are a cacophony of wear chants from competing tribes is democracy over. Could Aristotle be on to something?
Conclusion
Reason is found in humanity in the form of rational individuals, and rational cooperation is mediated in humans by dialogue. Perhaps justice demands that we speak to each other—and given the finitude of human nature, that demand can only be met in groups of a limited size. If we wish to govern and be governed in a manner that works with our limited nature and not against it, we will be satisfied with small just nations where people have a voice – rather than large ones where people cannot be heard.
In a conversation with a colleague he tells me “a real brexit won’t happen”. He tells me that this issue is like a three way tug of war. One of three strings must break: the constitutional integrity of the European Union or that of United Kingdom or the will of the people expressed in the referendum. “What strand do you think will break first?” he asks rhetorically. I for one would be willing to sacrifice either union, both or every union under the sun to honour the sovereignty of people to determine… and then accept their own fate.
Editor’s note: this post was originally published on the author’s blog on 09 February, 2019.
