Why I prefer Planetary Human to Global Citizen
World or Global Citizen are limited terms, to move things forward consider using Planetary Human instead
Exploring the concept of cosmopolitanism as belonging to the world as a whole, I argue that terms like "world citizen" and "global citizen" fall short, and we need to start using a new one - Planetary Human - as more realistic and appropriate.
The idea is old
In the texts that have come down to us, Diogenes of Sinope is the first to be mentioned as a self-proclaimed cosmopolitan.
Considering that such people as Albert Einstein, Thomas Paine, Hugh J. Schonfield, Yuan T. Lee, Virginia Wolf, Mark Twain, Francis Bacon, Montesquieu, Paramashansa Yogananda and other thinkers called themselves citizens of the world, it seems that this feeling of global citizenship is a natural consequence of broad thinking.
As soon as a person takes her eyes off the puddles under her feet and looks at the stars, she remembers that she is part of a larger universe.
Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Steeven Hawking
Today, there are a number of ways to denote this phenomenon:
- Cosmopolitan,
- World citizen,
- Global citizen,
- Planetizen.
Yet, I believe we need to adopt a not-so-new-yet-less-used term, as you might have guessed, a Planetary Human. Here is why.
Words matter
The military says "engage" instead of "kill". The government calls "censorship" "political correctness". The financiers constantly talk about "negative growth" instead of "decline". Oh, and they also like to say that "the currency pair has a mixed dynamic", which in human language simply means "we have no idea what's going on".
They all do this for a reason! Words shape how we perceive the ideas. Or how
puts it: “Words are magic”. We should never underestimate the power of words and choose them wisely to convey our ideas, because - words matter.Same, same, but different
World Citizen, Global Citizen, Cosmopolitan, Planetizen (Planetary + Citizen) - they all are "same, same, but different".
For the past 10 years I've been working in communications consulting, so as long as I see 4 categories, I naturally tend to put them into a two-by-two quadrant.
In this quadrant above you can see emotionally charged and emotionally neutral terms, and there are holistic and human-centered terms to define cosmopolitanism. Let's look at them one by one.
Cosmopolitan
Literally from Greek, this translates to "citizen of the cosmos." Cosmos, in turn, is essentially the Universe, or all that exists. Thus Cosmopolitan stands for a Universe Citizen.
It's a holistic term that includes a wider perspective, yet it is emotionally charged due to its assoсiation with the same name magazine, TV Channel and Cosmopolitan cocktail, also known as a "Cosmo".
Glossy magazines and alcoholic cocktails are perhaps not the best associations if we are talking about raising a new generation of people.
World Citizen
Keeping Greek in mind, "World" in "World Citizen" could be back-translated as "Oecumene" or "The known world". That is the men's world, that takes into account human race and disregards other species. If cosmopolitan is a citizen of all universe, World Citizen is a Citizen of Anthroposphere, making the term neutral, yet too narrow and human-centered.
On 19 November 1948 Garry Davis interrupted a session of the UN General Assembly to claim that for peace we need a world government, and that the sovereign states lead the world "to the abyss of total war."
In 1953 he founded World Service Authority. This organization claims that to date it has issued “close to 5,000,000 World Passports, World Citizen Cards, IDs, and birth certificates. Over 185 countries have recognized the passport on a de facto basis”.
I understand this “on de facto basis” as “there is a chance”. Wikipedia describes this passport as “fun tourist documents”. So, if you decide to cross the border, you can try your luck with it, but in most cases you will still need your good old national passport.
Apparently, it’s not just me who doesn’t like the term, and activists of the new era, not wanting to be associated with the activities of Garry Davis, chose a different word for themselves: Global.
Global Citizen
According to Google Trends, this is the most popular term for cosmopolitanism at the moment. Mostly because of the impactful activities of the Global Citizen organization, formerly the Global Poverty Project. They organize music festivals, attract celebrities, and raise hundreds of millions of dollars to implement their projects, the goal of which is to eradicate extreme poverty.
What they do is apparently good. I would definitely like to contribute to their cause in one way or another. Yet, this word "global" always makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Generally, there is nothing wrong with the word "global" or "globalization", except for it might slightly remind somebody about another "-zation", like, for instance, colonization.
The Global South represents 85% of the world, and whenever somebody says "global" or "globalization", they might hear "westernization'. Not too many UK citizens know that Great Britain invaded Iran in the Second World War along with the Soviets. But you can be fairly sure a way more Iranians do know and remember.
So, global does not look that innocent as it might seem at the first sight. Neither colonization, nor westernization look like an inviting future for the majority of the planet's population.
Planetary + Citizen = Planetizen
This is a relatively rarely used term, made up of "Planetary" and "Citizen".
Before I tell you why I advocate for the term "Planetary," let me explain why I don't like to see the word "Citizen" used with "World", "Global," or "Planetary" at all.
Citizen is a legal status that divides humans into citizens and non-citizens. Since the time of ancient Athens or probably even before, citizens had rights and duties, but non-citizens were second or third class people. Many countries still have this status in their legal systems today.
As a legal status it could be given or taken away by an authority. This creates conditions for the formation of a certain planetary elite and local servants. If we look reality in the eye, then such an unfair division already exists and it is not healthy at all, so why use terms that will only reinforce and strengthen it?
For the status of a citizen to be valid not only in words or on paper, it requires a fully functioning legal system. And according to the Corruption Perceptions Index, we are a rather lawless civilization, with laws being fully observed in literally a dozen countries.
Moreover, bees, fungi, coral reefs or rainforests cannot become citizens, so the term is extremely human-centered and leaves behind all the diversity of the planetary ecosystem. I suggest that when talking about cosmopolitanism, we abandon the word Citizen and use Human instead.
At last, a Planetary Human
Cosmopolitan is somewhere between Diogenes and pop culture, World and/or Global Citizen sound too biased and human-centric, while Planetary Human reminds us of all the right things.
I prefer "Human" to "Citizen", because we are all humans by birth. It is something that cannot be taken from us. I'm human, period. I don't need to prove it (besides annoying captcha encounters).
"Planetary" - remember, words matter - implies everything that exists on the planet in its entirety, and "Human" is associated with good words, such as:
Humanism;
Humanitarian;
Humane.
Imagine if the most important international - another word that writes off fungi and bees - organizations where called Planetary. I know it sounds a bit astrophysical, but that's the point! Notice how the perception of the term changes when we use "Planetary":
Not World Bank, but Planetary Bank;
Not International Monetary Fund, but Planet Monetary Fund;
Not Global Forum, but Planetary Forum.
Will such title change what these organizations do? I don't know. May be yes, may be not really. What it will change is the perspective on how we see ourselves: not only as citizens, but as humans in the first place, a race that is highly adaptable, yet extremely dependent on its environment.
By the way, by no means, I invented the term! Richard Henry Whitehurst has been spreading the word about Planetary Human since 2017, and on his website he credits Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as the one who coined the term. There is also a manga of the same name written by Jo Seok (Seok Cho), but that's a completely different story.
The term Planetary Human has not been popular until now precisely because it seems that we have completely forgotten our planet, and some of us have even forgotten that they are human. This term is pure, scientific and allows you to look at yourself from a realistic perspective. And that is why I prefer Planetary to Global or World or whatever.
We are humans. We inhabit this planet. We are part of a closed ecosystem whose resources are not unlimited. As Planetary Humans we must take care of the place we live if we are not to become extinct.
Book of the month: “The Next 100 Years” by Pavel Luksha
While I was reading "The Next 100 years" by Pavel Luksha, I kept wondering:
Thanks for sharing these, Gleb. I agree with the preference of terminology. Hope you're well. And congrats on the new substack!