What Is Cosmopolitanism?
Cosmopolitanism refers to the idea of belonging to the entire world and to all humankind, transcending ethnic and national affiliations. It is grounded in the belief that the world is the common homeland of all people.
In this sense, a cosmopolitan individual is free from exclusive material or emotional attachment to a specific nation and, inspired by the belief in the unity of humanity, envisions a global order beyond cultural, political, and social boundaries. The cosmopolitanism in the Bahá’í Faith thus carries a definition and conceptual framework that differs in important ways from how cosmopolitanism is commonly understood in broader philosophical and political discourse.
Is Cosmopolitanism an Original Concept of the Baha’i Leaders?
Despite Baha’i leaders’ claim that the principle of cosmopolitanism originates within Baha’í teachings—particularly under the doctrine of the “unity of humankind”—historical evidence shows otherwise.
The concept is not a Bahá’í innovation. Scholars trace its origins to ancient Greece in the fourth century BCE, where it served as a critique of the city-state model rather than a vision of global human society (Hemati, 2020, p. 390).
Cicero, for instance, argued that human beings were created to participate in the life and destiny of an earthly state (Foster, 2004, p. 384). He viewed loyalty to this “world city” (the human community) as the highest ethical commitment, while also recognizing patriotism as a noble virtue—seeing no conflict between the two (Enayat, 2011, p. 128).
Likewise, Epicureans and Stoics in ancient Greece developed similar cosmopolitan ideas (Shahba & Eskandari, 2021, p. 54).
Centuries later, Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant (d. 1804) employed the notion of cosmopolitanism positively to promote moral solidarity among citizens of sovereign states (Hemati, 2020, p. 390).
It therefore appears that Bahá’í leaders, far from introducing a new doctrine, were influenced by these earlier philosophical traditions. But they have given it the veneer of a religious belief
The Violation of Cosmopolitan Principles in Bahá’í Teachings
Curiously, the same Baha’i writings that promote cosmopolitan ideals also contain ideas that contradict them.
For example, in Risale-ye Madaniyyah (“The Treatise on Civilization”), ‘Abdu’l-Bahá proposes, as a solution to European conflicts, that national borders should be carefully and precisely delineated under international supervision:
“The boundaries of countries must be clearly and accurately defined and placed under the supervision of an international body so that they do not become causes of conflict and strife.”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Risale-ye Madaniyyah, 1984, p. 76)
This emphasis on clearly marked and internationally managed borders is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of cosmopolitanism, which calls for transcending such divisions (Hadian, 2020, p. 137).
‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s proposal, though motivated by a desire for peace, effectively reverses the cosmopolitan ideal. Rather than eliminating borders to affirm global unity, he advocates their meticulous management to prevent war.
Traditional cosmopolitanism, however, seeks to dissolve or disregard national boundaries altogether—not reinforce them through international oversight.
Interestingly, in another speech, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá strongly denounces the idea of borders, calling them imaginary and praising the unity of humanity:
“When I was in Europe, every nation would cry ‘homeland, homeland, homeland.’ I said: My dear friends, what is all this noise about? The homeland you speak of is merely the surface of the earth. The homeland of man is the whole world. Wherever one resides, that is his homeland. God has not divided the earth—it is one globe. These boundaries you have drawn are imaginary; they have no reality. It is as if we were to draw imaginary lines in this room, calling one side Germany, another England or France. Such divisions are illusions with no true existence.”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Khetabat, Vol. 3, p. 39)
From one side, he declares borders “illusory and unreal,” yet from another, he calls for their “precise delineation” under international supervision. These conflicting statements reveal an evident theoretical inconsistency in his teachings, and raise important questions about cosmopolitanism in the Baha’i Faith.
While classical cosmopolitanism (as in Stoic or Kantian thought) calls for the abolition of borders and equality among all humans, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s approach leans toward a regulated form of international governance—closer to a global political order than to genuine cosmopolitanism. In this sense, his perspective resembles a conservative form of globalism rather than a radical cosmopolitan ethic.
Cosmopolitanism or Neo-Colonialism? A Critique of Bahá’í Universalism
Human identity—both individual and collective—depends deeply on cultural and geographical belonging. Such attachments are crucial for psychological stability and personal identity formation. Weakening or denying them can result in identity crises, cultural dislocation, and emotional insecurity.
Cosmopolitanism stripped of cultural roots risks producing a sense of spiritual homelessness, making societies more vulnerable to foreign cultural and political dominance.
Without a divine or theistic foundation, Bahá’í cosmopolitanism may function as a mechanism for cultural homogenization and the erasure of local diversity—a process well recognized in modern cultural imperialism.
The plan for a single world government in the Golden Age ( in the future) is this modern cosmopolitanism, but under the control of the Baha’i faith, led by the nine-member Baha’i Council in Haifa, Israel.
By devaluing national identity and love of homeland, new generations may grow increasingly detached from their history, language, traditions, and heritage—thereby becoming more susceptible to the influence of dominant global cultures.
Furthermore, the Baha’i administrative system—highly centralized and hierarchical—stands in tension with its own doctrine of global equality. Such a structure risks suppressing cultural plurality and replacing genuine coexistence with an imposed uniformity.
When global order is established without a divine and monotheistic foundation, cosmopolitanism can easily become a tool of neo-colonialism. Through such teaching, subordinated nations may gradually lose sensitivity to the exploitation of their homeland.
Hence, Bahá’í cosmopolitanism—under the banner of “the unity of humankind”—can be interpreted as a doctrine serving the interests of modern imperial powers.
Conclusion
Despite its rhetoric of universal unity, Bahá’í cosmopolitanism, in practice, fosters cultural rootlessness and facilitates political domination. Its disregard for national and local identity transforms it into an ideological instrument of neo-colonialism.
Moreover, Baha’i writings reveal deep internal contradictions: on one hand, borders are described as imaginary and meaningless; on the other, their clear delineation and management are advocated.
This duality suggests that Bahá’í cosmopolitanism is not a coherent philosophical doctrine but rather an inconsistent, pragmatic idealism.
Such inconsistencies indicate a dual strategy within Bahá’í policy—professing universal unity at the theoretical level while conforming to existing political realities in practice. A sign of this contradiction is the command of Baha’i leaders to obey any government within all earthly borders.
