Concerning Subjectivity and Difference

In considering a world government, one objection is commonly heard: that all the people of the world could not possibly live together in unity; that the multitude of differences amongst us are irreconcilable. Many believe that the world is so divided by all sorts of cleavages, that any ideas of world unity are confined to dreams.

Yet for every cleavage which divides society and alienates people from each other, there can be named perhaps a hundred other differences that people are indifferent to and which do not impede human interaction. Apple and orange lovers seem to have no problem getting along, as do people born in different months or with various hair colours. Thankfully left and right-handers are not engaged in armed conflict, nor are all the zodiac signs living in segregated neighbourhoods. An identity division can be created over just about anything, and it is no less ludicrous for humanity to be alienated by nationality than by birth month or shoe size.

Among all these differences of humanity, the present organization of the world gives particular significance to those based on geographical concentration, endowing them with the privileges of forming political units. But why are these divisions so special; what merits their superiority over non-geographical ones? The only reason seems to be historical: when there was limited connectivity in the past these were the only identities that people associated by. Thus these divisions gained political importance by serving as the binding factor for states. However, in today’s world of global connectivity, mere spatial proximity is not enough to justify why only these groups should have political power. Either every cleavage of humanity should be politically recognized, or none.

Identity divisions do not make people inherently and incompatibly different for each other—a fact well accepted for almost every division in society but the ones that are currently politically polarized. Just as society recognizes that all of these other cleavages just do not matter, it must come to terms with the imaginary and insignificant nature of national identities. To modify a quote by Stephen Roberts: “I just believe in one fewer identity than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible divisions, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Nationalism for its own part has also often endeavoured to suppress differences among sub-national groups. As part of creating a narrative of national unity, nationalists have on many occasions promoted a uniform national culture at the expense of other identity divisions. Yet did this mean that society within nations lost all human character? If this is not seen to be the case, then even the end of nations would not result in erosion of human diversity and individuality.

Those who articulate the homogeneity objection to a world government seem to argue that were national identities to be removed, somehow all the people of the world would start eating the same foods or have the same musical tastes. Those differences in humanity that are real and are worth preserving would automatically be sustained by people even in a world union. And those which are insignificant, such as national identity, will fade away. Let us value the rich and true differences in humanity and allow them to flourish, rather than organize the world by frivolous ones like nationality or zodiac sign and force conformity with them.

If there is any subjectivity in society, it lies at the individual level, because each individual has a different perspective, different situation, and has had different experiences. Identity groups, by aggregating individuals, cancel out most of the variations and as a whole are close to the average of humanity in most regards, leaving nothing to justify demands for subjectivity. If even individual subjectivity is not entertained by society with regard to values and morals, why should it be permissible for groups where the differences are so much smaller in magnitude or even zero? All humans should be subject to universal standards.

Even if any significant differences in traits between groups remained after aggregation, organizing society around these would still not be anywhere near optimal. There are hundreds of traits and values that differ between individuals, and every person holds a unique combination of them. The countries of the world, numbering less than two hundred, or even all identity groups of humanity are too few to possibly represent all the value combinations. It is just not possible to organize the world based on identities such that everyone will get even decent compatibility. In such a case, it is necessary to look beyond group-based world orders.

The need is for an alternative conception of universalism along with individual subjectivity, such that there are universal norms that allow for global society to function and justice to be upheld, while every individual has the space and freedom to decide self-regarding matters based on their own situation. World government does indeed bring an end to the unjustified notion of group subjectivity and differences; but it also liberates the individual from being confined to a narrow set of group systems. Thus a global union should be seen not as stifling diversity in or homogenizing the population, but as enabling the real diversity of humanity to thrive under a set of universal, common principles.