MARIUS SMETONA

Vilnius University, Institute of Applied Linguistics, Department of Lithuanian Language

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/ 0000-0003-2816-5504

RESEARCH AREAS: rhetoric, ethnolinguistics, Baltic mythology, folk culture, genealogy, early writings, cultural linguistics.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/bkalba.2024.97.03

COSMOPOLITANISM IN THE WORLDVIEW OF THE CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIAN

KEYWORDS: cosmopolitanism, cosmopolitan, patriot, homeland, culture, solidarity, value.

ABSTRACT

Following the methodology of the Lublin School of Ethnolinguistics, this article examines how Lithuanians understand the concept of cosmopolitanism. The study draws on Lithuanian lexicographic data, material from various texts, and the results of a survey of young people. It aims to identify what Lithuanians think when they use the lexeme cosmopolitanism in speech or writing, and what new shades of meaning emerge in context. Based on data from all three levels, the synthetic analysis presents a cognitive definition of the concept.

ABSTRACT

Following the methodology of the Lublin School of Ethnolinguistics, the article examines how Lithuanians understand the term cosmopolitanism. The study is based on Lithuanian lexicographic data, material from various texts, and the results of a young people’s survey. The aim is to identify what Lithuanians mean when they use the lexeme cosmopolitanism in their speech and writing, and what new shades of meaning emerge in context. Based on the data from all three levels, the synthetic analysis provides a cognitive definition of the term.

INTRODUCTION

This article was prepared as part of the project funded by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, “Concepts DEMOCRACY, PATRIOTISM, TOLE-

54

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

TOLERANCE and Their Antonyms and Synonyms” material. The decision to write about the concept of cosmopolitanism was prompted by students’ answers gathered while preparing a description of the concept of PATRIO-TISM. In response to the question What is patriotism to you?, students also listed what they considered antonyms of patriotism: chauvinism; personal gain at the expense of the state; hatred of the homeland; treason; contempt for the Homeland; anti-state activity; denigration of it; lack of love for oneself and one’s country; conformism; cosmopolitanism; globality (globalism).

Of all the antonyms, cosmopolitanism was mentioned most often, so it was decided to treat it as the principal one. It is worth noting, however, that some concepts that seemed to students to be contrary to patriotism are also related to cosmopolitanism, for example, globalism, and so this concept will also be briefly reviewed.

Cosmopolitanism is the view that, despite all social, economic, cultural, and political differences, people are members of the same global society. It encompasses a prospective development of sociality in which not only local cultural orientations but also alternative ways of thinking and acting are always preserved. The principles of cosmopolitanism enable and encourage the development of communal principles concerning cultural heritage, individual principles concerning personal freedom, and democratic principles for legitimising the public sphere; cosmopolitanism thus manifests itself as an orientation toward dialogic culture. The idea of cosmopolitanism should be distinguished from the so-called global civil society as a specific political, legal, and public-administration idea. The cosmopolitan sphere of public life encompasses the development of unrestricted communicative relations. Cosmopolitans believe that the commonality of human nature is far more important than differences in social and political life. One of the foundations of cosmopolitan thought is human rights; respect for them is regarded as a universal matter binding upon the whole world. Cosmopolitans aspire to a socially, culturally, and politically unified society encompassing the entire world. They reflect on a world nation, world law, a world state, a world parliament, world citizenship, cosmopolitan democracy, or cosmopolitan patriotism. Proponents of this tradition of cultural and political thought tend to downplay the significance of national, religious, and communal obligations (PMEŽ 2007: 69; VLE_e).

The roots of cosmopolitanism go back to Antiquity. As stated in the online Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia, according to the Cynic and Stoic schools of Antiquity, cosmopolitanism is universal love for humanity. The Stoics believed that one must not detach oneself from one’s place of origin; one should consider how to make the world better through one’s choices and decisions, made without exceeding the bounds of civil rights. They did not encourage political passivity but urged people to think about

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvių pasaulėvaizdyje

55

the community as something more than merely a polis. In this context, the most important civic orientation was an equal attitude toward fellow citizens, citizens of other poleis, and non-citizens (Niersmans, Capanova 2016: 65). “Dissatisfaction with the political and the idea of cosmopolitanism matured in Greek minds throughout the fifth century BC, but only the Cynics managed to present it in a clearly articulated form” (Kazlauskas 2021: 92). Cosmopolitanism and monarchy were the two ideas that most occupied the Cynics. And “the great aim of the Stoics was to unite the world on the basis of common law, adopting the highest position among its unifiers. They were interested in an ideal unity that encompassed and contained within itself real diversity. Consistently adhering to the principle of the priority of the whole over the part, the Stoics asserted that the fate of an individual means nothing when compared with the fate of the oikoumene, just as the human soul is insignificant when compared with the soul of the cosmos” (ibid., 104).

“The Sophists, who formulated the idea of pan-Hellenism, calling for union in a society broader than the conventional city-state, encountered resistance from Greeks loyal to the polis. The idea of a broader, so-called national cosmos was foreign to citizens of Greek cities, but the city—as a place where diverse inhabitants coexisted—took shape as the origin of cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is associated with Aristotle’s idea of the gradual expansion of bonds of human friendship. This idea was developed consistently by I. Kant, who formulated the concept of a perfect civil union and sought to model it on a universal plan of nature” (https://www.vle.lt/straipsnis/kosmopolitizmas/). “The common East–West oikoumene created by Alexander the Great dismantled the political boundaries of the Greek world, establishing the idea of a cosmopolis encompassing all humanity” (Kazlauskas 2021: 71).

For a long time after the Enlightenment, cosmopolitanism was associated with elites, intellectuals, and exiles who, because of certain political convictions and circumstances as well as philosophical views, were regarded as citizens of the world rather than of any particular place.

Today’s philosophers discuss the concept under study at the mental level; more precisely, they are more interested in the cosmopolis itself—the great and the small. Arvydas Šliogeris, for instance, argues that “On the broken—that is, always and everywhere individualized—horizon line, two fundamental components of the cosmopolis meet and part: the cup of the visible Sky and the cup of the visible Earth; and the Sky is the father of all individuals of the cosmopolis, and the Earth is the mother of all individuals of the cosmopolis; and both cups of the cosmopolis are the nest, home, and birthplace of all mortals and immortals, and no individual can depart from the homeland in such a way that they do not return to it—”

56

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

might return, and no mortal or immortal can—without punishment—cut the roots that bind him to the origins of the cosmopolis; only the fools of globalism or idealism may think that the Erinyes sleep an eternal sleep and do not see those who say, “we shall leave and never return, because our true homeland is where our Golden Cow is milked” (Šliogeris 2011: 280).

Sociologists and anthropologists actively participating in discussions and research on the concept of cosmopolitanism propose distinguishing cosmopolitanism as a moral or political outlook and normative-philosophical conviction from empirical-analytical cosmopolitanism. It is argued that the old idea of cosmopolitanism must be renewed by linking it to concrete social realities, and that sociology should replace philosophy as a way of understanding cosmopolitanism (Kuznec ovienė 2013: 172–173). Gerard Delanty defines the concept of cosmopolitanism by distinguishing three types: moral, political, and cultural. Moral cosmopolitanism is based on a universal cosmopolitan ethic. At the heart of cosmopolitan ethics is an individual loyal to the universal community of humanity. Conceptions of political cosmopolitanism are divided into “strong” and “weak.” The former link cosmopolitanism to a new political order and transnational democracy, emerging and taking shape in recent decades, which transcends the boundaries of the nation-state. The axis of “weak” conceptions is cosmopolitan citizenship, which arises as clear boundaries between international and national human rights disappear, and the recognition that the rights to participate in a political community should be defined on the basis of residence rather than origin or birth. Cultural cosmopolitanism takes shape and manifests itself through numerous ways in which national and local structures change as a consequence of their interaction with global processes (Delanty 2006: 28).

Cosmopolitanism is related to globalization, which is why students also mentioned it as the antonym of patriotism. Globalization defines the external relations of various collective formations, while cosmopolitanism concerns changes in social and political self-awareness. Both concepts reflect changes in everyday experience and identity, conveying the dialectic of ties between the distant and the near. Globalization is the intensification and expansion of connections between people and societies, primarily economic ones, as a result of which mutual interdependence increases rapidly, the significance of states and their borders diminishes, and the world becomes increasingly integrated. Although it involves more specifically the movement of goods, capital, people, information, and technology between the world’s states, it affects various spheres of life. According to critics of globalization, strengthening ties between the countries of the world negatively affects the culture of each—

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvių pasaulėvaizdyje 57

—country, encouraging the disappearance of traditional differences, convergence, standardization, or the dominance in other countries of the popular culture of the world’s leading state—the United States of America. The theoretical insights reviewed here convey political scientists’, philosophers’, and sociologists’ views of cosmopolitanism as a phenomenon, while this article aims, following the methodology of the Lublin School of Ethnolinguistics¹, to offer a linguistic perspective: how linguistic facts show what the concept of cosmopolitanism means to Lithuanians, and what nuances it acquires. This makes the article a novel contribution to linguistic research and complements the insights of specialists in other fields. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are set: 1) to investigate what knowledge about the concept under study is provided by Lithuanian lexicographic sources; 2) to discuss the results of a student survey and determine what young people associate with this concept; 3) to discuss the meaning and nuances of the concept on the basis of data from various texts; 4) to define the concept’s cognitive definition. The study employs the cognitive-definition method as understood by the founders of the Lublin School of Ethnolinguistics. According to the methodology, a concept’s description consists of three parts: systematic data, a survey, and various texts (S–A–T); accordingly, the article comprises three main sections: “Cosmopolitanism in Lithuanian lexicography,” “Young people’s views on cosmopolitanism,” and “Cosmopolitanism in media texts.” The conclusion presents a cognitive definition of cosmopolitanism. The methods of collecting and selecting material are presented at the beginning of each section. The study may be of interest to sociologists, philosophers, and linguists, as well as political scientists and the public at large interested in how a nation’s worldview is encoded in language (in its grammatical and lexical systems and in various texts)—a factor that consolidates a community (familial, local, regional, or national) and determines its identity.

1. COSMOPOLITANISM IN LITHUANIAN LEXICOGRAPHY

For this section of the study, material was collected from the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian,” “Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian,” available in the E.kalba system, and the printed “Dictionary of International Words” (2013). In the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” (LKŽₑ), cosmopolitanism is defined as ‘an anti-patriotic type of ideology that recognizes the whole world as its homeland, rejec-

¹ The Lublin ethnolinguistic methodology is presented in detail in the monographs “Values in the Lithuanian Worldview” (2017) and “Language. Nation. State” (2019).

58

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

—ing national patriotic traditions and national culture.’ Since the LKŽ_e is a completed source for Lithuanian lexicon from the 16th to the 20th centuries, it is no longer supplemented or updated with new linguistic facts; two Soviet-era examples are therefore given alongside the lexical meaning: One of the remnants of bourgeois ideology is cosmopolitanism (Sov.) press. International reaction opposes cosmopolitanism to proletarian internationalism (Sov.) press. Thus, the meaning is politicized, reflecting the Soviet view of realities in other countries at the time: anything absent from the Soviet system is called a bourgeois remnant, an ideology incompatible with proletarian internationalism. It is clear that this contributes nothing to the study of contemporary understandings.

The “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” (DLKŽ_8e) gives essentially the same explanation of the meaning: ‘an ideology opposed to patriotism, proclaiming the whole world to be one’s homeland and rejecting national traditions and national culture.’

In the “Dictionary of International Words” (TŽŽ), the lexical meaning of the word under analysis is ‘a social and political outlook and ideology asserting that the whole world is a person’s homeland; disregard for and disparagement of one’s own and other nations’ traditions, culture, and vital interests.’ In this dictionary, the lexeme cosmopolitanism refers the reader to the lexeme cosmopolitan. The word’s origin is explained here—[Greek kosmopolitēs – citizen of the world]—and the definition adds, alongside what is said about cosmopolitanism, that it is a person who lacks patriotism.

The “Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian” (BLKŽ) follows the description of the meaning given in the LKŽ_e and DLKŽ_8e—‘an ideology opposed to patriotism, proclaiming the whole world to be one’s homeland and rejecting national traditions and national culture’—and gives two examples: Cosmopolitanism is related to globalization. To replace national values with cosmopolitanism.

The lexeme cosmopolitanism is derived from cosmopolitan. The meaning of the latter is described in the LKŽ_e as ‘a person who lacks a sense of patriotism, is detached from the interests of their homeland, is alien to their nation, and looks with contempt on its culture.’ This definition correlates with that of the derivative, but here the emphasis is on disparaging one’s own culture and nation. The DLKŽ_8e gives a somewhat different definition: ‘a person who lacks patriotism, is detached from the interests of their homeland and nation, and is an adherent of cosmopolitanism.’ Thus, the emphasis is not only on the absence of patriotism but also on adherence to an ideology.

The meanings given in the LKŽ_e, DLKŽ_8e, and BLKŽ show that cosmopolitanism rejects everything associated with patriotism: traditions and national culture. The TŽŽ explanation further reveals that a cosmopolitan disparages not only their own, but also other

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvių pasaulėvaizdyje

59

the traditions, culture, and vital interests of nations. The examples in BLKŽ correlate with the antonyms provided by students and those described in the introduction: cosmopolitanism is associated with globalization and is the antithesis of national values.

2. YOUNG PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES TOWARD COSMOPOLITANISM

As noted in the introduction, when answering the question What is patriotism to me?, students identified cosmopolitanism as one of its antonyms. Although no evaluations of cosmopolitanism were provided at the time, an examination of Lithuanian lexicographic sources suggests that the concept is assigned a negative meaning, since patriotism is most often evaluated positively in both student and media texts, and people wish to cultivate and teach it. It is therefore interesting to see how students evaluate the concept of cosmopolitanism when, following the methodology, they are asked a single question: What is cosmopolitanism to me? For this purpose, a survey of first- and second-year Lithuanian students at Vilnius University was conducted in March–April 2023. It included 104 students from the faculties of Philology, Philosophy, History, Communication, Medicine, Mathematics, Physics, Law, and Natural Sciences. After the collected material was processed according to the methodology of the Lublin School of Ethnolinguistics, the most prominent descriptors were found to be togetherness (19%), a person—a citizen of the world (16%), union, unity (14%), belonging to the world, not to a specific place (12%), unity of the world and nations (9%), tolerance (6%), openness (5%), hostile to patriotism (4%), a common goal (4%), and cultural integrity (4%). The other descriptors do not exceed 4%, but are interesting and valuable for describing the concept: a shared space (2%), a liberal attitude toward society (2%), globalization (1%), disregard for the values of nations (1%), and a set of ideas opposed to nationalism (1%).

When expressing their opinions, respondents most often (70% of those who answered) began their descriptions of cosmopolitanism with the word ideology (it is an ideology...), while 20% began with idea (it is an idea...). It is difficult to say whether this usage is deliberate or impulsive, but first- and second-year students should already be able to see the difference in meaning, since according to DLKŽ₈ₑ, an idea (sense 3) is ‘the fundamental, essential principle of a worldview or politics’, whereas an ideology is ‘a system of views and ideas held by social strata or groups’. In discussing the descriptors below, this distinction in meaning is not taken into account, and these lexemes are not distinguished as separate descriptors.

Students believe that the essence of the concept of cosmopolitanism is best captured by togetherness, union, unity, a common goal: an idea/movement,

60

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

that seeks the greatest possible togetherness, the pursuit of a common goal, and a closer-knit community; an outlook as if everything in the world were shared, unity of the world and nations: it is like the unity of the world; a person has endless opportunities to get to know the world; one common nation, society. Thus, in their view, it is an aspiration: a community in which differences disappear, which is united by common goals, and in which endless opportunities to discover the world open up, with that discovery bringing people closer together and uniting them even more. In this way, a shared space and cultural integrity are created, and a person becomes a citizen of the world: a person is an inhabitant of the whole world, rather than of a particular country; this concept means that the whole world is a shared space and every person is a citizen of that space; a social ideology asserting that the individual is a citizen of the world and rejecting any national divisions; it means abolishing all borders between the world’s states and nations, viewing all humanity as a single whole; a person does not identify with any nation or group, sees themself as a citizen of the whole world, and does not identify with a particular state, race, or nation; the view that every person is an important part/inhabitant of the whole world; an ideology expressed through cultural integrity. The responses do not make clear whether this sense of commonality and the elimination of national characteristics are considered positive or negative for contemporary people; a more definite opinion was expressed in only one questionnaire: These are the views of a person who is not attached to one country, but instead feels like a citizen of the whole world. However, love for one’s homeland and native land then fades or weakens, and patriotism diminishes. These students did not take part in the survey on patriotism, so this response once again confirms that there are still young people who are attached to their national values and would view abandoning them negatively. As is known from the concepts LANGUAGE, NATION, STATE, and LAND (Smetonienė, Smetona, Rutkovska 2019; Smetonienė, Smetona, Rutkovska 2021), Lithuanians are deeply attached to their land, where Lithuanian is spoken and Lithuanian customs are preserved; they are characterized by love for their country and nation, whatever they may be. Cosmopolitanism, by contrast, encourages renouncing a specific place (one’s birthplace, homeland), foregrounding belonging to the world, not to a specific place, nation, or country: a person of the world, unattached to a particular place, belonging to the world; the idea that all people are part of the whole world, rather than of a specific territory or community; the idea that a person belongs to the world as a community, but not to a particular country or nation.

For respondents, cosmopolitanism is associated with tolerance (tolerance toward different cultures, customs, and races; forbearance, acceptance of people of other nationalities), since only in this way is it possible to create a shared, unified entity in the world. A cosmopolitan world is open to any culture and any nation, so

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvių pasaulėvaizdyje

61

it is no surprise that as many as 5 percent of respondents emphasize the openness of such a world. One questionnaire gives an example of this kind of open model: the EU, since the respondent living there feels free and unconstrained, able to travel wherever they wish: Personally, cosmopolitanism immediately makes me think of the European Union. Although it is not global on a worldwide scale and does not even encompass the whole European continent, its very essence, to me, reflects the concept of cosmopolitanism. The European Union is an entity in which we are all European citizens; we are not restricted from travelling, and wherever we go we are able to communicate despite language differences. We are also taught the principles of democracy, freedom, and equality, which gives us the opportunity to “break through” all cultural and traditional differences, various political views, and so on. It is also important that the student emphasizes that democracy and other fundamental values are taught here, and that contemporary young people therefore think differently and create their own values; as they themselves put it, they develop a liberal attitude toward society: a liberal attitude toward society without divisions, i.e. everyone is the same. In students’ view, globalization: probably one would not exist without the other.

In several questionnaires, respondents attempted to define cosmopolitanism through antonyms. As many as 4 percent of respondents say that it is an ideology hostile to patriotism (an ideology hostile to patriotism) or a set of ideas opposed to nationalism (It is a set of ideas opposed to nationalism. Since nationalism is directed toward an unexaggerated glorification of one’s homeland and associating oneself with a particular native state, assigning one’s identity to the territory of a particular state, cosmopolitanism, by contrast, should be understood as its complete opposite). It is worth noting that these respondents do not accept the concept of cosmopolitanism, since cosmopolitanism as a phenomenon manifests itself as disregard for the values of nations (Cosmopolitanism manifests itself as disregard for the values of nations), whereas nationalism has a positive connotation for them, since they do not consider it extreme nationalism or chauvinism, but merely an association of oneself with one’s native land and state. This view correlates precisely with the definitions of cosmopolitanism found in Lithuanian lexicographic sources.

In essence, it must be acknowledged that the positions presented in the introduction from the Encyclopedia of Political Science and the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia correspond to the views expressed by students. Young people understand the concept in different ways: for some, cosmopolitanism is a negative phenomenon because it destroys national values; for others, it is a concept with nothing negative about it, expressing openness, commonality, and respect for other nations and their cultures. Thus, young people’s understanding no longer corresponds to the definitions given in dictionaries.

62

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

3. COSMOPOLITANISM IN MEDIA TEXTS

Text analyses typically discuss individual discourses, look for shades of meaning of the concept within them, and compare and interpret these. However, when describing social concepts, the variety of texts is very limited, so the corpus was compiled from online news portals (alkas.lt, biciulyste.com, delfi.lt, lrytas.lt, lrt.lt, pasauliolietuvis.lt, sc.bns.lt, tv3.lt, ve.lt, vz.lt), with searches conducted using keywords. Very few examples using the lexeme cosmopolitanism were found, so examples containing the lexemes cosmopolitan, cosmopolitanism, cosmopolitan were also included. As the lexicographic data show, cosmopolitan is defined in a similar way to cosmopolitanism, while cosmopolitan refers to cosmopolitan. A total of 301 instances of use were collected; selected non-repeating instances that contain a new shade of meaning or perspective are discussed. The selected examples are presented in the article according to profiles that will form the basis of the cognitive definition.

Cosmopolitanism is also understood in various ways in media texts, and, moreover, much more broadly than in dictionaries; the axiological image of cosmopolitanism is closer to young people's understanding. More precisely, one could describe the contemporary Lithuanian's view of the concept as spanning a range from one extreme to the other.

3.1. Building a global community

There are also extreme views, such as those described in the “Encyclopedic Dictionary of Political Science” cited in the introduction—a common global state, one nation, one language, one culture:

(1) Cosmopolitans (of the most varied “colors” and “shades”—from “reds” and “browns” to “blues”) seek to create a single common “global” state and its logical consequence—a nation speaking one common language and possessing a single “universal human” culture. (https://www.tv3.lt/naujiena/lietuva/kestutis-ceponis-kosmopolitizmo-ideologija-ir-jo-ivairiaspalves-atmainos-ii-dalis-n244565)

This position attracts the most criticism and resistance because it denies what is national, what is the greatest value—language, land, customs, the state, and culture. The philosopher Stasys Šalkauskis also criticized precisely this incorporation of cosmopolitanism into culture: “Thus, national character manifests itself in the style, or form, of cultural creativity. It constitutes the formal side of culture, but not the content of that culture. In this respect it is the opposite of cosmopolitanism, which is concerned above all, and even exclusively, with the content of culture. The history of humanity teaches us

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje 63

that the most valuable content of culture has always been bound up with the most distinctive national form” (Šalkauskis 1995: 333). However, a single point of view does not allow us to absolutize the definition of cosmopolitanism to that given in LKŽ_e: ‘a sociopolitical view and ideology asserting that the whole world is a person's homeland; disregard for, and contempt for, one's own and other nations' traditions, culture, and vital interests’. Cosmopolitanism in the media has many more shades of meaning.

3.2. Openness to other cultures, tolerance

As in young people's responses, in media texts cosmopolitanism is more often understood as tolerance toward other nations living alongside us (2, 3), guests arriving in our country (3), the possibility of reaching any point in the world using modern technologies (4), and the opportunity to travel and live freely in other countries, see the world, and interact with people from other cultures (5).

(2) Even while fostering Lithuanian identity, Kaunas has always been a cosmopolitan city. Today it is multicultural. A sense of community unites the nations that have lived in Lithuania for generations. (https://www.lrytas.lt/bustas/architektura/2023/10/14/news/naujomis-spalvomis-atgime-dar-vienas-daugiaaukstis-piesiniai-turi-prasme-28731818)

(3) Vilnius is a cosmopolitan city, so we made every effort to ensure that this hotel would combine contemporary elegance, modern style, aesthetics, technology, comfort, and special attention to everyone who walks through our doors. (https://www.lrytas.lt/stilius/karamele/2023/10/20/news/atsinaujinusio-viesbucio-atidaryme-garsenybiu-desantas-pasirode-ir-n-jagelaviciene-28816780)

(4) The new public sphere and open channels for disseminating information and culture make it possible to become a cosmopolitan while living, for instance, in the pleasantly provincial Panevėžys. (https://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/paulius-gritenas-kosmopolitizmas-is-panevezio-provincialumas-is-londono.d?id=84514319)

(5) The past 25 years have given us a great deal of freedom, cosmopolitanism—things we would never have dreamed of in our youth. (https://www.delfi.lt/veidai/zmones/aktualijomis-pasibaisėjusi-d-ibelhauptaitė-prisimine-vaikyste-darosi-baisu-del-to-kas-musu-laukia-72950248)

3.3. Modernity, contemporaneity

In the media, there are statements from which it is not very clear what the concept cosmopolitanism, cosmopolitan is associated with; indeed, at times it seems that people do not understand these concepts, which become merely fashionable words without clear meaning or connotation.

64

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

(6) Žinoma, jaunesnė auditorija labiau kosmopolitiška ir atitinka globalaus vartotojo portretą. Tuo tarpu vyresnioji karta vis dar renkasi konservatyvesnius dizaino sprendimus (https://www.vz.lt/rinkodara/2017/05/15/pakuote--tikrasis-raktas-i-pirkejo-krepseli#ixzz8NOpQ1oVc)

(7) Pasak Neringos Antanaitienės, bendrovės produkto vadybininkės, pasirinkta prekių ženklo strategija buvo orientuota į vakarietiškos gyvensenos vartotojus, kad jie naująjį „Horn“ prekių ženklą suvoktų kaip išskirtinį ir kosmopolitišką (https://www.vz.lt/archive/straipsnis/2007/07/30/Prekiu_zenklo_diktatas#ixzz8NOqzzHut)

(8) Šeima yra kosmopolitiška ir mėgsta keisti aplinką, todėl jie pasiryžę leistis į naujo namo statybas, o šią sodybą ateityje galbūt pavyks parduoti. (https://www.lrytas.lt/bustas/pasidaryk-pats/2021/11/13/news/originaliausiu-isrinkto-alytaus-namo-kiemo-seimininkai-nustebino-aplinkai-jie-sk iria-labai-mazai-savodemesio-21341573)

(9) Šiuolaikinis miesto vyras – savimi pasitikintis, kosmopolitiškas, spėjantis tiek į oficialius susitikimus, tiek į meno parodos atidarymą. (https://www.lrytas.lt/stilius/mano-stilius/2012/08/20/news/i-vyru-mada-grizta-tamsiai-raudoni-svarkai-5199070)

In these examples, cosmopolitanism may be synonymous with modernity, contemporaneity. This assumption is supported by the fact that in example 6 cosmopolitanism is presented as the opposite of conservatism: the older generation is conservative, whereas young people are probably modern (DLKŽ₈ₑ modernus – ‘meeting the requirements and tastes of the present day, innovative’). A contemporary man (9) can probably be described as fashionable (LKŽₑ šiuolaikiškas – ‘related to the present time’: Somewhere, boys and girls dressed elegantly and brightly in a contemporary style are hurrying), since the article goes on to discuss men's fashion. Only in the sense of modern and contemporary can a cosmopolitan family (8) and a brand (7) also be described.

3.4. The opposite of national identity and nationalism

Although national identity is defined in LKŽ as ‘belonging to a nation, being a member of a nation’, it is clear from the description of the concept NATION that national identity is related to everything encompassed by the concept nation: ‘a community of people formed historically through the coming together of various tribes, sharing a common land, language, history, and economic and cultural life’ (LKŽₑ). The concept nationalism merely elevates national identity to a higher level—‘an ideology and policy based on elevating the greatness and power of the nation, and glorifying the homeland and the nation itself’—so these shades of meaning are discussed together. In the examples below, the opposite of cosmopolitanism, national identity and nationalism emerges as

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje

65

as both a positive and a negative trait. On the one hand, cosmopolitanism destroys everything that is ethnic and national (10, 11); on the other hand, opposition makes it possible to crystallize the very concept of cosmopolitanism and to discuss it (12). Antonyms also bring out the positive traits of cosmopolitanism, because it is associated with a world in which there is no segregation (13). For a cosmopolitan, it is not so important to create a common state with all its attributes as to find a place where they are happy to live (14, 15), whereas a globalist seeks world government (15); thus, the meanings of cosmopolitan and globalist are distinguished, and it is no longer the cosmopolitan but the globalist who appears negative.

(10) Deja, tenka konstatuoti – kuo labiau daromės kosmopolitiški, tuo labiau naikiname savo senąsias, t.y. dvasines vertybes. Tiksliau naikiname tai, kas vis dėlto mus kūrė, formavo mus kaip asmenybes bei palaikė visuomenės dvasinę būklę. (https://www.lrytas.lt/bendraukime/isklausykite/2012/08/05/news/kuo-ir-kam-sian-dien-svarbios-vertybes--5238557)

(11) Kosmopolitizmas – tautinės valstybės ir krikščionybės santykio supaprastinimas. (https://www.propatria.lt/2016/06/monika-parciauskiene-kosmopolitizmas.html)

(12) Aš manau, kad kosmopolitizmo, kaip kažkokio problema dvelkiančio termino, iškilimas susijęs tik su epocha, kai būtų išryškintas kosmopolitizmo antonimas – tai nacionalizmas, nacionalumas, tautiškumas, etniškumas, t. y. visi sąmoningai suprantami tautiniai bruožai. Tik šitoje įtampoje kosmopolitizmas įgijo kažkokį kvapą ar formą, dėl kurios buvo verta ginčytis ir galvoti apie tai, kad čia yra kokie nors negatyvūs bruožai. (https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/tavo-lrt/15/20389/lietu-viams-truksta-ir-kosmopolitiskumo-ir-nacionalizmo)

(13) Kosmopolitizmas yra priešingas nacionalizmui, šovinizmui ir patriotizmui. Kosmopolitizmas remiasi idėja, kad globalizuotas pasaulis yra toks, kuriame nėra „kitų-svetimų“: (https://pasauliolietuvis.lt/romualdas-kriauciunas-tai-patriotiz-mas-rupinasi-sav osios-tautos-isilejimu-i-zmonija/)

(14) Kita vertus, kosmopolitizmas anaiptol ne visada reiškiasi kaip idėja. Veikiau tai prisirišimas prie konkrečių vietų, esančių ne savojoje šalyje, o kažkur kitur – kitų miestų, peizažų, šalių ir jų kultūrinio gyvenimo. (https://www.delfi.lt/archive/kosmopolitizmas-ir-tariamos-jo-gresmes.d?id=7569899)

(15) Kosmopolitas – tai žmogus, kurio tėvynė – visas pasaulis, o pirmiausiai – ten, kur jam gera. Globalistas – tai pasaulinės valdžios šalininkas. (https://alkas.lt/2022/06/17/m-kundrotas-globalizmas-kosmopolitizmas-ir-nacionalizmas/)

Example 11 deserves attention. The nation-state did indeed become a challenge for religion, because “it is the religion not of the citizens of one state, but of all people. Christian worship is not necessarily connected with any particular state; people in all states can worship the same God. The spiritual cosmopolitanism of Christianity is not limited to one state, but encompasses the whole world” (Lahayne 2020). This is how friction arose between the Church and the nation-state; it

66

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

Lithuanian philosophers also tried to soften this. Stasys Šalkauskis argued that Christianity is a good example of cosmopolitanism because it “recognizes both the lofty calling of nationality and the universally significant unity of all humanity” (Šalkauskis 1995: 344). However, the conflict was evident, so people began looking for a substitute capable of uniting European countries. It was agreed that unity could be achieved through an economic factor—a common market.

3.5. Anti-value

Cosmopolitanism becomes an anti-value when the economy and the market are discussed. It is called the liberal variant of cosmopolitanism. It is global economy in particular that erases borders between states (16), since its only concern is profit (17), not spiritual values. Thus, instead of being a unifying force, the common market became a new source of conflict.

(16) Global-market-based political cosmopolitanism fundamentally negates the entire political experience of humanity: the land cannot belong to no one; the state (in the case of contemporary Europeans, one should say the welfare state) cannot belong to Everyone, i.e. newcomers; and cultural identity naturally connects and distinguishes people. (https://www.biciulyste.com/aktualijos/andrius-svarplys-geras-metas-permastyti-europos-vertybes/)

(17) In the Western world, the so-called “liberal” variant of cosmopolitanism is especially widespread—its essential aim is to obtain the greatest possible profit and dispose of it freely. (https://www.tv3.lt/naujiena/lietuva/kestutis-ceponis-kosmopolitizmo-ideologija-ir-jo-ivairiaspalves-atmainos-ii-dalis-n244565)

3.6. The Relationship Between Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism

Media texts contain ideas that cosmopolitanism does not fundamentally conflict with national identity or nationalism (18), that a balance exists between two opposing things, and that cosmopolitanism itself is presented as concern for the fate of other nations rather than denial of one’s own (18).

(18) So, I will not mince my words: Lithuanians still lack cosmopolitanism—that is, the feeling that the world belongs to each of us, and that everything good or bad in it concerns us too. We need to read texts and care about what is happening in Catalonia, Washington, or Alabama. We should feel pain over what is happening to some Indigenous people in the Amazon jungle; that is part of cosmopolitanism. This does not mean that cosmopolitanism fundamentally conflicts with our national, nationalist liberalism. On the contrary, the great wisdom and the condition for any coherent, positive development lie in balancing these two things. I myself most often call myself a liberal nationalist. (https://sc.bns.lt/view/item/182395)

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvių pasaulėvaizdyje

67

Here it should be noted that such ideas are also found in theoretical works. L. Donskis has repeatedly argued that one of the most questionable features of contemporary theories of globalization is their pronouncement of a death sentence on nationalism, together with the pre-emptive commissioning of funeral music for the nation-state. It is also clear that in reality there is no such thing as an abstract global or worldwide identity. The efforts of totalitarian ideologies and the regimes that institutionalized them to fabricate and forcibly impose such a universally obligatory global ideological identity failed; in the real world, identity always means people identifying with structures of collective memory, sentiment, and imagination embodied in their native language, primary social experience, and the culture associated with it (Donskis 2002). Contemporary philosophers discuss modern cosmopolitanism and nationalism and argue that they “are linked by a dialectical relationship of mutual dependence, whose continual existence does not even need to be substantiated with sophisticated theoretical arguments. This relationship has been an obvious empirical and historical fact at least since the late eighteenth century. Indeed, modern cosmopolitanism and nationalism actually emerged at the same time, that is, in the Age of Enlightenment, and have coexisted and sustained one another ever since, like, figuratively speaking, two sides of the same coin. Their vitality is sustained by the relationship of dialectical opposition and tension that binds them” (Radžvilas 2017: 6). According to L. Donskis, liberal, open, and democratic nationalism is grounded in the original ethics of nationalism and the ideals of universal human brotherhood that arose in the Spring of Nations, when one’s own independence and freedom were inseparable from a moral commitment to care about the freedom of other nations (Donskis 2002). That is why the author of example 18, E. Aleksandravičius, calls on people to care about the whole world when something bad happens, while describing himself as a liberal nationalist.

Absolute cosmopolitanism, as defined in dictionaries, is almost impossible; it is easy to be a cosmopolitan when you have a home and roots (19), unless you are an ultracosmopolitan who despises your roots, though this is an extreme situation. Cosmopolitanism does not destroy the very essence of national identity (20); a person is open to diversity but does not lose their connection with the nation (21). It is worth noting the terms used in the media by non-theorists: ultracosmopolitan, multinationality, national cosmopolitanism. It is apparent that society is reassessing values and anti-values, searching for words to describe the order of today’s world and to find a place in it. In general, the current situation is still somewhere in between—neither cosmopolitan nor national (22).

68

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

(19) It is not true that a cosmopolitan is rootless and homeless. An ultracosmopolitan, who despises their roots, may perhaps become one. It is easy to be a cosmopolitan if you have a home and roots: migrate like a bird, roam like a Dutchman, but you can always settle back into your nest, no matter in the “tree” of which ethnic group it was built. (https://www.lrytas.lt/kultura/istorija/2011/03/10/news/nepriklausomuju-kelias-etnokosmopolitizmo-link-5574946)

(20) A cosmopolitan reinterpretation of the self does not destroy the essence of national identity, even if we are talking about multinationals, where the parents are of different nationalities or even races. Simply, by respecting a particular layer of heritage, each person can creatively interpret themselves and their own identity. (https://www.lrytas.lt/kultura/istorija/2011/03/10/news/nepriklausomuju-kelias-etnokosmopolitizmo-link-5574946)

(21) From this perspective, pure cosmopolitanism becomes impossible. That would require the possibility of asking “Where are you from?” to disappear. The abstract answer “From Europe” (understand: I support “Western values” per se) means nothing, because Europe is multifaceted and multicultural. Its values differ; its regions cherish their own historical memories, national feelings, and beliefs. Only national cosmopolitanism is possible: openness to diversity without losing an authentic connection with one’s own nation. (https://www.lrytas.lt/kultura/istorija/2011/03/10/news/nepriklausomuju-kelias-etnokosmopolitizmo-link-5574946)

(22) The swamp we live in, that boorishness (from television stars to so-called politicians), has neither one nor the other. There is nothing national here, nor anything cosmopolitan. (https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/e-aleksandravicius-lietuviams-truksta-ir-kosmopolitiskumo-ir-nacionalizmo.d?id=61708915)

Perhaps fears of cosmopolitanism and globalization are greatly exaggerated. They are constantly discussed; people either look for them everywhere or try to deny them. Cosmopolitanism’s encroachment on culture has already been discussed, but the headline quoted below clearly says it does not affect children’s drawings (23):

(23) Cosmopolitanism does not affect children’s drawings and fairy tales (https://ve.lt/naujienos/kultura/kulturos-naujienos/vaiku-piesiniu-ir-pasaku-kosmopolitizmas-neveikia-)

We find similar ideas in scholarly studies as well. V. Vitkienė studied cosmopolitanism in art and concludes that manifestations of national identification are evident in contemporary cosmopolitan art, because art is more socially engaged and reflective than ever before (Vitkienė 2005: 59–64). A. Samalavičius also questions whether concerns about an increasingly globalized culture, which he encounters not only in journalism but also in academic writings and scholarly conferences, are justified: “In an unstable, changing world dominated by the processes of globalization, the need for rootedness and identity paradoxically grows stronger” (Samalavičius 2003: 19). The literary scholar M. Kučinskai-

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje 69

[The author] analyzed the novels by G. Grušaitė, V. Rykštaitė, U. Kaunaitė, and Z. Čepaitė, published between 2010 and 2017. In her view, the intersection of cosmopolitanism and Lithuanian identity is clearly visible: “...however, it is highly doubtful whether it is possible to erase one’s native identity. The latest novels by G. Grušaitė, V. Rykštaitė, and U. Kaunaitė merely confirm that Lithuanians nevertheless long for their homeland, dream of it, and want to preserve their Lithuanian surname, and with it their roots and history. It is therefore wrong to claim that the younger generation does not want to belong to any nation and seeks to become ‘people of the world’ who never settle anywhere” (Kučinskaitė 2019: 133).

S. Šalkauskis put best how to reconcile two extremes—the plunge into cosmopolitanism and the fear that it will destroy humanity’s most important values. According to him, it is specifically national-patriotic education that should protect citizens of the state both from one-sided aggressive nationalism and from cosmopolitanism indifferent to national values. Alongside national education, international education is also necessary in order to foster equitable, solidarity-based relations among nations (Šalkauskis 1933).

CONCLUSIONS

The lexical meanings and examples in lexicographic sources suggest that the concept of cosmopolitanism encompasses only negative traits. A cosmopolitan scorns the distinctiveness, patriotism, traditions, culture, and national values of their own and other nations.

Young people view cosmopolitanism in two different ways. Some students associate the concept with tolerance, solidarity, unity, and the opportunity to learn about the world; this knowledge brings people closer together and unites them further, so that a single, unified nation emerges, with a common goal and culture. For others, this phenomenon evokes negative thoughts, because cosmopolitanism is opposed to patriotism, which is tied to one’s native land and state.

Assessments of cosmopolitanism on online platforms are likewise mixed: they range from the extreme view that the phenomenon is wholly negative to efforts to identify positive aspects of cosmopolitanism and justify it. Those who view cosmopolitanism positively emphasize openness to other cultures, tolerance, and modernity. Its opponents see it as an anti-value because state borders and the spiritual values of nations are being erased. Still others seek common ground between cosmopolitanism and nationalism, arguing that they are linked by a dialectical relationship of mutual dependence; the concept of “liberal nationalis-

70

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

m” then emerges: one that cares about the well-being of other nations but does not seek to separate itself from its own nation, land, or place of birth. Some voices contend that fears of cosmopolitanism and globalization are greatly exaggerated, and that it is doubtful whether native identity can be erased. For now, the situation today lies somewhere in the middle—neither cosmopolitan nor national.

Based on the S-A-T analysis, it can be argued that today cosmopolitanism means to Lithuanians:

– an ideology opposed to patriotism and national identity;

– contempt for national values;

– solidarity;

– unity among the world’s peoples;

– tolerance;

– openness;

– belonging to the world rather than to a specific place;

– modernity, being contemporary.

ŠALTINIAI

BLKŽ – Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas, vyr. red. D. Liutkevičienė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2013–2023. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/bendrines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/ [žiūrėta 2023-03-10].

DLKŽ_e – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (internetinis), vyr. red. S. Keinys, 8-as patais. ir papild. leid., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2021. Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/dabartines-lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas/.

LKŽ_e – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, 1–20 (1941–2002), red. kolegija G. Naktinienė, J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, vyr. red. G. Naktinienė, e. variantas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2008 (atnaujinta versija, 2018). Prieiga internete: https://ekalba.lt/lietuviu-kalbos-zodynas.

PMEŽ – Politikos mokslų enciklopedinis žodynas, ats. red. A. Jankauskas, Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2007.

TŽŽ – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, redaktorių taryba A. Kaulakienė, S. Keinys, B. Kurkulis, V. Račiūnaitė, V. Žalkauskas, Vilnius: Alma littera, 2013.

VLE_e – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija (elektroninis variantas), Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Prieiga internete: https://www.vle.lt/ [žiūrėta 2023-04-06].

alkas.lt

biciulyste.com

delfi.lt

lrytas.lt

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvių pasaulėvaizdyje

71

lrt.lt

pasauliolietuvis.lt

sc.bns.lt

tv3.lt

ve.lt

vz.lt

LITERATŪRA

Delanty Gerard 2006: The Cosmopolitan Imagination: Critical Cosmopolitanism and Social Theory. – The British Journal of Sociology 57(1), 25–47.

Donskis Leonidas 2002: Nacionalizmas ir globalizacija: XXI amžiaus iššūkiai Lietuvai. – Kultūros barai 10(455), 8–15.

Kazlauskas Raimondas 2021: Politiškumo krizė. Individas ir kosmopolis. – Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas 2(49), 70–146.

Kučinskaitė Martyna 2019: Tapatybės transformacijos naujausioje lietuvių moterų prozoje. – Oikos: lietuvių migracijos ir diasporos studijos 28, 125–140.

Kuznecovienė Jolanta 2013: Metodologinis nacionalizmas ir naujasis kosmopolitizmas migracijos tyrimuose. – Filosofija. Sociologija 24, 171–178.

Lahayne Holger 2020: Pilietinė religija: Tocqueville’o ar Rousseau’o keliu? Valdžia, Bažnyčia ir pilietinė religija (II). Prieiga internete: https://www.bernardinai.lt/pilietine-religija-tocquevilleo-ar-rousseauo-keliu-valdzia-baznycia-ir-pilietine-religija-ii/ [žiūrėta 2023-12-30].

Niersmans Nancy, Capanova Irena 2016: Różne oblicza kosmopolityzmu. – Obywatelskość 2.0: zaangażowane narracje o obywatelskości młodych mieszkańców Litwy i Polski, pod redakcją Marceliny Jakimowicz i Mateusza Sikory, Bydgoszcz: Oficyna Wydawnicza Epigram, 63–76.

Radžvilas Vytautas 2017: Kelios pastabos postmoderniosios globalizacijos prieštaravimų klausimu. – Logos 93, 6–15.

Rutkovska Kristina, Smetona Marius, Smetonienė Irena 2017: Vertybės lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Samalavičius Almantas 2003: Globalizacija, nacionalinė kultūra ir tapatumas. – Kultūrologija 10, 10–20.

Smetonienė Irena, Smetona Marius, Rutkovska Kristina 2019: Kalba. Tauta. Valstybė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Smetonienė Irena, Smetona Marius, Rutkovska Kristina 2021: Žemė. Motina. Duona, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Šalkauskis Stasys 1933: Lietuvių tauta ir jos ugdymas, Kaunas: Sakalas.

Šalkauskis Stasys 1995: Raštai 4. Vilnius: Mintis.

72

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

Šliogeris Arvydas 2011: Lietuviškosios paraštės, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Vitkienė Virginija 2005: Patirties įsisąmoninimas arba tautinio identiteto apraiškos šiuolaikinėje Lietuvos dailėje. – Liaudies kultūra 5, 59–65.

Gauta 2024-04-14

Priimta 2024-04-30

MARIUS SMETONA

COSMOPOLITANISM IN THE MODERN LITHUANIAN WORLDVIEW

Summary

Cosmopolitanism is the view that, despite all social, economic, cultural, and political differences, people are members of the same global society. Cosmopolitans believe that the commonality of human nature is more important than differences in social and political life. Cosmopolitanism is linked to globalisation and was mentioned by students as an antonym of patriotism. It defines the external relations between different collective formations, whereas cosmopolitanism refers to an internal change in social and political self-perception.

From Lithuanian lexicographic sources, it is evident that cosmopolitanism negates everything associated with patriotism: traditions, national culture. From the Dictionary of International Words, it is clarified that cosmopolitans not only disregard their own but also the traditions, culture and vital interests of other nations. Examples from the Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian Language (BLKŽ) correlate with the antonyms provided by students and the antonyms described in the introduction: cosmopolitanism is associated with globalization and referred to as the antithesis of national values.

Young people perceive the concept ambiguously: for some, cosmopolitanism is a negative phenomenon because it destroys national values, while for others it is a concept without any negative connotations, showing openness, inclusivity, and respect for other nations and their cultures. In media texts, cosmopolitanism is also unevenly understood, with the axiological image of the concept being closer to the understanding of young people. More precisely, the contemporary Lithuanian perspective on the concept embraces a range from one extreme to the other: from completely negative evaluation to points of contact with nationalism and the search for positive aspects in cosmopolitanism. Thus, the concept no longer corresponds to dictionary definitions.

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvio pasaulėvaizdyje

73

Based on the S-A-T analysis, it can be concluded that cosmopolitanism for Lithuanians today means:

– an ideology opposite to patriotism, nationalism;

– contempt for the values of nations;

– community;

– unity of the world, nations;

– tolerance;

– openness;

– belonging to the world, not to a particular place;

– modernity, contemporaneity.

KEYWORDS: cosmopolitanism, cosmopolitan, patriot, homeland, culture, community, value.

MARIUS SMETONA

Vilniaus universitetas Lietuvių kalbos katedra Universiteto g. 5, Vilnius

[email protected]

MARIUS SMETONA

KOSMOPOLITIZMAS ŠIUOLAIKINIO LIETUVIO PASAULĖVAIZDYJE

Santrauka

Kosmopolitizmas – tai požiūris, kad, nepaisant visų socialinių, ekonominių, kultūrinių ir politinių skirtumų, žmonės yra tos pačios pasaulinės visuomenės nariai. Kosmopolitai mano, kad žmonių prigimties bendrumas yra daug svarbiau negu visuomeninio ir politinio gyvenimo skirtumai. Kosmopolitizmas susijęs su globalizacija, todėl kaip patriotizmo antonimą ją paminėjo ir studentai. Ji apibrėžia išorinius įvairių kolektyvinių darinių ryšius, kosmopolitizmas – vidinę socialinės ir politinės savivokos kaitą.

Iš lietuviškų leksikografijos šaltinių reikšmių matyti, kad kosmopolitizmas neigia viską, kas siejama su patriotizmu: tradicijas, nacionalinę kultūrą. O iš TŽŽ išaiškėja, kad kosmopolitas niekina ne tik savo, bet ir kitų tautų tradicijas, kultūrą, gyvybinius interesus. BLKŽ pavyzdžiai koreliuoja su studentų teiktais antonimais ir įvade aprašytais antonimais – kosmopolitizmas susijęs su globalizacija ir yra tautinių vertybių antipodas.

74

BENDRINĖ KALBA | 97

Jaunimas sąvoką supranta nevienareikšmiškai – vieniems kosmopolitizmas yra neigiamas reiškinys, nes naikina tautines vertybes, kitiems tai nieko neigiamo neturinti sąvoka, rodanti atvirumą, bendrumą ir pagarbą kitoms tautoms, jų kultūroms.

Medijų tekstuose kosmopolitizmas taip pat suprantamas nevienodai, sąvokos aksiologinis vaizdas artimesnis jaunimo sampratai. Tiksliau būtų galima apibūdinti, kad šiuolaikinio lietuvio požiūris į sąvoką apima amplitudę nuo vieno kraštutinumo iki kito: nuo visiškai neigiamo vertinimo iki sąlyčio taškų su nacionalizmu ir teigiamų kosmopolitizmo aspektų ieškojimo. Taigi sąvokos samprata nebeatitinka žodynų definicijų.

Remiantis S-A-T analize galima teigti, kad šiandien kosmopolitizmas lietuviams yra:

– priešinga patriotizmui, tautiškumui ideologija;

– tautinių vertybių niekinimas;

– bendrystė;

– pasaulio, tautų vienybė;

– tolerancija;

– atvirumas;

– priklausymas pasauliui, ne konkrečiai vietai;

– modernumas, šiuolaikiškumas.

ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: kosmopolitizmas, kosmopolitas, patriotas, tėvynė, kultūra, bendrystė, vertybė.

MARIUS SMETONA

Vilniaus universitetas

Lietuvių kalbos katedra

Universiteto g. 5, Vilnius

[email protected]

MARIUS SMETONA. Kosmopolitizmas šiuolaikinio lietuvių pasaulėvaizdyje

75