The Earth is But One Country...

“The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.”

How many times have I heard it? I mean, not to be flippant, but the danger is always hearing something so often that you almost stop hearing it. It is one of those quotations that has become so familiar that I sometimes wonder whether I actually read it any more, or simply just recognise it. We all know what it means, after all. Humanity is one. We live on one planet. National borders are things we have invented, and we ought to learn to live together.

All of which is true. But the other day I found myself wondering about this quote, thinking about the actual individual words within it. Why did Bahá’u’lláh say “country”? And why “citizens”?

He could have said that the earth is one world and mankind its people. That would have made perfect sense. He could have said that humanity is one family, which would also have made perfect sense and would probably have been easier for us to accept. Families are something we understand. We can argue with our relatives, complain about them, occasionally wish they lived somewhere else, and still recognise that they are family.

But Bahá’u’lláh didn't say any of those things. He chose “country”. And that led me to thinking about how it changes the implications.

A country is not merely a piece of land. If I say Canada, I am not referring only to a bunch of trees, rocks, lakes and pavement surrounded by a line on a map. I am talking about a community, with laws and institutions, responsibilities and rights, and people who have agreed, at least in principle, to live together under some common arrangements. A country is something we belong to. It makes claims upon us, and we make claims upon it.

If the earth is one country, then I don't think Bahá’u’lláh is merely asking me to have a warm feeling towards people in other parts of the world. He is asking me to imagine that they are part of the same political and moral community that I am. The person living on the other side of the planet isn't just someone who happens to live on another piece of land. They are my fellow citizen.

That is a much more demanding idea.

It is also worth noticing that Bahá’u’lláh, immediately before the famous quote, says, “It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world.”

I like that qualification because it prevents us from taking the quotation in a rather simplistic direction. Bahá’u’lláh isn't telling me that I must stop loving Canada. Nor does loving the whole world require me to pretend that every place is identical. I can love the country in which I live, just as I can love my family, without imagining that my particular corner of the world is more important than everybody else's.

In fact, perhaps loving one's country properly requires being able to see it as part of something larger.

We get into trouble when the part becomes more important than the whole. A person can love his family so much that nobody outside the family matters. A person can love his town so much that everyone from the next town is an outsider. A person can love his country so much that the suffering of people beyond its borders becomes somebody else's problem.

History has given us a lot of examples of where that can lead.

So let's look at the second half of the sentence. “Mankind its citizens.”

Citizenship is a funny word. We tend to think of it as a legal status. I am a citizen of Canada. Someone else is a citizen of Brazil. Another person is a citizen of Japan. It appears on passports and government forms, and it determines certain rights and responsibilities.

But citizenship is more than having the correct box ticked on a form. To be a citizen is to belong to something. You have rights, as well as obligations. You expect the country to protect you, but you are also expected to contribute to the life of the country. You don't get to say that the roads, schools, hospitals, courts and other institutions are everybody else's concern while you simply enjoy the benefits.

At least, that isn't how citizenship is supposed to work.

So if mankind are citizens of one country, what does that imply?

Perhaps it means that the people we habitually call foreigners are not actually foreigners in the fullest sense. They are fellow citizens. Their problems are not entirely their problems. Their prosperity is not entirely their prosperity. Their suffering is not entirely their suffering.

That sounds terribly idealistic until you notice how much of modern life already works that way.

A disease does not stop at a border because a government has drawn a line there. Neither does pollution. Nor does climate change. Nor does financial instability, nor information. Nor, increasingly, does war. We have created a world in which we are interconnected whether we like it or not. The practical reality of our lives is already much closer to one country than our political habits sometimes admit.

The interesting question for me is whether our sense of responsibility has caught up with our interdependence.

It is one thing to say that everyone is connected. It is another to say that everyone belongs to the same community.

And I think that may be why “citizen” matters so much.

A citizen isn't just someone who lives somewhere. They participate in the life of the place. There is an expectation of mutual responsibility. If the earth is one country, then perhaps the Bahá’í vision of world unity is not simply asking us to tolerate people who are different from us. It is asking us to develop a sense of responsibility for people we have been taught to think of as outside our circle.

That doesn't mean that local communities become meaningless. Quite the opposite, I think. A country is made up of communities, and the world would presumably be no different. I can be Canadian, a Quebecer, a resident of my particular town, a member of a neighbourhood, a friend, and a citizen of the world without any of those identities necessarily cancelling the others.

The problem begins when one identity demands that all the others disappear.

Perhaps the analogy of citizenship gives us a useful way of thinking about this. I don't stop being a citizen of Canada because I meet a citizen of another country. I don't have to become less Canadian in order for another person to become more Brazilian, or Iranian, or Nigerian. Our identities do not have to compete unless we decide that they must.

And there is something else about citizenship. It is not only about belonging to a place. It is about learning how to live with other citizens.

That requires some fairly unglamorous virtues.

Patience would be useful. So would consultation. So would learning to listen to somebody who disagrees with me without immediately deciding that the disagreement proves his moral inferiority. Justice would probably help. So would courtesy. And perhaps a willingness to admit that my own experience, however extensive I imagine it to be, is still only the experience of one person living in one little corner of a very large country.

I think that may be a part of what Bahá’u’lláh is getting at when He uses such an ordinary word as “citizens”.

It is easy to love humanity in the abstract. "Humanity" is wonderful because it never comes to my door asking for something.

Citizens do.

Citizens have opinions. They have inconvenient customs. They vote for people I don't like. They speak languages I don't understand. They eat things I wouldn't recognise as food. They have religions I don't share, and sometimes no religion at all. They have histories that don't fit neatly into mine. They make mistakes.

In other words, they are people. Just like me.

And if they are citizens of the same country as I am, then I have to learn how to live with them.

I think this makes the quotation a bit less like a piece of idealistic poetry and maybe more like a job description.

We are citizens of the earth. And I have to admit, we are still rather inexperienced at it.

We have become remarkably good at drawing borders. We have become much less good at remembering that the people on the other side of them are people too. We have developed extraordinary technologies for communicating with anyone on the planet, while still finding it surprisingly difficult to listen to someone sitting across the table.

Maybe the first step is simply to take the sentence seriously.

The earth is one country.

We are its citizens.

If that is true, then the question is no longer simply whether I can learn to love people who are different from me. The question is what kind of citizen do I intend to be.

And that, I think, is a more interesting question.