Anyone at home?

In the 20th century, the colour line was the primary challenge. In the 21st century, the problem is the border line.

In the 20th century, the colour line was the primary challenge. In the 21st century, the problem is the border line. Today, there are more people living outside their countries of birth than at any time in history, and international migrants now make up the equivalent of the world8217;s fifth most-populous country 8212; just after China, India, the US and Indonesia.

As a result, migrant-receiving nations, particularly those in the First World, are scrambling to devise strategies to incorporate and integrate newcomers and their families into their adopted societies. It is commonly assumed that socioeconomic mobility is the key to making these newcomers loyal citizens of their new homelands.

But what about the transnational elites who can easily move anywhere they please? Last month, American actress Susan Sarandon vowed to move to Italy or Canada if John McCain becomes president. However off the cuff her comment may have been, it points to the challenge many developed nations and cities are likely to have maintaining the loyalty of their elites as a globalising economy makes relocation easier.

More than a decade ago, in a posthumously published book, The Revolt of the Elites, sociologist Christopher Lasch accused the creative class the group Robert Reich, Clinton8217;s Labour secretary, famously called 8216;symbolic analysts8217; of abandoning their responsibility to serve as a moral bulwark and stabilising force in society.

What he could not have foreseen, however, was the extent to which commercial and cultural globalisation would further undermine the elites8217; old-fashioned loyalty to place.

Make no mistake: The benefits of globalisation, especially high-level transnational exchange and trade, particularly to the US, are clear.

But this cosmopolitanism is not without its dark side. Increasingly, many of our big cities8217; creative elites 8212; both native and foreign-born 8212; see themselves as citizens of the world. Our intellectuals are exploring the declining significance of place in the new globalised world order. And this brave new world cries out for an answer to the question: Does a person who swears loyalty to all cities and nations have any loyalties at all? I8217;ve always been struck by the fact that the same people who rightly criticise multinational corporations for having no sense of responsibility to place never seem to express the same concern about the equally 8216;unplaced8217; creative elite.

Story continues below this ad

Last month, the Los Angeles Business Journal published a special report on L.A. becoming a magnet for what one analyst called 8216;global families8217; 8212; those who live and do business in Southern California and elsewhere. I wonder how much they know about the coalition-building that makes L.A. politics tick; I wonder what kind of local philanthropic activities they8217;re involved in.

Without denying the benefits of globalisation, we must remember the beauty and strength of parochialism.

It8217;s all well and good to love the world, but real social solidarity is generally found on a smaller scale. And it8217;s not just the unskilled immigrants we should be concerned about. We need to find ways to encourage the highly skilled ones to form a sense of attachment and commitment to their new homes. On top of that, we natives must remember that there is no honour in escaping engagement by becoming a citizen of the world.