In a world which is increasingly fragmenting into smaller nations and experiencing a steady erosion of sovereignty either through ceding it to a central government or quasi-government, such as the European Union, or through economic dependence because of global factors, an important question is how to maintain a recognisably unique culture in the face of so much change. Sovereignty for small nations can be very limited. The question is whether this actually makes any difference in the ability to preserve cultural heritage. In this respect the author examines two main topics: sovereignty and the erosion of sovereignty. Author argues that there are many different forces which interact to affect identity and the sense of solidarity in a community. Sovereignty is inextricably bound up with political citizenship, and although social citizenship does not directly influence sovereignty, it does influence political citizenship and thereby influences sovereignty. In contrast, what binds Latvians together is not so much sovereignty and political citizenship, but social citizenship or belonging to a people and a culture. The erosion of sovereignty, it was argued, obviously affects political citizenship, since, as Aristotle says, the one affects the other, but social citizenship, solidarity and culture are also affected. Cosmopolitanism erodes the sense of solidarity with the community; given that this sense of solidarity and Latvian culture are pillars that support sovereignty, sovereignty is also eroded.