Cosmopolitanism: A Dirty Muddy Swamp
On final analysis of Appiah’s, Cosmopolitanism offers a paradoxical set of, moral obligations, that weigh the good against the bad. Appiah in great detail, presents the reader with a pseudo set of “commandments” if you will, on what the ideal cosmopolitan society would consist of, the barricades currently existing, as well as counter arguments that seek to prove cosmopolitanism is an immoral way of living.
Appiah continuously reitterates the fundamentals of cosmopolitanism throughout the book in different contexts. Chapter five presents four different concepts: One is that we don’t necessarily have to do or think things are right or wrong for the same reasons, just simply that they are right or wrong.
“We can agree about what to do in most cases, without agreeing about why it’s right” (Appiah 71).
One example he uses to illustrate this idea is religion. In the U.S for example although we tolerate different types and practices of religion as the first amendment says we must, most of us have many reasons to why we observe this law.
The second concept is that judgements are often given, not based on fact but more what is innate to us, our set of values that we have grown to know. To us these values of moral justification are enough to be considered valid. Our societies are able to think this way because we often do not look at the picture as a whole: One example Appiah uses is male versus female circumcision. In one case, the males, it is seen as a moment of pride and courage that brings them into adulthood. While on the other hand for females it is seen as demeaning. But when really presented with both sides, what makes either of them different from one another? Of course there are many answers to why and why not this is the way society does things, every argument has its why’s and why nots, and of course both are correct in their own way.
“Understanding one another may be hard; it can certainly be interesting. But it doesn’t require that we come to agreement” (Appiah 78).
On the other hand the third concept shows:
“We can find ourselves in conflict when we do agree on values” (Appiah 78).
One instance of like minded values opposing each other is seen in early colonialism that ended in Africa/Asia post 1945.
“…Were driven by the rhetoric that had guided the allies own struggle against Germany and Japan; democracy, freedom, equality. This wasn’t a conflict between values. It was a conflict of interests couched in terms of the same values” (Appiah 80).
I chose this example because although the english seem to be at fault for the colonization of these poorer countries, it was driven by the same idea that eventually broke these colonies apart. The english invaded africa in hopes of creating their own democratic “state” across the globe, while the natives broke free in order to create their own democracy free of their rule.
“Conflicts are battles over the meaning of the same values” (Appiah 81).
The last concept presented in chapter five is that although one idea or “habit” seen in one culture does not mean that it is right for all culture, nor that all cultures should observe these habits. For example the conflict seen between the Islamists and Western America is, in Appiah’s opinion due to the “Women Question”. Whis is a direct result of the fear of Western Americas “habits” being ingrained into the Islamic culture, causing people to question what has been, and creating a want to become “more modern”. These stereotypes that seem to be the basis for change in some countries are also the basis for conversation. When we begin to talk with someone from another culture, one we may not be so familiar with, we talk to them from our imaginations using knowledge from books, movies, etc.
“Conversation doesn’t have to lead to consensus about anything, especially not values; it’s enough that it helps people get used to one another” (Appiah 85).
I think this is a very important quote because conversation is something our society is greatly lacking with the rise of technology. We are all often hiding behind our screens. Even a decade ago our time spent waiting for the bus would have been spent making conversation with those around us to fill the time. But now with tablets and phones in everyone’s pockets, people hide behind these screens and neglect becoming acquainted to the world around them. And as I understand knowing and relating to the people around us is a key concept to living in a cosmopolitan society.
Moving into ch.7, which seems to be at its core, a discussion regarding humans innate fear of change.
Appiah begins by discussing people’s fear over globalization, and how people fear globalization leads to homogeneity. When really analyzing what is actually happening when we think of globalization we must realize a few things: 1. Globalization is occurring, but not in the way we think. When people think of globalization they think of big cities becoming for example “americanized”, but when you pick apart very large communities one will find a diverse group of people from all different backgrounds. While on the other hand globalization is truly occurring where we think it the least: the small villages outside the “Globalized” cities. These villages are very homogeneous: one language, agrarian way of life, radios to stay updated, they even drink coca-cola.
In a lot of ways homogeneity is good because with it comes: more access to medicines, clean water, and school. And although some differences are lost in the process, new ones will be integrated because inevitably we are still creating something “new”.
Appiah does not fail to also examine the truly bad side of globalization:
“They’re too poor to live the life they want to lead” (Appiah 106). When he says this he is specifically speaking about the Zao’s who no longer wear their traditional silk garments because it is much too expensive due to the cheap products that have flooded their economy from the western world. This is also true, unfortunately, for many other cultures as well.
The next part of ch.7 is very important : In Praise of contamination
The golden rule of cosmopolitanism: “I am human: nothing human is alien to me” (Appiah 111).
When thinking about and looking at the world and human nature, the golden rule of cosmopolitanism seems crucial in order to live in a decent world. So often we alienate each other due to our differences, and by doing so we just create more boarders. More importantly until we can learn to see every human as a human and not an alien we will never be able to empathize or even begin to understand how they feel or what they are going through. Seeing something human as alien is very comparable to trying to empathize with a rock, it will never work.
“Cosmopolitanism was invented by contaminators whose migrations were solitary” (Appiah 112).
Knowing that this quote and concept is key to Appiah’s discussion I went back and read and re-read this section, upon re-evaluation I have come to the conclusion that what he is saying is not in negative context, although it may appear that way. When Appiah uses the word contaminators I believe it can be either positive or negative depending on whom is contaminating. Contamination is merely his way depicting the collision of societies and cultures coming together: in order for this to happen peacefully, or rather in a cosmopolitan fashion, the pre-existing culture/society will become “contaminated” with the new. It is important to note the final words though: “whose migrations were solitary”. It is important that they were solitary because it was them who was migrating and not the whole society. Appiah was discussing the many religious sufferings and how this contamination would not be “solitary”. People were forced into going somewhere they did not want to be, or people were forced to accept, with no toleration of what had already existed.
There will never be a ‘cultural’ society that is uniform, “cultural purity is an oxymoron” (Appiah 113).
Ch.9: the zenith of Appiah’s discussion: The counter-cosmopolitans.
“They would never go to war for a country; but hey will enlist in a campaign against any nation that gets in the way of universal justice” (Appiah 137).
Although this seems cosmopolitan, as Appiah makes clear by the chapter title, these are indeed counter-cosmopolitans. Although they are against traditional war, a war fought between two countries, they still in the end would go to war for a universal justice. The problem with that is, what are the requirements that must be met in order to qualify as a universal justice. If we go back a few chapters to the beginning one of the main points is that “Conflicts are battles over the meaning of the same values” (Appiah 81). To try and define a set of justices that encompass everyone is the exact opposite of cosmopolitan.
In the end trying to live under one universal truth will never work regardless of what it is, it will always lead to a bloodbath. Appiah gives many examples by using the religious French wars of the early 16th century, Bishops war of 1639, English civil wars 1651 and many more.
One point appiah makes that should be made more often is that the islamists are not the only terrorists, there have also been christian terrorists as well. Christian terrorists are not recognized in that manner because their “efforts” are more often greeted with a much different reaction than those of al qaeda. When Eric Rudolph a christain open fired and killed people because he was against abortion, he was openly applauded for his “heroic” acts.
Regarding the incident one local said, “Those are our values, These are our woods, I don’t see what he did as a terrorist act.” (Appiah 142).
Those words instantly brought back the earlier quote “I am human: nothing human is alien to me.” These locals do not see it as terrorism because they are able to relate, and in some grotesque way understand what he did. Terrorist is a word saved for those individuals who we do not understand.
Competing Universalities:
Although cosmopolitanism is all about tolerance, they too must draw limits. When something is so fundamentally bad, such as genocide, tolerance is no longer an option.
“Toleration requires a concept of the intolerable” (Appiah 144).
As a scientist I would declare this concept as a universal concept: It basically defines newton’s 3rd law, which in the simplest of terms is, every force has an equal and opposite reaction. Toleration with no concept on the intolerable, would be like having laws in a country where anything goes.
The beautiful thing about cosmopolitanism is that although they believe in a universal truth, they are less certain they have already attained it. The only truth they know for certain is:
“Everybody matters: that is our central idea. And it simply limits the scope of our tolerance” (Appiah 144).
Although there are many values that are worth living there is no way to live by them all, and so the best you can do is live by the ones that are best for you in your society. Although each right, all may be different.
Alternatively Neo Fundamentalists believe there is only one way to live. A prime example of this is Dr. Aymen al Zawahiri on 2/11/05 which basically shows his fear of conversation, which is propelled by a fear that if people ask questions they would leave the faithful ones astray. This takes my mind immediately to anti-intellectualism. Without Dr. Aymen constraints on information he would lose the basis of his following.
In Little Platoons Appiah discusses this obligation people feel to justify things that harm other individuals.
Although some people do not believe in universality they have inescapable obligations described by Bernard Williams, “when you do something that harms someone else, you must be able to justify it”.
No matter what the case, or how absurd the situation may seem there will always be justification. As Appiah points out even the Nazi’s seemed to be justifying what they were doing.
Once you begin to give reasons though you are also drawn into a superficial term of universality: “A reason is an offer of a ground for thinking or feeling or doing something. And it isn’t a ground for me, unless it’s a ground for you” (Appiah 153).
Justification is only grounds to someone who is not a cosmopolitan. In order to be able to justify something, they person you are stating your justifications to must also carry the same set of values, thoughts etc. A cosmopolitan would never expect or even think another to have to agree on the same values. Living a cosmopolitan life should not require justification.
CH. 10 Kindness to strangers: this should be a universal concept, but unfortunately is not.
In this chapter Appiah begins asking large questions that test our morality. One example he gives is the killing of the Mandarin: Would you if you could nod your head to kill a mandarin, in return for a large sum of money? Of course I believe many when posed with this would say yes, because the thought of what is actually happening is so far away from them. People are not often affected by things that are far away from us, things we can’t picture or imagine. Paul farmer also discusses this concept when looking at giving money to far away charities to insurmountable numbers of faces we do not know, the odds are low because we in no way feel obligated, or any connection.
Adam Smith explains, “If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow, he would not sleep tonight; but provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren.. “ (Appiah 156).
Even Adam Smith’s analogy helps us better understand the concept more clearly because the scenario itself is more closely related to ourselves so we can better imagine- We are able in a sense- to empathize.
Appiah then goes much deeper into the concept I brought up with Paul Farmer: It is hard to help a cause you are not connected to. This section of the chapter is titled shallow pond because he begins by giving the classic: would you jump into the pond to save the drowning child even if you were wearing a nice suit? Most will always say yes. I also thought the title could be a metaphor for how Appiah sees our morals outside a cosmopolitan lifestyle- shallow- they don’t go deeper than ourselves. We’re all stuck in a dirty muddy swamp.
As a cosmopolitan though one can not be blamed for not helping everyone everywhere because although the children are dying in africa because we didn’t send 100$, people are still suffering everywhere regardless. It is only our obligation to help those we can with what we have.
“If you can prevent something bad from happening at the cost of something less bad, you ought to do it” (Appiah 160).
Morality in the way Appiah is describing is is like a revolving door- Even once you have stepped through the door, the door will continue to turn and if you step back into it, it will hit you.
Another concept Appiah brings up towards the end of the chapter is that even if you do have the means necessary to help a child, would those means be more beneficial elsewhere and are you actually helping? For example if you do give the 100$ to save the starving children, a week later they will all be starving again. Instead of helping now you have just lengthened the time to which those children will have to endure suffering.
And so.. To be a genuine cosmopolitan: “Begins with caring to try to understand why..” (Appiah 160). We must be informed on what is happening and whether or not we are helping or worsening a life, there is a big difference.
I will finish off by discussing the three constraints a cosmopolitan must observe if basic rights are to be met:
- “The primary mechanism for ensuring these entitlements remains the nation state” (Appiah 163).
-If we are all under one global government power could become uncontrollable and be used to do great harm, local needs would be unmet because they are unseen, and we would miss learning opportunities taught by our differences.
2. “Our obligation is not to carry the whole burden alone”
-Unfortunately the burden will never be distributed equally. There will always be some individual swho do not contribute, and so as it stands the burden will always be heavier for some.
3. “Whatever our basic obligations, they must be consistent with our being..” (Appiah 165).
-People will not find it easy to do things for others that they do not inherently want or feel for themselves there has to be an underlying level of empathy present.
Like many others in the world Appiah has attempt to unveil a world in which kindness prevails.
