“Remember you are citizens of the world.”
When I first picked up this book, I had no idea what it was about. All I knew was that I needed it for a class. I had never heard the world “cosmopolitanism” before, and I was quite interested in what it could me. I knew this was an ethics class, and I thought it could possibly refer to something within society and how we view ourselves, perhaps through consumerism (think Cosmopolitan magazine). This was the first week of school, before I had attended a class session. 75 days later, I picked up the book for a second time. I had been exposed to the class, and had a new perspective on what Appiah could want to discuss within its pages. I was still not expecting the argument he was about to present.
Cosmopolitanism, as I quickly learned, is made up of “two strands that intertwine” in order to bring about a greater idea. The first is that “[…] we have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kind, or even the more formal ties of a shared citizenship”(xv); the second idea states “that we take seriously the value not just of human life but of particular human lives, which means taking an interest in the practices an beliefs that lend them significance”(xv). These two factors combine to create a philosophical idea that we are all members of a global community and that we, as a people, have an obligation to understand these fellow citizens and the links that we share with them.
“The obligation to understand those with whom we share the planet, linking that need explicitly with our global economic interdependence.” (xv)
In the 1800s, the idea of cosmopolitanism would most likely be the work of a science fiction writer or hopeful philosopher. No more is this the case. What once use to be a large and daunting world is now a much smaller, interconnected global community. As such, we as people have the ability to affect the lives not only of those directly around us, but also on the other side of the globe. Appiah writes:
“Together, we can raise the standards of living by adopting new policies on trade and aid, prevent or treat diseases with vaccines and pharmaceuticals, take measure against global climate change, encourage resistance to tyranny and a concern for the worth of each human life” (xiii).
This kind of reform is not possible without an interconnected world, and as Appiah argues, it is our obligation as a global community to create it. We cannot forget that the actions we take have effects on other people, and as such, cosmopolitanism dictates that we must act in a way that not only betters ourselves, but also our neighbors.
“The one thought that cosmopolitans share is that no local loyalty can ever justify forgetting that each human being has responsibilities to every other”(xvi).
This mode of thinking is strikingly connected to that of Precarious Life. Appiah goes as far as to reference the mode of thought that came about after 9/11 — the “us” vs “them” mentality. He goes as far as to state that this sort of ideal world, where motives and values are easily discernible, is hypothetical at best, and not what this book will talk about. Still, the fact that this is a prevalent topic that has appeared for the last three weeks is striking. I believe that this increase in conversation about the “us” vs “them” mentality is due to the fact that, as the world grows increasingly smaller, values and beliefs crash more and more. With this, conflict naturally arises. 9/11 was a prime example of how those clashes, when not resolved with acceptance and understanding of difference, can lead to acts in defense of one’s beliefs. Cosmopolitanism, from what I understand, advocates against this and instead offers the idea that we, as a community, can live together with different values and and still look out for our fellow man.
NGS, on the other hand, is a good example of cosmopolitanism in the works. While they are an isolated community, they are globally aware of other issues that are going on in the world, and never miss a beat to assist those who they relate to. This week, before I left, Ozzy and I, as well as another student, had a discussion that reminded me of this phenomenon: we were talking about how I didn’t want to walk home in the dark because I knew that there was a danger of me being attacked. It led to a conversation about rape culture, police brutality, and how the patriarchy affects a lot of this. All of us were aware of the struggles that the others faced, and instead of playing the game of “who has it worse”, we were able to use this common struggle to relate to each other and have a conversation about the issues in our global community. Under our obligation of cosmopolitanism, we were able to understand what our fellow citizens faced without bringing personal feelings into it. None of the male students in the room were upset when the other female student and I brought up the fact that we are scared of running into any man on a dark walk home, and instead were able to empathize with us through their fear of the police and what they could do to them. This was a good example of a global community coming together to discuss issues, even if they weren’t on a global scale.
This brings up and interesting point: with an increased focus on the global scale, we cannot forget that our backyard is part of that. With this in mind, the best place to start change is that which is around you, which I believe NGS does every day.
