Customer Reviews

Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time Series)

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There is, so far, no better or more mature book on moral cosmopolitanism than Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. In it, Appiah makes plain, by well-crafted appeals to the reader's good sense that are replete with ethnographic examples and real-world insights, what romantics and theologians have been telling us for ages: There is but a hair's breadth of difference between us; a tiny space that we can fill with causes for consternation and hatred, or with salutary joy at considering that difference. This Appiah does without in any way suggesting that there can ever be an end to the moral and cultural tensions that those differences do and must invite. He sketches the tenable cosmopolitanism we have been waiting for, and he parts company with the sentimentalist versions that remain - and should remain - in the shallow end of the pool.

Appiah, here as elsewhere (The Ethics of Identity), marvels that so many intellectuals have distorted the truth about the key insights of cosmopolitans, and he takes them to task. These have argued that cosmopolitanism contains an incredible and/or dangerous set of normative proposals and disregards the "facts" of human nature (that we are an insular species, with a territoriality that is red in tooth and claw). Appiah deftly replies that it is the cultural conservative, the jejune jingoist or nationalist, the duped hyper-contextualist, whose view of the world and of human nature is distorted, for the history of human social, cultural and even sexual intercourse is replete with cross-pollinations of language, religion, art, dress, rites, metaphysical outlooks, and progeny, all bespeaking an enormous aptitude for cooperation, bonding and friendship. We are an inter-cultural, intertwined, and interdependent species, just like every other on the planet. The view of ourselves as culturally isolated is the view that bears the burden of proof. It is, in fact, demonstrably false.

Appiah laments that so many philosophers and intellectuals, adopting a bad historicism, have argued, falsely, that we humans can only see the world up to the point of our own contextual "walls." He joins many - George Lakoff, Martha Nussbaum, William Sloane Coffin, Mohandis K. Gandhi, R.W. Emerson - in arguing that the greater truth of our humanity is our ability to imaginatively think new thoughts, to reconsider plans of life, to fashion new worlds of possibility, while acknowledging that each of us has a home that we should cherish, improve, perfect, and defend.

However, I in turn lament that this volume has failed to address what continues to go missing in normative literature - the role of love in moral imagination. For it seems to me that it is love - a word we are so often afraid to use in our secular and public discourse - that has the most power to make proper use of that hair's breadth of difference that we often find so important, that we are so ready to murder and maim for - where we, sometimes and lamentably, lend credence to those who would see us as best understood as having natures that are red in tooth and claw. I would like Professor Appiah to consider this a challenge, a challenge to write one more book to overcome what I perceive as this volume's single, but important, failing. I make this challenge because, once this failing is remedied, his body of work will have provided us with a full circle of mature cosmopolitan thought in the contemporary world.

One of the most pernicious ideas has spung from the myth that we are necessarily separated and segregated into groups that are defined by criteria like gender, language, race, religion or some other kind of boundary. And it is easy to see that these boundaries are a major cause of conflict.

The author of this enthralling book - Kwame Anthony Appiah - challenges this kind of separative thinking by resurrecting the ancient philosophy of "cosmopolitanism." This school of thought that dates back almost 2500 years to the Cynics of Ancient Greece. They first articulated the cosmopolitan ideal that all human beings were citizens of the world. Later on, these ideas were elaborated by another group of philosophers: the Stoics.

According to Appiah, the influence of cosmopolitanism has stretched down the ages and through to the Enlightenment. He takes Immanuel Kant's notion of a League of Nations and the Declaration of the Rights of Man to be two manifestations of this ancient idea.

Appiah sees cosmopolitanism as a dynamic concept based on two fundamental ideas. First is the idea that we have responsibilities to others that are beyond those based on kinship or citizenship. Second is something often forgotten: just because other people have different customs and beliefs from ours, they will likely still have meaning and value. We may not agree with someone else, but mutual understanding should be a first goal.

The book is full of personal experiences. I doubt that anyone else could have written it: His mother was an English author and daughter of the statesman Sir Stafford Cripps, and his father a Ghanaian barrister and politician, who reminded his children to remember that they were "citizens of the world."

Appiah was educated in Ghana and England and has taught in both countries. He now holds a chair of Philosophy at Princeton. He is no starry eyed idealist, and he knows that differences between groups and nations cannot be wished away or ignored. But he contends, rightly, I think, that differences can be accepted without being allowed to become barriers.

As he says, "Cosmopolitans suppose that all cultures have enough overlap in their vocabulary of values to begin a conversation. But they don't suppose, like some Universalists, that we could all come to agreement if only we had the same vocabulary." The reason is simply this: most of us arrive at our values not on the basis of careful reasoning, but by lifelong conditioning and subjective beliefs and attitudes.

In parts of Europe, there have recently been misgivings about the growing diversity and multiculturalism of countries like the United Kingdom, with people asking whether it is doing no more than fracturing society. Appiah tackles this question head on. He has this to say, "If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference that they long to escape. There simply is no decent way to sustain those communities of difference that will not survive without the free allegiance of their members."

Cosmopolitanism, balances our "obligations to others" with the "value not just of human life but of particular human lives," what Appiah calls "universality plus difference." He remains skeptical about simple maxims for ethical behavior such as the Golden Rule. He swiftly demonstrates its failings as a moral precept. He argues that cosmopolitanism is the name not "of the solution but of the challenge."

This is an important book that will inevitably be controversial. In a world that is becoming more interconnected and shrinking by the day, and where the "clash of cultures" threatens our existence, Appiah has many new perspectives as he articulates a precise yet flexible ethical manifesto. He does not claim to have all the answers, but this book should be of interest to all of us as we try to make sense of the turmoil, challenges and opportunities of our globalizing world.

Appiah has written an intelligent, urbane, and concise analysis of, and prescription for, the global world we have come to inhabit. His title "Cosmopolitan" is intended to evoke its etymology, that we are "citizens of the world." Unlike Robert Wright in "The Moral Animal," Appiah rejects a one-world government, insisting we need to maintain a pluralistic system of governments for the ostensible purpose of creative enhancements, e.g., changes to the existent models through new insights, programs, and trial-and-error (hopefully, with errors corrected).

This book tackles some of the ethical issues involved as the global perspective is taking shape. Most of his prescriptions are pragmatic (Chap. 4: "Primacy of Practice"), rather than doctrinaire, evidenced most clearly in his chapter on pluralistic cultures and how best to "manage" their differences (Chap. 8: "Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?"). He clearly disdains the positivist approach ("Escape from Positivism"), yet in spite of this disdain, he keeps to the empirical side of most questions (Chap. 3: "Evidence on the Ground"). Aristotlean common-sense is offered where it's needed.

That we are all neighbors should by now be obvious (Chap. 5: "Imaginary Strangers" and passim), and while capitalism is accepted, not without its fetters. Islamic and Christian fundamentalism are reproved appropriately (Chap. 9: "The Counter-Cosmopolitans"), while the Anglican-type of latitudinarianism is espoused (without the religious particulars). "Pluralism" is our global credo, to which I heartily reply, "Amen." I often wish we recognized it as our national credo as well.

He forthrightly repudiates Singer's and Unger's utilitarian "moral calculi," and extols a person-centered ethic in their stead. He also insists that the "stranger" is no longer an alien, and we still need to heed the New Testament's advice (Rom. 12:11: "Contribute to the needs of the saints, extend hospitality to strangers"). Indeed, we all come "at" our situations with different assumptions and histories, and, with some obvious exceptions, we owe each other respect as we "converse" in hopes of appreciating our differences and understanding our common ground.

Multiculturalism, besides being incoherent, is not the solution, because "original cultures" are a myth, and not all cultures are "equal." He takes issue with cultural "contamination" and its typical reaction of "disgust," offering examples of inappropriate stigmitization (e.g., homosexuality, unusual religious beliefs, etc.). Only when we recognize each other as "fellow citizens," and respect everyone enough to engage them seriously, then we're on the course to mutual respect, pluralistic tolerance, and genuine concern. And the Golden Rule, while not perfect, isn't a bad place to start. Ultimately, there is no "us" vs. "them," for we're all citizens of the same world.

In this short, brilliantly written book, Princeton philosophy professor Kwame Anthony Appiah attempts to articulate an ethical theory that applies to our current age of globalization. Taking as his starting point the writings of Diogenes, the 4th century Greek Cynic philosopher, Appiah develops a philosophy of cosmopolitanism modeled on Diogenes' "citizen of the world." A citizen of the world regards the individual rather than family, tribe, or nation as the primary focus of ethical agency. And that it is important to recognize that individuals are bound by belief systems and cultures that are not only different but may also be opposed to their own. Cosmopolitanism is an ethics somewhere between relativism and universalism that can build a working relationship between adherents of different belief systems enabling coexistance but not necessarily agreement.

This is not as easy as it sounds; in fact, it doesn't even sound easy. Cosmopolitanism is, in addition to Diogenes legacy, a product of the Enlightenment in that it celebrates diversity and multiculturalism; it is tolerant of diverse moralities. However, it is intolerant of those who would deny tolerance of this diversity or plurality. This is the central dilemma of cosmopolitanism. It attempts to reconcile liberal universal values with the values of those who disagree with them. Cosmopolitanism believes in the basic freedoms, including freedom of speech but it will curb any speech that calls for restricting that freedom.

This dilemma is currently playing itself out worldwide with the publication in a Danish newspaper cartoons depicting Mohammed. Denmark is a quintessential liberal country and regards mocking belief systems as a basic human right. On the other hand, for Muslim fundamentalists the content of the cartoons roils beliefs that they live and die for. Other European countries expressed solidarity with the Danes, reaffirming their rights to freedom of speech. Likewise, Muslim extremists worldwide are rioting and calling it blasphemy.

Appiah is, of course, a product of Western schooling, so his position is probably more on the side of the Danes. (I'm assuming since this book was written before the incident.) Appiah's cosmpolitanism stands for enlightened liberal values, but with a difference. He recognizes that Muslim fundamentalism is a challenge to cosmopolitanism - he calls them counter-cosmopolitans - because it too is a morality, a universal one. However, Muslim fundamentalism is not a tolerant universalism. Appiah's cosmopolitanism believes in universal truth as well, "though we are less certain we already have all of it." This is not skepticism nor is it relativism, it is a more humble relationship with universal truth. Cosmopolitans believe that there are many values worth living for, its just that we cannot live for all of them, but we can live alongside them.

And how will the cartoon drama play itself out? My guess is that the Muslim fundamentalists will not back down, for them it is blasphemy pure and simple. The Danes, being secular, tolerant, and inclined towards cosmopolitanism, will recognize that freedom of speech is an excercise in self-restraint. They will have learned that the cartoons genuinely offended a certain group of people, and, as a consequence, they will apologize, but without abandoning their values. This illustrates another aspect of cosmopolitanism known as fallibilism. They know that knowledge is at best imperfect and is subject to change in the light of new understanding. The Danes will have learned something from this incident because cosmopolitanism is a open-ended system, the Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, will have learned nothing beyond what they already know.

"Cosmopolitans don't insist that everyone become cosmopolitan. They know they don't have all the answers. They're humble enough to think that they might learn from strangers; not too humble to think that strangers can't learn from them."

There are few individuals more qualified to write a book on the idea of cosmopolitanism than Kwame Anthony Appiah. Biracial, raised in both Ghana and England, multicultural, multilingual, educated at Cambridge but teaching at Princeton, Appiah has an inside familiarity with larger world that few can rival. It is tremendously encouraging to me, a WASP who has been unable to engage in any real travel, that we both seem to share precisely the same ideals. My experience of the world counts for little; his a great deal. Yet it shows that people with extremely different backgrounds can embrace the same ideals.

Appiah is a philosopher, but though he has clearly been raised in the Anglo-American linguistic philosophical tradition, he has not found himself restricted by it. From the various philosophers he quotes, I'm sure that he and had had similar philosophical training. I envy the way that he can make what I learned as logical positivism (Appiah lops off the "logical") and make it relevant in a discussion of wider cultural issues. Though he obviously was trained in the tradition honed by Russell, Carnap, Frege, Ryle, Austin, Anscombe, Dummett, and the large contingent of American and British logicians and philosophers of language, none of them have informed his literary style. In fact, the two writers Appiah reminds me of most are Herodotus and Montaigne. Like them, he feels a license to bring into his discussion almost anything. If he is cosmopolitan on a moral and social level, he is also as a multidisciplinarian. Nor does he hesitate at mixing cultures. Many of the most compelling passages in the book detail incidents from his experience in Ghana.

The point of the book is to discuss many of the problems that arise if one attempts to embrace--as Appiah clearly feels we all should--cosmopolitan ideals. He deals interestingly with a host of issues, from the idea of who owns the products of a culture to the incommensurability of values from one culture to another (or their possible commensurability) to whether it is problematic when there are conflicts on fundamental issues. As a person he seems to have been deeply molded by all of the cultural influences in which he grew up, but as a philosopher he is exceptionally British. Over the decades there have been a number of British thinkers who have been able to cut through a thick wad of nonsense and discuss issues in a balanced, commonsensical manner. Gilbert Ryle had this capacity, as did (sometimes) G. E. Moore, and so also Mary Midgley. While his views are unquestionably progressive, Appiah always seems to avoid extremes to arrive at conclusions that are, above all else, balanced and reasonable. He is a master at making sense. So when philosopher Peter Unger argues that we all have a moral obligation to give every penny that we do not need for our own sustenance to organizations like UNICEF and OXFAM so that food and medicine can be purchased for the desperately poor in the Third World. Appiah, on the other hand, believes that a world in which no one bought a ticket to the opera would be flat and uninteresting. Besides, what really matters is reforming local governments in order to provide long-term transformation of the socioeconomic structures in the areas most afflicted by poverty, something that giving exclusively to UNICEF and OXFAM will not accomplish (though for the record, Appiah thinks both organizations are very important and he does not discourage contributing to them). Though he does not state it as a principle, he constantly employs something akin to Aristotle's golden mean.

I especially enjoyed his chapter on The Counter-Cosmopolitans. He places many of today's Islamic extremists in this category, though he also very correctly places many Christian fundamentalists here as well. I have long fantasized about writing a book about contemporary proponents of Counter-Enlightenment ideas (a book I will never write because I haven't mastered the range of disciplines such a project would require). Isaiah Berlin wrote frequently about various Counter-Enlightenment thinkers such as Hamaan, but I believe it can be extended into the present for such mass movements as various religious fundamentalisms (Christian, Islamic, as well as Jewish), the New Age movement, contemporary astrology, right wing political movements, and free market capitalism. Obviously I can't make my claim here, but I found Appiah's discussion of the counter-cosmopolitans to overlap entirely with counter-enlightenment ideals.

I value this book not only for its ideals and the intelligent discussion of a host of thorny issues, but for Appiah's warm humanity and wonderful literary style. It is not merely an intelligent book but a well-written one as well.

We can move to a better neighborhood or to a different country. But all humanity is our neighbor, like them or not.

Mr. Appiah, the renowned Princeton philosophy professor, challenges us with the paradox of a common humanity, among which, different ethnic and religious groups often do not share customs, or even the same values. The Cosmopolitan thesis is that, despite being strangers in many ways, our common humanity provides a basis for mutual respect and compassion.

What anchors the paradox at one end is that, for most of human history, we knew only our own kind, with limited need to understand, let alone to accept, the customs of people in other groups. Over the last few centuries, increased trade and communication, as well as industrial pollution and international terrorism, has changed framework. Since our actions can affect "lives everywhere," ethical living implies responsibilities beyond our immediate environment and social group. Humanity has become, in a sense, one "tribe."

Mr. Appiah reminds us that the view of being a citizen of the world reflects intellectual traditions at least as old as classical times; that Marcus Aurelius, whose works were attractive to many Christian intellectuals, himself sought to suppress Christianity; that, then again, Christianity, whose allegiances have often fueled persecution, originally spread from Paul's assertion of "neither Jew nor Greek . . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Yet, Mr. Appiah also reminds us, respect for those different includes respect for their freedom to be separate, as in the case of the Amish in the United States.

If you find yourself often straddling the same paradox and long to find a partner in the journey, you will find one in Mr. Appiah's short (196 pp.), varied, and challenging book. He provides examples of agreeing, yet agreeing to disagree. The non-Muslim for example, would agree on the devout's right to make a hajj to Mecca, but may not agree that a Deity has commanded it, or that avoiding pork is appropriate. The paradox is exemplified in explanations of the natural world. Even an agreement on facts leaves ambiguity in theories; e.g., whether it is germs or (many tiny) spirits that cause disease. Mr. Appiah makes a case that there are even fewer compelling arguments based on fact in the determination of values. The journey continues to the Ghana of the author's father, where we find out about "taboos" dealing with bush meat and menstruating women. A distinction made here is that, while taboos separate peoples, or classes within peoples (rulers, nobles, and slaves), morals differ in that they guide us in the treatment of others, so a taboo is a distinction with less of a difference. Even so, taboos are common to all cultures; westerners eat pigs but not cats.

A cosmopolitan understands and can live with difference, even when the differences are mutually understood. A "universalist," on the other hand, expects agreement through understanding. Mr. Appiah has us step back from taboos, to the more engaging questions of values. Still, while most people in a society value fair punishment, not all agree that punishment is worth the risk of punishing the innocent; while men in different societies relate their honor to the chastity of related women, not all of these men would agree that honor compels killing a woman who is raped. We find that reasoned argument does not compel either of these positions to those taking them. There seems to be a sort of getting "used to," that even a great mathematician (von Neumann) would endorse as reason's companion.

Mr. Appiah's treads lightly across serious subjects, and perhaps that is a cosmopolitan virtue. He contends that strangers are beyond communication mainly when they are imaginary; that is, when they are people we have not met one-to-one. Also, that, among diversity, there are inevitable commonalities: "I have failed to get people interested in Zeno's paradox in three continents." That, when caring about others requires an "out-group," one's caring is perhaps mere self-comfort.

Mr. Appiah explores the concept of cultural preservation. He proposes a difference between preserving culture and preserving cultures. He challenges the idea of "authenticity," as limited by the facts of history, such as the role of trade in the development of kente cloth and bagpipes. The need to "preserve" is argued as an ignorance of how free non-Westerners are to interpret American TV and consumer products. At worst, an attitude of cultural preservation condescends. We learn that the ancients saw the value of "contamination": stoic teachers traveling between city states, an African-born playwright, Publius Terentius Afer, using Greek ideas in Roman drama. We are offered, quoting this playright, a golden rule: "I am human: nothing is alien to me."

We are given a glimpse of the founder of the scouting movement, collecting (or looting?), as a prelude to a discussion of cultural objects. Mr. Appiah takes us to the question of whether a Norse goblet is more valuable in a Spanish museum or in a Norwegian family's living room. Cosmopolitanism proposes that the connection through ethnic identity across centuries is no less real than the connection through a common humanity.

Mr. Appiah includes some discussion of counter-cosmopolitans, for example, Islamic fundamentalists, to help us understand by way of contrast. The universal aspect in this case, and in others, is one that looks beyond borders or ethnicity, and excludes those who disbelieve. This discussion evokes the cosmopolitan understanding that different people will have different values, and that this is quite acceptable (with some exception for values not worth having). The cosmopolitan knows that one can learn from those with whom one disagrees. The counter-cosmopolitan sees nothing to be gained by reaching out from the faithful.

Finally, we are given the author's reflection on questions of sacrifice for the benefit of others. So, how much would we sacrifice to save the life of a child in a foreign country with nutrition and medicine? One hundred dollars? If that much, why not more - say, another hundred dollars. Or is there a point when it's more important to go the opera? And - is it really possible to save another's life for more than a few days, given the harsh realities of their life situation. Is it as easy as deciding to ruin a suit in order to save a child from drowning, and why? What is the principle behind the answers to these questions, if there is one.

The journey continues: Mr. Appiah provides an informative and provocative guide to how to treat strangers, meant of course, in the large. I do not guarantee the reader will find comfortable answers, only insights and surprising information, and that your answers, which are how you actually live, will now have questions to challenge them.

In my opinion this book deserves considerably less acclaim than it appears to have received. As a modest call for understanding among cultural groups, who could disagree? Appiah, however, himself a product of two contrasting cultures, here takes on a more daunting task: reconciling his respect for the cultures of both his African father and English mother, but the result is a rather incoherent narrative, especially in chapters 2 and 3. This is perhaps best demonstrated by two statements that appear on p-42. In defense of his paternal culture, he first writes "There is nothing unreasonable, then, about my kinsmen's belief in witchcraft." His word "then" is a reflection of his claim, made on the previous pages, that the "Duhem thesis" allows him to argue that all attempts to grasp reality are culturally conditioned and can therefore be regarded as "valid" within the cultures in which they arise. However, this claim seriously misconstrues the Duhem thesis, with Appiah's arguments reflecting the postmodernist thinking of the "science wars" era of some 30 years ago that is now largely discredited. But then comes his second statement as his mother's culture comes to the fore: "What's wrong with the theory of witchcraft is not that it doesn't make sense but that it isn't true." In these two statements one can see the tension in Appiah's struggle to reconcile his bicultural upbringing. That his Asante father really believes he is communicating with his ancestors when he pours whiskey on the floor (p-34) may be interesting, but that is hardly a convincing alternative to the scientific worldview of his maternal forebearers.

Another problem is Appiah's seeming unawareness that "culture" can be a literal prison for a sensitive person raised within it. In defense of what used to be called "female genital mutilation" he here (p-73) tells African women that the operation can be regarded as "an expression of your cultural identity." Try telling that to Hirsi Ali, whose efforts to free herself, at considerable personal risk, of the bonds of a very similar cultural background after having received such a "cultural identity" mark has attracted worldwide attention. Also unmentioned by him is any recognition that over the span of human history it has often been precisely those who found the courage to think and act in opposition to their cultural heritage who became some of humanities greatest benefactors. When confronted by epilepsy Jesus saw only a boy possessed by demons, but 400 years earlier while discussing that same disease Hippocrates mocked his cultural compatriots and their demon-haunted world by claiming that epilepsy was nothing more than the result of natural causes, and he thereby laid the foundations for the long journey that culminated in the benefits of modern medicine. Appiah's primary motivation seems to be a desire to step on no one's toes, but his efforts are unconvincing, and he might well have considered these comments of Edward Grant, a major figure in understanding the history of science. While speaking of the cultural backwardness of medieval Europe when faced by the superior cultures of the Middle East, Grant wrote:

"Latin scholars in the 12th century recognized that not all cultures are equal. They were painfully aware that with respect to science and natural philosophy, their civilization was manifestly inferior to that of Islam. They faced an obvious choice: learn from their superiors or remain inferior forever. They chose to learn. Had they assumed that all cultures were equal . . . they would have had no reason to seek out Arab learning and the glorious scientific legacy that followed would not have occurred."

Well said, even though Appiah provides little evidence of grasping the significance of such a perspective.

Appiah (the Laurence S Rockefeller Professor of Philosophy and the Center for Human Values at Princeton University)writes in an urbane introduction to the issues multiculturalism poses for our society and should be must reading for all those who want to really understand the complexity of our new century. After reading this book we might all be able to agree (to paraphrase what someone famously said about Keynes) that we are all cosmopolitian (ists) now. No one can truly escape into their own monocultural island --our cities, our media and most important our language and culture are infused with layer upon layer of global cultures whether we are aware of them or not. Appiah begins by examining the root meanings of cosmopolitianism--

"A citizen--a polites--belonged to a particular polis, a city to which he or she owed loyalty. The cosmos referred to the world, not in the sense of the earth but in the sense of the universe. Talk of cosmopolitianism originally signaled, then a rejection of the conventional view that every civilized person belonged to a community among communities."

Appiah's easy non academic style helps you understand the role of the Enlightenment thinkers such as Wieland--(once called the German Voltaire Appiah adds) who wrote
"Cosmopolitans..regard all the people of the earth as so many branches of a single family, and the universe as a state, of which they, with innumerable other than rational beings, are citizens, are citizens, promoting together under the general laws of nature the perfection of the whole, while each in his own fashion is busy about his own well-being."

Appiah's learning is worn lightly as he answers the all important question --what does it mean to hold the view that we are citizens of the world? What happens to local allegiances--for Virginia Woolf it meant--"freedom from unreal loyalties" and Leo Tolstoy wrote about the "stupidity of patriotism"--on the opposite side of the equation are people like Hitler and Stalin who are deep foes of cosmpolitianism and we all know how that ended up. Appiah's huge store of reading helps him navigate through the issue of loyalties which lies at the heart of the question. George Eliot's creation of Daniel Deronda-the very English gentleman who discovers his Jewish heritage only as an adult--explains his interest in studying his heritage in these terms, "I want to be an Englishman, but I want to understand other points of view. And I want to get rid of the a merely English attitude in studies."

The issue comes down to self definition and how we claim it--we have to be open to the idea that our cultural background creates a way we can connect with others--Eliot talks of the "closer fellowship that makes sympathy practical."

And this is just the introduction! The cluster of questions Appiah considers are truly wide ranging -but often remain invisible in debate--questions such "as what we owe strangers by virtue of our shared humanity?, can culture be "owned" ?
As a philosopher he can be skilled with applying some important distinctions--so for example when we talk about objective values we are really talking about desired values --some of which depend on certain facts--he gives the example of universal vaccination as being a value --but we are often prepared to give this value up when the disease has been eliminated. Where we often go astray Appiah argues is where we view an individual's moral vocabulary as belonging to one individual--all the important values-such as kindness, cruelty are public and shared across cultures. It is first and foremost evaluative language we are using--a way of communicating to each other our preferences--if your values were not shared in language --there would be no way we could refer to them. The reason why values are important in our society is that they allow us to get things done together--we appeal to those values in order to act in the public forum--whether it is building a road, going to the moon, or making peace. Our stories that we share embody our values and certain stories are more important than others in our national culture because they enshrine some key values. So one of the purposes of studying a foreign language and reading books in translation is to appreciate the nuances of other people's values.

Not all chapters are discursive essays--some are personal meditations based on growing up in Ghana and the ways that the culture and beliefs shape someone so that conversation sometimes becomes problematic. The author gives the example of medicine and how the conversation between someone who believes in witchcraft to accept the findings of modern medicine. Why should they believe in viruses--that you cannot see? Just because you said so? You can say that you can predict who can get well but not who will get sick. In the end you have to appeal to a community of people who can test the evidence that goes beyond the anectdotal and subjective.

There are insights all along the way--for example the independence movements in Africa and elsewhere that brought to an end colonial rule were arguments about values--not African values per se --but values embodied in the rhetoric that had
guided the Allies in their conflict with the Axis powers--"It was a conflict of interests couched in terms of the same values."

Important points are made about so called cultural purity and cultural contamination--we see so many examples of ethnic communities within hetrogeneous cultures choosing to live within their own cultural borders--but as Appiah so eloquently argues--"cultural purity is an oxymoron"--multiculturalism is in some shape or form in all our lives--in the Middle East, in China, in Ghana and in our own western world. The entire history of culture has been related to mixing one cultural strain with another--from the Roman through to the Alexanderian and British empires to the American century--cultures are continually reinterpreted and reinvented. Intolerance for others is bred of universalistic fundamentalist creeds whether they be Islamic or Christian or Jewish can as we know all too well lead to dangerous consequences--however as Appiah reminds us the truly toxic aspects of this are not so much in terms of those beliefs but their fear and sometimes prohibition of conversation. Without conversation they can extend their belief that "not everyone matters" and other equally savage ideas and not owe anyone a justification as to why. They don't want to be drawn into explaining precisely because they don't want to have to justify themselves or their beliefs to others--because they know that their values are not ultimately defensible. Reason is at the center of it all--"come let us reason together" should be the motto of every civilized person--it offers a ground for your thinking and my thinking.

In terms of the central question--what are our obligations to others--Appiah's answer is to be common sensical--it is to do "our fair share"--we cannot be required to do more. But what is our "fair share"? How do we deal with the fact that so many people are not doing their fair share? He discusses this and other issues--such as the paradox that one of the world's greatest capitalists is providing billions to help eradicate preventable diseases around the globe and our economic system allows the average cow to live on a $2.50 a day subsidy when 3 billion people live on less than $2 dollars a day. Appiah points out that Jeffrey Sachs has argued that we can eradicate extreme poverty for about $150 billion a year for 20 years. Clearly we can do better, as Appiah argues it is a "demand of simple morality" and we can also agree with him that this end might be more achievable "if we made civilization more cosmopolitan"

The author is a terrific writer. His style is very approachable. This isn't ivory-tower, academic journal style writing. It's something that just about anyone could pick up and learn from. It's a quick read that you won't feel that you've had to slog through.

In some respects, what I like most about this book aren't the author's specific ideas on cosmopolitanism, but something else. What I like most is learning how the author himself came to cosmopolitanism. Seeing how he came to be cosmopolitan helped teach me how I could make some progress towards that goal.

Don't think that you're going to come away from this book with a thorough understanding of cosmopolitanism. This is just one, good piece of the puzzle. You're going to have to fill in some of the gaps with Kant, Nussbaum, Held, Rawls, an others.

However, this is a terrific book that accomplishes its task. It's good enough that I've bought and gifted copies for friends. That's about the highest recommendation that I can give.

I have completely bought into Professor Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism, etymologically from "cosmos" = universe + "pilites" = citizen of "polis" = city + -ism = strong ideological/philosophical stance. I didn't know that , too. The guy, the author of this book, is insanely brilliant; I never thought I could read a book on philosophy, having taken only two philosophy courses in college, although I read a lot on the Philosophy of Science and the Methodology of Economics. Superb work!

The book tells us that globalization is out; localization is in. But cosmopolitan localization comes with a clear head and mainly a warm heart. Cosmopolitans' sensibilities no longer depend on the travels to remote places by curious anthropologists and their interpretations of the world, far from it. The foreigners are already here - among us - and to stay. This means "cosmopolitan isn't hard work; repudiating it is (p. xx); it begins with the simple idea that in the human community, as in national communities, we need to develop habits of coexistence: conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association" (p. xix). The fact that "the foreignness of foreigners, the strangeness of strangers ... are real enough, [but also that] we have been encouraged ... to exaggerate their significance by an order of magnitude" (p. xxi) challenges our inherited values and value systems. The challenge affects self-image adversely; it "shatters the mirror." Looking at ourselves in the pieces of broken glass we still see ourselves, but now also the stranger behind us, which makes us feel confused. Since the stranger is us, at least he is one of us, the old-fashioned positivism becomes obsolete, and "the facts on the ground" begin to dominate highbrow theories. Moral contentions are now a part of life and only practice brings resolution, and resolution it must bring because the stranger we see is imaginary, contaminated by cosmopolitanism, and struggling to sort out whose culture it is he is following. In this struggle, the "counter-cosmopolitans" are still present but they are losing the day, thanks to the "kindness of strangers."

Cosmopolitanism is truly one of the "issues of our time." I learned so much from this book, and want you to do the same as well.

Amavilah, Author
National Wealth Accounting and Baseball Player Exports: Economic Implications for Performance
ISBN: 978-3838330099

Economic Versus Non-Economic Dimensions of the Well-being of Nations.
ISBN: 9783838320984

Modeling Determinants of Income in Embedded Economies.
ISBN: 1600210465

Quotable Arthur Schopenhauer
ISBN: 9781430324959