I know that the summer solstice — the official beginning of summer — is still 20 days away, but as far as I’m concerned, summer began today: not because it’s June 1, but because it’s the first Tuesday after Memorial Day. It’s time to pull out the linen clothing and to start thinking in earnest about the summer’s projects.
One project about which I’m very excited is NYU Abu Dhabi‘s summer colloquium, “Cosmopolitan Ideas for Global Citizens.” Our incoming first-year students have all received Kwame Anthony Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers and have been invited to read it by June 21. The colloquium is purely voluntary. According to the syllabus, it’s designed “to delight your mind, connect you with your classmates, and help you see the world through new lenses.”
One of the goals of the colloquium is to get the students to begin thinking critically about a term that’s often applied both to New York and to Abu Dhabi — and to NYU Abu Dhabi: cosmopolitan. According to the syllabus:
As a student attending NYU Abu Dhabi, you have been described as cosmopolitan. But what does it mean to be a cosmopolitan in an international context? Often the term is associated with the sophisticated urban elite; however, the root of the word, “cosmos,” refers to the universe. A cosmopolitan is therefore a citizen of the world, with no national or political home. But how can one become a citizen of the world? Is it even desirable to do so? After all, few people want to divorce themselves wholly from a cultural community in order to join a global society. While human beings may share some beliefs, desires, and values, we rarely agree wholeheartedly on our interpretations of those beliefs, desires, and values, which are often rooted in experiences grouped by geographic place. The summer colloquium offers an opportunity to discuss the advantages and limitations, in short the paradox, of being a cosmopolitan.
The students who participate have also been asked to take a picture of something in their local communities that “captures something about its meaning or essence.” The photographs will be shared among the students online. Between June 21 and July 2, they will participate in small chat groups to raise questions about the book and the ideas it promotes (and critiques). Shortly thereafter, my NYUAD philosophy colleague Matthew Silverstein will begin convening larger online chat groups that will help the students settle on a set of key questions that will then be forwarded to me in the second week of July. Over the next couple of weeks I will put together a lecture based on these questions that will then be filmed and made available online in early August. We will likely follow up the lecture with some online discussion here at patell.net and perhaps elsewhere. We will definitely hold a live session to continue the conversation in Abu Dhabi during the orientation week in September.
To prime my conceptual pump, I’m inviting anyone out there who has read or is reading Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism to leave a comment or a question about the text here. (Profundity is not required.)
I’ve only read the Introduction out of curiosity and will begin reading Cosmopolitanism in-depth post-graduation. But I’d like to share my favorite line from the Intro that has one of those messages where in hindsight seems fairly obvious and sensible, but leads to a line of thought not often spoken of or thought about…
“Depending on the circumstances, conversations across boundaries can be delightful, or just vexing: what they mainly are, though, is inevitable” (XXI).
The word that jumped out to me was “inevitable” and made it readily apparent that isolation simply will not be possible in our future and all we can truly do is to try our best that the conversation and dialogue are verbal and constructive, not physical and destructive. Just my two cents!
@Harrison: That’s one of my favorite sentences too. I’ve quoted it often, in classes and even in print.
I’m halfway through chapter 6, and my favourite part so far has been when he talks about taboos. He states that taboos may have developed as an evolutionary advantage, but I really like the way he exposes the fact these taboos are dependent on the particular characteristics of the culture they belong to. This is also rather obvious, but it gets you thinking – we don’t eat dogs and cats, but we (well, not all of us!) eat pigs?
I also found interesting when Appiah argued that agreeing on a particular value doesn’t mean two parties would apply the value the same way, or even would endorse the value for the same reasons.
I read Appiah’s book and even reread some of my favorite parts (especially the last chapter: “Damn it (…) I’ve come to the conclusion that the Chinaman must live.”). I also watched your lecture, and I must say I have put two new books on my reading list: Moby-Dick and Balzac’s Pere Goriot. To return to Mr. Appiah’s work: I was both elated and disappointed by it. I guess this is a result of my “horizon of expectations” (I like this term!) about a book with the title: “Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers”. I expected this book to be too idealistic and to neglect the obvious limitations to cosmopolitan ideas. I don’t know why but I also expected the author to provide the reader with a step-by-step guide “How to make the world a better place (i.e. cosmopolitan place)” or at least “How to become cosmopolitan”. Well, apparently I was wrong. Appiah doesn’t give us a step-by-step solution of the problem, but he gives us a key how to be better: by embracing others’ differences and by fulfilling some basic obligations to the others. However, he leaves much to our own judgement. And contrary to my other expectation he doesn’t blindly praise some impossible ideal (impossible for us, mortals); he is realistic and critical in his understanding of the cosmopolitan challenge.
I have a lot of questions in about the book, but I will save them for the group discussions, and only ask you two of them which bother me right now:
1. Appiah talks about the “live-and-let-live” attitude. Is it correct to say that this is the attitude that reflects the philosophy of multiculturalism?
2. I recently read about political parties based on ethnicity, which are banned in Bulgaria. While reading the book I wondered whether this policy contradicts or supports cosmopolitanism.
@Jorge: I think you’re right that one of the key points in the book is the idea that there can be significant deviations in the ways that different people argue in favor of a value or apply a value. For example let’s say that we agree that human life is sacred. Does that mean we should execute someone who takes a human life? Or is even the murderer’s life sacred?
@Darina: The “live-and-let-live” attitude that Appiah discusses (p. 10) is typically associated with multiculturalism. It suggests pluralism and toleration. But multiculturalism can, in the view of Appiah and others, take this attitude too far. Do we really want to adopt an attitude of “live-and-let-live” toward a culture that practices slavery, for example? Or promotes genocide?
Cosmopolitans are interested in being able to make judgments about ideas, practices, and values and would not feel that all practices — even those of longstanding within a culture — are equally valid. Cosmopolitans want to be able to arrive, through discussion, at best practices and want to be able to convince others to change their practices, if those practices — like slavery and genocide — are morally repugnant.
The question about political parties is complex and is something we might discuss further later on. Too often, group-identities that are based on ethnicity are based on a desire for the kind of “cultural purity” that Appiah finds problematic (p. 111). On the other hand, Appiah wants cosmopolitanism to be able to recognize the power of local attachments, such as ethnicity. A cosmopolitan theorist might suggest that the answer isn’t to ban such political parties, but to create an environment in which the parties can draw on the best of their ethnic traditions without becoming xenophobic or committed to cultural purity. A Bulgarian who supports the policy might argue, in contrast, that history has shown that the risk that an ethnically-based political party within the Bulgarian context will become virulently xenophobic is too high and that the policy, with its heavy hand, is nonetheless the lesser of two evils.
I look forward to further conversation!
So, after reading through Cosmopolitanism, I found myself both satisfied and troubled. The book lent itself many enlightening concepts that I, quite frankly, just ate up (something along the lines of “Om nom nom”). My only major issue came up in the chapter on the counter-cosmopolitan. This issue is that I am a devout Christian, and I have to say that bundled up in that is that I believe there are universals. Now, I am a tolerant person who does not believe in crusade like evangelism. I accept that not all will convert to Christianity, and though this does cause me an engrained sadness, I can work through it to see things from the view of others.
Where the real issue for me is where Appiah claims that cosmopolitans must subscribe to the concept of pluralism, or perhaps it is more in its conclusion that I am taken back. “Cosmopolitans think that there are many values worth living by and that you cannot live by all of them. So we hope and expect that different people and different societies will embody different values. (But they have to be values worth living by.) (Appiah, 144)” Starting from the top down, I believe that there are many values worth believing in and living by and that one cannot live by all them in that I know that the Bible does present many values and that we cannot live perfectly. So with this, I say fine. But it is the next phrase that touches my base in the universalism that I must subscribe to as a Christian. This is because I think that all societies are held to the same Biblical values that I am and that I indeed hope that they will embody these.
That might sound pretentious or single minded, but to fully believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God I must object to the idea that there are some different set of values then those presented in the Bible. Now, I can concede that there are many taboos that, though not stated in the Bible, are perfectly acceptable. There is a distinction though between taboos and values. Does this make me a counter-cosmopolitan? Though I agree with much else presented by Appiah?
Well, earlier in Cosmopolitism, Appiah says that “practices and not principles are what enable was to live in peace (Appiah, 85).” So, as long as I do not act in such way that go against the central concept of cosmopolitanism that is my moral obligation to my fellow man as is outlined in the final chapter, so do my principles really matter as to whether I am a cosmopolitan? I would vote not. Your thoughts?
I would first like to admit that I have not read much of Cosmopolitanism as of now because of my whirlwind of a life ever since I had received the book. But I still felt the need to share my thoughts on Stephen’s post.
Though I am no expert on the Bible and its controversial history, I believe that the Bible can not possibly be perfect, flawless, and all-encompassing. And I came to this bold conclusion because of multiple ideas regarding perfection.
For one, the Bible is written my many authors, including the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus (John, Paul, Luke, Matthews, etc etc). These eyewitnesses perhaps heard Jesus’ words and saw the absolute truth, but their memory or translation of their experiences may differ from reality. Humans are not perfect creatures, so how can a human creation be perfect?
Second, though the gift of the written language is astounding, I do not believe that any one language or even all the languages in the world combined are capable of fully expressing the absolute truth of life. If you have studied more than one language, you would quickly see that many languages have words that other languages have no way of expressing. Perhaps Jesus Christ’s actions were meant to demonstrate one principle or value but the language in which it was recorded could not completely accurately record it.
I would write more and revise and rethink more if it wasn’t past midnight… Sorry for the lack of a cohesive conclusion. G’night
@Stephen,
I really liked your post! I think it poses an interesting question. Is it possible for a devout Christian/ Muslim/etc. to be a true cosmopolitan? I myself am a Christian, and although I would not call myself devout, I do believe in the values presented in the Bible (and in the New Testament). I understand why you cannot accept Appiah’s idea of different values in different societies. But if you think about it, different societies do live by the (most important) values presented in the Bible: murder and theft are crimes, lie and adultery are punished (or at least marked by society); love, loyalty, charity and diligence are still praised everywhere. Yes, different societies understand different things by them, and apply the concepts differently. But I think it would be correct to say that the basics of human morality is pretty much the same everywhere. As long as we realize that we start from this same point, it would be easier to participate in conversations across boundaries.
Of course, it is not possible for all societies to embody all values presented in the Bible, but as you said even devout Christians cannot lead “perfect” lives. By the way, I recently started to read The Holy Qur’an in order to learn more about the culture in the UAE, and I was surprised that both books supported similar (if not the same) values.
And finally, for your own relief I found a webpage with a short collection with Biblical passages that promote religious tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/tol_bibl.htm
@Harrison,
Although I understand your logic, I don’t think the best tactics here is to tell Stephen that the Bible is not perfect. Stephen believes in it, and his belief cannot be right or wrong.
@Harrison
Many Christians (myself included) believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. So though it was written by men, it is the physical writings of God himself. Obviously, God did not just give us our current 66 book Bible neatly arranged into Chapters and verses. Instead, it has been worked on and refined by Christians through the centuries. Now, our current version is a about 500 years old and was decided upon by the Council of Trent (which was brought about by the Catholic church). But it has been determined that we got it pretty much right and that our current Bible is what God wanted to communicate to his people. Whether a person believes that some book should have been included or some other book excluded is really up to them (“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Phil 2:12, 13 KJV)). This also addresses your question as to the translation of the Bible. If God basically wrote the Bible, it is not a stretch to say that he guided the hand of the translators. But as to the question to the many versions of the Bible, one can look back at the verse from Philippians.
This is all to say that what God wanted to say has been protected by his divine hand and that the empirical correctness of the Bible is in inherent in a full belief of its very principles.
@Darina
I have no issue if the values that I hold from my belief in Christ are cross cultural. This in fact brings me joy in that it only strengthens the case of Christ. But where I have a problem is that Appiah insisted that universalism cannot be in tandem with cosmopolitanism. Because I must believe in universals. And just a last thought, Appiah’s logic on why beliefs cannot be correct was another problem I had with the book but that is a petty concern. I believe that there must be some true belief and that I am in the right when it comes to beliefs (if that makes sense).
Hey, I know this comment I am going to leave right now might not be related to what you guys are talking about but I don’t know where else to post this.
I’m reading a book by Elif ?afak these days. The book’s name is Med-cezir and it is a book that involves ?afak’s essay about her life as a Turkish woman all around the world. In one of her essays, she talks about cosmopolitanism and I really wanted to share this with you. She says that people live cosmopolite lives in big cities but they always lack the ability to share their own cultures and their own feelings with the ones they live with. Sometimes they are scared and sometimes they are too lazy to make this happen. She says; “Sinsi bir s?n?rlama getiriyor farkl?l?k feti?izmi. En kozmopolit yap?lanmalar daha da yerel ve yerelci olmaya te?vik ediyor bireylerini. Bilhassa kültür ve sanat üzerinden giderek, fark?na bile varmadan, yeni bir tür milliyetçili?i besliyor çokkültürlülük söylemi.” I wish you could understand this. =)) I’ll try my best now to translate it. “The difference fetishism brings a sneaky limitation. The most cosmopolite structures provoke the act of being more and more endemic. Especially culturally, and in arts this multiculturalism feeds on a new type of nationalism.” And the nationalism here is having very similar (in terms of how they look, how they talk, how they think and act) individuals even if each belongs to a different nation.
Damla.
“Because beliefs are about the world, and there’s only one world, they can be either right or wrong, and we can criticize other people’s beliefs for being unreasonable or simply false.” (Appiah, Chapter 2, page 19)
I am concerned that the author has chosen to limit the definition of the world, to mean only one world, is one to assume that refers to the visible world? For Muslims all decisions, right or wrong, conscious or unconsciously include the “Futuh al Ghaib” or the unseen world, I am sure that might be true for a variety of cultures. With this in mind, perhaps the purpose of criticism in itself in certain contexts needs to be evaluated.
In the authors attempt to explain “where the truth lies in this time,” he titles a section Beyond the Mirror. In this section, he underestimates the views and the vision of the modern community that practices the Islamic faith. In the section titled Beyond the Mirror the reference to what he interprets as the Muslims belief he must go to Hajj because Islamic doctrine dictates it, he assigns Muslims an archaic ignorance as a group, who practices rituals because they blindly “believe” them to be true.
When the author announces “we” as in “We don’t think it’s wrong, either”, as in the following example, “ Indeed since we think that integrity matters-that living by your beliefs is important- and since, in this case, there’s no harm done in doing what conscience dictates, perhaps it would be a good thing if they made an effort to go.”; he successfully divides the readers between “we”, i.e.: the “Westerners” reading this book, and “they,” the others.
I grew up in Abu Dhabi; in a culture of “us” I am both Arab and American, Eastern and Western which I think is as global as you can be. The author assigns the quality of integrity to the “we” ignoring the bigger picture of the group of “us.” It is a subtle cliché when he mentions he has Muslim friends too, quoting Burtons anonymous Hajji Abdu is irresponsible. Quote a known philosopher like Rumi, or Jilani.
For the record, Muslims say I am the mirror of my brother, what I see in him I like, I like in myself, and what I see in him that I don’t like, is a response to what I don’t like in myself. In the land of “Us” a mirror even a shattered mirror is still part of a bigger picture.
“I am urging that we should learn about people in other places, take an interest in their civilizations, their arguments, their errors, their achievements, not because that will bring us to agreement, but because it will help us get used to one another.” (Appiah, Chapter 5, 78)
I think to say to “get used to” it is a vague concept, I think we really have to work towards better understanding of different cultures in order to develop a mutual accepting global community. Getting used to people is not enough we have make an effort to recognize and appreciate their arts, literature and political systems in order to develop a sustainable proactive global community. Even if you don’t agree with a certain political system you have to understand why it works for that particular country in order to grasp the dynamics of the culture. Even though governments influence people’s freedom of expression – they can limit it or advocate it – we can learn about people through their literature and art which are usually an expression of the individuals. It is also vitally important that we try to obtain firsthand experiences with people from different cultures by dinning with them, meeting their families or simply spending a day observing their ways before we can comprehend them and work towards a more tolerate community. We need to look beyond media-tampered newspapers and use literature, poetry, music, and theater as portals to numerous cultures. If this statement means that we need to understand people from diverse cultures and societies then I agree.