Really, I think this is a great piece. By a Princeton philosopher from Ghana (who I've never heard of, but maybe I should have). Adapted from a book, which I think isn't out yet, but which I now want to read. I think this is the closest anyone's come in the last several years (in the post-Sept. 11 world, etc.) to presenting a coherent, internationalist liberal agenda. Of course, some things in there will piss off some leftists, particularly the knee-jerk anti-globalization crowd. But so what?
I really like his dissection of the idea of cultural authenticity, and his focus on hybridization and "contamination." He's a poppist philsopher! And I like "cosmopolitanism" as an organizing principle. Mostly I like how carefully thought out his arguments are, the way he acknowledges counterarguments and the importance of recognizing the complexity of all of the issues he's talking about.
It's a very long story, I know. Probably better read in the actual magazine, or printed out or something. But I think it's great. Nice way to start the year.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 1 January 2006 02:59 (eighteen years ago) link
In the past couple of years, Unesco's members have spent a great deal of time trying to hammer out a convention on the "protection and promotion" of cultural diversity. (It was finally approved at the Unesco General Conference in October 2005.) The drafters worried that "the processes of globalization. . .represent a challenge for cultural diversity, namely in view of risks of imbalances between rich and poor countries." The fear is that the values and images of Western mass culture, like some invasive weed, are threatening to choke out the world's native flora.
The contradictions in this argument aren't hard to find. This same Unesco document is careful to affirm the importance of the free flow of ideas, the freedom of thought and expression and human rights -- values that, we know, will become universal only if we make them so. What's really important, then, cultures or people? In a world where Kumasi and New York -- and Cairo and Leeds and Istanbul -- are being drawn ever closer together, an ethics of globalization has proved elusive.
The right approach, I think, starts by taking individuals -- not nations, tribes or "peoples" -- as the proper object of moral concern. It doesn't much matter what we call such a creed, but in homage to Diogenes, the fourth-century Greek Cynic and the first philosopher to call himself a "citizen of the world," we could call it cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitans take cultural difference seriously, because they take the choices individual people make seriously. But because cultural difference is not the only thing that concerns them, they suspect that many of globalization's cultural critics are aiming at the wrong targets.
Yes, globalization can produce homogeneity. But globalization is also a threat to homogeneity.
------------------------
Besides, trying to find some primordially authentic culture can be like peeling an onion. The textiles most people think of as traditional West African cloths are known as Java prints; they arrived in the 19th century with the Javanese batiks sold, and often milled, by the Dutch. The traditional garb of Herero women in Namibia derives from the attire of 19th-century German missionaries, though it is still unmistakably Herero, not least because the fabrics used have a distinctly un-Lutheran range of colors. And so with our kente cloth: the silk was always imported, traded by Europeans, produced in Asia. This tradition was once an innovation. Should we reject it for that reason as untraditional? How far back must one go? Should we condemn the young men and women of the University of Science and Technology, a few miles outside Kumasi, who wear European-style gowns for graduation, lined with kente strips (as they do now at Howard and Morehouse, too)? Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of a society can survive through these changes. Societies without change aren't authentic; they're just dead.
----------------------------------------
tolerance by itself is not what distinguishes the cosmopolitan from the neofundamentalist. There are plenty of things that the heroes of radical Islam are happy to tolerate. They don't care if you eat kebabs or meatballs or kung pao chicken, as long as the meat is halal; your hijab can be silk or linen or viscose. At the same time, there are plenty of things that cosmopolitans will not tolerate. We will sometimes want to intervene in other places because what is going on there violates our principles so deeply. We, too, can see moral error. And when it is serious enough - genocide is the least-controversial case - we will not stop with conversation. Toleration has its limits.
Nor can you tell us apart by saying that the neofundamentalists believe in universal truth. Cosmopolitans believe in universal truth, too, though we are less certain that we already have all of it. It is not skepticism about the very idea of truth that guides us; it is realism about how hard the truth is to find. One tenet we hold to, however, is that every human being has obligations to every other. Everybody matters: that is our central idea. And again, it sharply limits the scope of our tolerance.
To say what, in principle, distinguishes the cosmopolitan from competing universalisms, we plainly need to go beyond talk of truth and tolerance. One distinctively cosmopolitan commitment is to pluralism. 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. Another aspect of cosmopolitanism is what philosophers call fallibilism - the sense that our knowledge is imperfect, provisional, subject to revision in the face of new evidence.
The neofundamentalist conception of a global ummah, by contrast, admits of local variations - but only in matters that don't matter. These counter-cosmopolitans, like many Christian fundamentalists, do think that there is one right way for all human beings to live; that all the differences must be in the details. If what concerns you is global homogeneity, then this utopia, not the world that capitalism is producing, is the one you should worry about.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 1 January 2006 03:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 1 January 2006 20:27 (eighteen years ago) link
"what can you tell about people's souls from the fact that they drink coca-cola?"
― it was jody that killed the beast (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 1 January 2006 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link
"They have no real choice," the cultural preservationists say. "We've dumped cheap Western clothes into their markets, and they can no longer afford the silk they used to wear. If they had what they really wanted, they'd still be dressed traditionally." But this is no longer an argument about authenticity. The claim is that they can't afford to do something that they'd really like to do, something that is expressive of an identity they care about and want to sustain. This is a genuine problem, one that afflicts people in many communities: they're too poor to live the life they want to lead. But if they do get richer, and they still run around in T-shirts, that's their choice. Talk of authenticity now just amounts to telling other people what they ought to value in their own traditions.
― it was jody that killed the beast (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 1 January 2006 21:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 1 January 2006 21:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 1 January 2006 21:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― it was jody that killed the beast (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 1 January 2006 21:53 (eighteen years ago) link
But at the same time if you do actually think women's rights are important, I don't see how you can not advocate for them. I think a lot of it has to do with how you do it, finding ways to encourage it from within (by supporting indigenous reformers, e.g.) rather than imposing it by fiat.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 1 January 2006 21:58 (eighteen years ago) link
otm. that's exactly what i was getting at.
― it was jody that killed the beast (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 1 January 2006 22:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 1 January 2006 22:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― it was jody that killed the beast (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 1 January 2006 22:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 1 January 2006 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 2 January 2006 18:40 (eighteen years ago) link
b-b-but that would require them actually having to read.
― it was jody that killed the beast (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 2 January 2006 18:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 2 January 2006 18:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 2 January 2006 19:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 2 January 2006 20:15 (eighteen years ago) link