“The challenge, then, is to take to minds and hearts formed over the long millennia of living and local troops and equip them with ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become”
Kwame Appiah’s first essay, “Making Conversation”, is about purposing a solution to the challenges of our inter-connected world. Appiah settles on the idea of cosmopolitanism, after criticizing some other possible solutions (namely globalism and multiculturalism). Unfortunately, Appiah’s use of cosmopolitanism is exposed to the exact same criticisms he used to scrutinize the other solutions, and because of that, it is just as invalid as an answer.
Appiah’s problem with globalization is that it is too broad of a term, and is used more with marketing and economics than global understanding. However, later in the essay, he explains that our need for trade with one another makes it essential that we use cosmopolitanism to accept one another. “[Our] obligation to understand those with whom we share the planet, linking that need explicitly with our global economic interdependence” He then uses a quote by Voltaire that describes how trade with other countries lead to a cultural exchange. Because that exchange came from the globalization of trade, should not continue to exclude globalization as a viable solution. (Appiah cannot bash globalization for its economic connotation but also praise cosmopolitanism for having that same connotation).
On multiculturalism, Appiah says that it “often designates the disease it purports to cure”. This means that multiculturalism more points out a disease/problem rather than helps to solve an issue. Appiah says that this disqualifies multiculturalism, but then later says almost the same of cosmopolitanism. “Cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge”. If both cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism are both other names of the challenge, then how are they not the same?
Appiah acknowledges that there are problems with the term cosmopolitanism, as he says he chose the term with some ambivalence; however, his use of the word does not rise above his earlier critiques of other solutions.
I don’t completely understand your argument about Apiah bashing globalization for economic connotations and praise for cosmopolitanism but I can see where you’re coming from. I think Apiah is relatively non bias towards most topics he talks about. I think that our globalization helped cultural exchange with other countries and helped us understand what other countries beliefs and traditions are, which lead to cosmopolitanism. We were able to not necessarily agree with others traditions, but respect them because it is how they have always been doing things. Luh you PAPI
I agree with your observation that Appiah contradicts himself when he discusses multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism. Although his idea of cosmopolitanism seems like it would be more beneficial than multiculturalism and globalization, I think he needs to get his opinion straight before we can agree with it and fight for it.
Hey Dennis, great response to Apiah’s essay, I loved how you pointed out that Apiah should not have bashed globalization and then praise cosmopolitanism while both being explained in the same connotation. If he was going to use similar reasoning to explain both, he certainly should have either praised or bashed them both. Regardless, great job!
I believe that yo are right when it comes to Appiah once he gets deeper into his thoughts he does start to contradict himself. He does make the statement of cosmopolitanism is a better approach than globalization. He had just started to talk in circles and once you do that you will start to be confusing.