Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers

I've felt for awhile now that there is a tendency among hipster-chic, educated members of my generation to identify with alternative political theories that, at least cosmetically, appeal to our universal core values. We claim to ascribe to Marxism or socialism not because it's tangibly familiar to us, but because of what it, in general, is not. What it is not is the representative democracy that we are likely disenchanted with in the first place. I'm using the collective "we" here because I'm no stranger to this tendency myself, having at times espoused a fond appreciation for the socialist theories of various individuals and governments. When the luster of that particular brand of liberalism wore off and I realized that I really knew very little about its application I was still, like others of my generation, rather disenchanted with the political system that I lived with daily. 

This is why I picked up Cosmopolitanism by philosopher and ethicist Kwame Anthony Appiah. What I expected to find was an introduction to political cosmopolitanism. What Appiah is actually offering in this text is actually an introduction to philosophical cosmopolitanism more than anything else, though he does use some manner of the political application in various examples. Not finding exactly what I was anticipating, this could have been a bit of a letdown, but overall this book was incredibly impressive. 

Appiah introduces the reader to the philosophical concept that we, as a worldwide community in the grip of globalization, have inherent responsibilities to one another, something few people would criticize. What he does with this assertion is push the reader to think harder about it and what it really means in both hypothetical and practical application. This is part of his exercise in determining what cosmopolitanism, a term he admits ambivalence to, actually is.

The other part comes from defining what it is not. Appiah holds cosmopolitanism up against relativism and positivism in an attempt to uncover the limits of all three. Ultimately the titular theory does not emerge as being very well-defined, but one gets the sense as to the competing obligations of the potential cosmopolite. I think that, in this short text, this is exactly what Appiah is striving for. The interested reader will be quick to seek out additional theorizing and practical application. I wasn't looking for a discussion philosophical cosmopolitanism, indeed I wasn't even entirely aware of the distinction, but I'm happy to have encountered it first.

This would be an excellent text for anyone exploring alternative theories, especially what might be called "fresh" alternative theories, those not weighed down by the myriad connotations attached to communism and socialism and the like. Appiah's writing style is conversational and inviting and the simplicity of his examples makes this philosophical text highly readable. I would recommend it as I intend to read it: many times over.