Francis Laleman and Vijay Pereira discuss Kwame Anthony Appiah

 

Francis Laleman - Many web forums currently discuss the concept of global citizenship, with contributors flagging each other over ideas and thoughts, and rarely coming to any kind of agreement on what it is exactly, which differentiates the outlook on life of the truly global citizen.

Recently, on one of these forums, I have argued as follows:

We live in a truly remarkable age, as so many of us are pondering over what it is, which makes us, the celebrated so-called global citizens, different from the older, and we like to think more provincial, strand of human beings - and on how we should position ourselves in this context.

Interestingly, I have recently finished reading KA Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers and I incline to adhere to his views on the subject.

A citizen of the world: how far can we take that idea?, KA Appiah muses in his introductory essay, and he elaborates: Are you really supposed to abjure all local allegiances and partialities in the name of this vast abstraction, humanity?

Further down, Appiah opts not to proceed under the term globalization -a word, he argues, that once referred to a marketing strategy and then came to designate a macroeconomic thesis, and now encompasses everything, and nothing.
Neither does the concept of  multiculturalism enthuse him: another shape shifter, which so often designates the disease it purports to cure.

So cosmopolitanism, rather that global citizenship, is the concept Appiah chooses to put forward, a concept which includes two intertwining notions:
 

• one, being the idea that we all have obligations to others, and that these obligations stretch beyond those to whom we are related by ties of kith and kind, or even the more formal ties of a shared citizenship;
• the other being the fact that we take seriously the value not just of human life but of particular human lives, which means taking an interest in the [diversity of] practices and beliefs that lend them significance.

People are different, the cosmopolitan knows, says Appiah, and there is much to learn from our differences. Because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring, we neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life.

In other words: The true cosmopolitan unites the search for concepts of human universals with a genuine respect for and interest in human diversity - well aware of the lasting tension which will, at times, render this intimate relationship between universal concern and respect for legitimate difference, into a headache producing web of moral and ethical dilemmas and choices.

Or, in the words of Appiah: There is a sense in which cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge.

I sincerely believe that this line of thought is richer, more realistic, more respectful and more ethically valiant and valuable than a unilateral search for 'oneness in action and sociocentric awareness', as proposed by a majority of the proponents of a novel 'global culture' - and for the same reason I have taken it to be a major mission in my life to keep on advocating diversity in oneness. 

 

Vijay Pereira - Dear Francis, Appiah in his book, ''The Ethics of Identity'' (Princeton) states that the Greek Stoics who came up with the word ''cosmopolitan'' meant it to be a paradox. A ''citizen of the cosmos'' was an oxymoron in ancient Greece: Being a citizen meant belonging to a particular city.

Today, of course, the term is common enough, but few embody it as well as Appiah. I firmly beleive that your thinking and obviously then it translates to your writings, is deeply influenced by your roots. As you would know Appiah's on his maternal, mother's side is descended from English gentry and Labour Party eminences. On his paternal side, his father was a prominent Ghanaian politician, related by birth to the country's royal family.  In one of his interviews I read him saying and I quote: ''I won't bore you with my Indian cousins or my Lebanese cousins or my American cousins or my Kenyan cousins, but suffice it to say that they exist,'' . Hence he is in a unique position to write and lecture on 'cosmopolitism' or 'globalisation' to the world at large. Also he is gay. And hence I beleive he is also uniquely well-suited to speak about the power and complexity of identity.

Francis, as you advocate 'diversity in oneness', and as you are well versed with India, where there are innumerable cultures, sub-cultures, castes, religions, beliefs etc, I would say 'unity in diversity' is almost the same to what you advocate.

Kind regard, Vijay Perira, Senior Lecturer in HRM at University of Portsmouth, UK

 

Francis Laleman - Dear Vijay-Ji, Namaskar!

Thank you so much for your interesting and valuable additions to my musings on the phliosophy and thoughts of Kwame Anthony Appiah. In the course of the last few months I have posted several Appiah-related questions and anwsers on several Internet forums, only to find out (by the limited number of responses) that, sadly, so far, Appiah does not really seem to have triggered the imagination of the broad masses.

In your contribution, you have raised a most iinteresting  question, entailing more implications than one might think at first sight. As you rightly say: the concepts of  diversity in oneness and unity in diversity do indeed share a common insight, and one could even hinge at them being  "almost the same".

Apart from this obvious overlap, there seems, however, to remain at least one fundametally different aspect with regard to both.

• Where unity in diversity seems to underscore the wish, need, willingness to hunt for those parameters which unite us, it suggests we do this in spite of our differences, in spite of the diversity at offer. This approach represents a  thoroughly problem-solving and solution-oriented vision. It need not be said that this is indeed the approach commonly chosen when addressing diversity issues in communities or at the workplace. The idea is to find ways to include the other, however much she may be different - hence common denominators such as inclusion programs, inclusion trainings, and so forth.
• Contrary to the above, where diversity is the problem, the concept of diversity in oneness seeks to recognize diversity for what it is. Not wanting to alter the diversity reality, it rather aims at exploring, exploiting even, the diversity of the group - in addressing a commonly created future. Here, in other words, diversity is not the problem, but it offers an unlimited supply of opportunities, chances and additional options. Diversity Management is not a cost, an expenditure, or something to be taken care of in order to achieve results - it is an investment, creating new contexts, in which the commonly created future will be all the more powerful and successful.

True diversity programs, therefore, should

• not aim at inclusion (and, needless to say, neither at exclusion) - but should focus on means of con-clusion.
• be process-oriented rather than problem-solving or solution-oriented.
• be an investment rather than an expenditure.

Or, in simple words: the bigger the diversity of the group, the richer the group's output will be.

Warm regards, Francis Laleman

 

Vijay Pereira - Dear Francis, Thank you for your thought provoking response. I deduce you are a stronger proponent of 'diversity in oneness' as you say that within 'unity in diversity’.. 'The idea is to find ways to include the other', as opposed to the former where you say it 'aims at exploring, exploiting even, the diversity of the group - in addressing a commonly created future'.

As defined by Fowers and Richardson (1996), "Multiculturalism is a social-intellectual movement that promotes the value of diversity as a core principle and insists that all cultural groups be treated with respect and as equals." (p. 609). These authors maintain that multiculturalism is, ". . . at its core, a moral movement that is intended to enhance the dignity, rights, and recognized worth of marginalized groups." (p. 609) As such, they locate the movement squarely within "the moral and political traditions or Euro-American civilization." (p. 611)

Clearly the proponents of multiculturalism are motivated by a liberal idealism that extends ideas "of individual uniqueness to cultural groups". (p. 612). This idealism is fuelled by an empathetic response to the suffering of certain groups, an empathy that is sustained by a worldview espousing the ideology that, "Within the four seas, all men are brothers." (Confucius).

As is widely known there are many groups, culturally and otherwise distinct, have been savagely mistreated. The Algerian and Rwandan and Cambodian and Serbian situations come most recently to mind. The heart shivers before such atrocities. As Berger (1969) put it, "There are certain deeds that cry out to heaven. And it is this monstrosity that seems to compel even people normally or professionally given to such perspectives to suspend relativizations." (p. 85).  

The cultural issue for multiculturalism is where a society positions itself on the universal value dimensions of conformity vs. self-direction and hierarchy vs. egalitarianism (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). These outcomes are very much culturally shaped. Pressures for complete conformity will homogenize differences or led to elimination of those who champion those differences; excessive self-direction undercuts the sociality necessary for a society to remain viable. The achievement of complete egalitarianism will eliminate group differences with respect to power, but run counter to equity in resource distribution; rigid hierarchical structuring of society results in manifest injustices and cannot survive in a democratizing world. Outside of these extremes, it seems that a harmonious multicultural society should ideally be developed.

India’s greatest political leader, Mahatma Gandhi, said, ‘Where is religion? To me religion is just Truth.” The word “religion” can cause conflict and fighting. But when we use the word “Truth,” the conflicting parties remain silent. I believe the same is true for multiculturalism; the ‘common goal’ should be ‘common’ to all concerned. This I is suppose is in sync with what you call 'con-clusion', is process oriented and of course an investment.

 

Regards, Vijay