Divercity: my personal opinion about Appiah’s book ‘Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers ‘

Dear Francis,

Forced by the greediness of your question I felt an urge to read Kwame Anthony Appiah’s essay and lucky I was, I found it quite fast on the internet.

But whilst reading it, the essay itself confused me. What was the author up to? Was he defending the cosmopolitans, the globalists, the antiglobalists or the cultural preservationists? Or was it the other way round?

Questions rising while reading his words were:

Is globalization a challenge for cultural diversity?
Do we have to be afraid of the massive spread of Western mass culture at a global level?
Does the world have to be more homogeneous or less?
Do we have to support authentic culture?
Does anyone can claim the ‘Truth’?
How tolerant can we be?
Why standing up for global ethics?

In my opinion we do not need to be afraid of globalization, and there is no need to worry about the loss of cultural diversity. The world is not homogeneous, if we want it or not. We can support authentic culture while at the same time support diversity. But indeed, as the author points out, “the right approach is to start from individuals rather than from nations, tribes or peoples, as the proper object of our moral concern”. Though, there is somewhere still a contradiction hidden in these words, as talking about a ‘right approach’ means that you inherit the ‘Truth’ but the author suggested earlier that “enforcing one vision of universal truth could only lead the world back to the blood baths” as concluded by many Enlightenment liberals already before. And if we have already the authority to speak about our ‘moral concern’, which morality is the right one and who is going to define this one?

I am for twenty years know struggling with these questions as I travelled and lived in many African countries and settled down with an African husband. I have to deal daily with moral concerns about tolerance, discrimination, cultural diversity and absurdities as ‘the colour of one’s skin’.
How tolerant can we be and how tolerant does one have to be? I agree with the conclusion of the author that “A tenable global ethics has to temper a respect for difference with a respect for the freedom of actual human beings to make their own choices. [That’s why cosmopolitans don’t insist that everyone becomes cosmopolitan. They know they don’t have all the answers. They’re humble enough to think that they might learn from strangers; not too humble to think that strangers can’t learn from them. … “If you’re right, I’ll do what you do. If you’re wrong, I’ll set you straight.”]

But there are still some issues pouring up in my mind after agreeing on his final words:
If global ethics should mean that we have to respect the freedom of human beings to make their own choices, why do many African leaders are still thinking for their people, taking their own people as hostages in their strive for personal empowerment and wealth? Why do we accept that mobile phones rule the world, and as such also the world of the poor while at the same time they do not have the power to enrich their lives with water or electricity or education for their children? Last time I visited Senegal, in December 2005, I saw a teenager girl walking in the streets of Dakar. On her head a bucket of water, she wore a t-shirt showing the words ‘I’m a porn star’. I was wondering if she knew what the text really meant, and at the same time I was wondering if this was the price she was paying for becoming a cosmopolitan. Who am I to judge one’s way of living? But was she celebrating contamination, a victim of contemporary consumerism, a hostage of the government, or a free actual human being celebrating her own choices? I still doubt if I will ever know the answer. Neither she will.

May this waterfall of thoughts generate some ideas for your corporate program on diversity.

Regards, Erika Claessens