The Muslim World Book Review, :,

:,
COSMOPOLITANISM: ETHICS IN A WORLD OF STRANGERS. By
Kwame Anthony Appiah. New York & London: W. W. Norton, :cco. Pp. :,o.
ISBN c+,+co:ss.(HB).
The past ve years have seen a reassertion of neo-imperialism, particularly in the
Muslim world as part of the war on terror, in which the doctrine of strategic
pre-emption has found justication from conservative nationalists to liberal
interventionists. Multilateralism as an approach and practice, as instituted in
bodies like the United Nations, has consequently declined in signicance. In
Western democracies, military interventionism abroad has been broadly matched
by a reassertion of nationalist sentiment at home in which multiculturalism has
either been abandoned or is under serious pressure. It is thus entirely relevant
to pay close attention to works that look beyond this impasse to suggest what
the philosophical underpinnings of a future multipolar, or post-unipolar world
might look like.
K. A. Appiah is himself a citizen of the world: a professor of philosophy at
Princeton, with a Ghanian father and an English mother, who, having lived in
Africa, Europe and North America, reassesses the case for reviving an ancient stream
of thought cosmopolitanism which, he argues, is more accommodating of
diversity than the current liberal consensus but does not fall into moral relativism.
Cosmopolitanism embodies two core values: universal concern for all humanity
above family and nation and a respect for legitimate difference. Appiah recognizes
that these two values clash, and as such cosmopolitanism is the name not of the
solution but of the challenge (p. xv).
The challenges are: (i) to avoid falling into moral relativism while respecting
difference; (ii) to nd a middle way between an unrooted abstract universalism
and self-interested nationalism; (iii) to recognise that cultural difference has been
exaggerated by an order of magnitude (p. xix); and (iv) to work for conversation,
in the sense both of association and exchange of ideas, while realising that humanity
will never arrive at an agreed hierarchy of universal values. Cosmopolitanism is
thus also a process involving the human community in habits of co-existence, of
conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association (p. xix). The
crux of getting along is to recognise that while one might live with integrity in
accordance with ones own beliefs, one does not need to share the same rationale
with someone else to develop this habit of conservation.
Appiah argues in chapters two and three that the inuence of positivism that
has led to value relativism by splitting values (or ends) from facts about the world
(or means), in other words what philosophers have called the naturalistic fallacy,
or the inability to derive an ought from an is. He goes on to identify three kinds
of moral disagreement over values, which are more likely to arise between people
from different societies: no shared vocabulary of evaluation, varying interpretation
The Muslim World Book Review, :,
+c
of the same vocabulary and giving the same values different weight. However none
of this is insurmountable: we can agree to do things without agreeing on why, but
more important is Appiahs point, pace Samuel Huntingdon, that most conict is
not articulated through warring values in the rst place. In fact, intense conict
may arise through dispute over the meaning of the same values, e.g. on abortion,
American pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both respect the sanctity of life, but differ
on why it is precious and on when life begins.
Cosmopolitanism works because values like courtesy, hospitality, generosity and
reciprocity are widely shared, alongside other basic concepts and social customs,
to enable differences to be explored. Importantly, Appiah argues against the view
that collective identities only gain their political charge and force by dening an
out-group, i.e. pending an attack by Martians, a moral concern for humanity
will be attenuated without such an appropriate out-group; rather, he thinks that
we share enough to work through human differences. Part of this optimism lies
with his perception of culture as a form of inspirational heritage rather than as a
patrimony to be ercely defended, that people around the world have many ways
not to acquiesce to American cultural globalisation, and that human civilization
is a cumulative, shared inheritance that cannot be monopolized by national
rivalries, i.e. it be absurd to think of Norway Inc, of culture as something that
could be patented.
The litmus test of cosmopolitanism is the kindness that we show to strangers,
a pertinent criterion given that we live in a global village full of people unfamiliar
to us, yet we cant start from the false premise that we hold them in equal affection
to loved ones. Appiah thinks the cosmopolitan is committed to going beyond
meeting basic emergency needs to the principle that everyone is entitled, where
possible, to have their basic needs met, to exercise certain human capacities, and
to be protected from certain harms (p. :o+). The chief mechanism for this
collective obligation should still be the state, but neither at the expense of our own
family needs nor at the cost of ignoring the diversity of values that matter in life.
This has to be applied not with idealistic sentimentality but with clearheadedness,
not heroism (p. :+). The richer nations of the world should act not with pity at
suffering but through reason, principle, conscience and it will resonate more
widely if we make our [Western] civilisation more cosmopolitan (p. :).
Three further points should be noted. Firstly, while Appiah strives to escape the
conviction that there is no choice except that between liberalism and relativism
through his exploration of cosmopolitanism, he keeps looking to deduce liberal
principles underlying this strand of thought but this looks parochial as history is
littered with Western and non-Western versions of universalism that are or were
non-liberal. John Gray, the British philosopher, has noted that distinguishing
liberalism and cosmopolitanism at the present juncture is the more important
task.
The Muslim World Book Review, :,
+:
Secondly there is no guarantee that liberal principles would prevail as while
there is enough commonality around to allow for a global conversation there is
no guarantee in an open-ended process that one can arrive at a single, universally
valid, moral way of life agreed upon by all. In the end, attaining a state of peaceful,
diverse co-existence is more important to cosmopolitanism than resolving
all conict over human values either philosophically or politically. This nds
expression in the Quranic acceptance of continued human diversity (::: ::-::,),
and of ta[aruf (conversation in the fuller sense Appiah reminds us of ) between
peoples and nations as a sign of righteousness (,::+).
Finally, Appiah is certainly not unfamiliar with Muslims having grown up
with Muslim cousins in Ghana and shared the Eid feast with them. These good,
devout, gentle and tolerant Muslims are represented by Appiahs Uncle Aviv (p.
:s:). However, Uncle Aviv is overshadowed by the authors presentation of the
rootless, individualistic zealots of [Islamic] neofundamentalism (ibid.), whom
he sets out as the chief enemies of his project to revive cosmopolitanism. They are
the counter-cosmopolitans who resist all local allegiances and traditional religious
authority, and call not to a polis but to the ummah, to a community of the faithful.
They do not endorse signicant cultural variation, but look for a homogenous
utopian universalism. In all this, Appiah makes direct comparisons with fascism
and communism. Leaning heavily on a few sources, notably Olivier Roy, to make
these observations, Appiah mars what is otherwise a ne and subtle work with
a crude binary opposition between good and bad Muslims, which uncritically
replicates the disciplinary rhetoric of the war on terror. While there is much in
cosmopolitanism that would make the Muslim comfortable, the book denes itself
against Muslim intolerance in such a way as to make one unsure as to whether
Appiahs call for a global conversation would be truly inclusive.
The Islamic Foundation, Leicestershire, UK Yahya Birt
THE STATE WE ARE IN: IDENTITY, TERROR AND THE LAW OF
JIHAD. By Aftab Ahmad Malik (Ed.). Bristol: Amal Press, :cco. Pp.:c. ISBN:
c,scs.
This is an unusually frank book produced from within the Muslim community,
and is particularly welcome for this reason. It is a useful answer to those who argue
that Muslims are not prepared to face up to, and debate the difcult issues of our
times because of the extent of Islamophobia in our society. In the introduction,
Tahir Abbas confronts the central issue facing British Muslims: a mass of young
Muslim people are dislocated and disenfranchised as much as a function of the
workings of society but more discernibly because of the specic ways in which
they have been failed by their elders. Muslims and non-Muslims alike have a