My views on Appiah's Cosmopolitanism

My friend Kat from Germany today mentioned to me an idea that I haven’t heard before about cosmopolitanism. I know the word cosmopolitan therefore, my curiosity led me to read on Obaze Osoleka’s views on Appiah’s work on cosmopolitanism. A quick note that I made is that even shared commonalities in terms of human values, norms, culture, traditions etc that he mentions do not take place in a vacuum and neither do they occur in an ideologically free zone. They are all relative to the boundaries, physical or otherwise, that are present and real in our global societies irrespective of nation, race, class or even gender that dictates our versions of realities. In this context, therefore, anything beyond and different from what the values, based on this functions, that our so called shared commonalities have allowed us to access within our boundaries is strange to us.



If Appiahs’s claim is to be tested in this modern world, then you will agree with me that “intelligence and curiosity as well as engagement” is impossible to achieve in a world driven by market place computer technology, where there is still division among those able to access such devices and those that can actually access them. How many people can access computers in my rural Kadem constituency in Kenya to share ‘our’ intelligent thoughts about fish and the myth,which is almost like a fact, that my people believe in that if you eat the brains of a fish you will be intelligent? (statistically, Luo’s are the most intelligent tribe in Kenya). Now, whether this is a result of years of fish eating from Lake Victoria is unreliable and still needs scientific validation.



If Appiah’s cosmopolitanism intellectual engagement means people actually travelling to other places in the world and experiencing new insights as strangers and does not include communication devices like the internet, blogs ect, then I am afraid that the world has almost 100% chances of being hit by a meteorite from space than realising cosmopolitanism. If we put technology in the picture, then I am equally afraid that we fall at risk of sliding into Marxist territories where market forces determining the nature of communication, that is, primitive and rural societies will always remain information malnourished due to political economy that involves ownership of communication devices dominated by multinational giants like Apple, Microsoft on one hand and Google and yahoo on the other, CNN and BBC on one side and Alajazeera and SABC- Africa on the other and the complexities in installing such devices. I addition these global communication giants have their capitalistic ambitions in terms of what their gatekeepers allow them to pass through or not to the public and this is not a space free of ideologies.



It is in this space that old notions of identity and 'othering'such as stereotypes, xenophobia, tribalism, racism are still being exercised and will continue to thrive. Clearly, there cannot be cosmopolitanism in a world without technological and other interactions. Traditional human interaction is already in jeopardy. While there are claims about free movement of people and commodities, there are even more severe measures put in place in terms of Visas and immigration policies that make it difficult for strangers to meet and thereofore, rendering such claims meaningless. In South Africa for example, there is a new Visa requirement for international students that requires them to posses a South African Medical cover to be accepted at Wits. Previously, they could come with their own cover. While this might look convenient, especially when one falls ill, it is expensive making, it difficult to get admission and thus, exclude some foreign students from poor countries. These problematic issues are still fresh and real in my brain. I think Appiah’s thoughts on cosmopolitanism are quite sexy and seductive but are, just like many others, still romanticised, idealistic and far from reality. However, they are quite engaging and interesting.



.