Article Review

Theorising Politics and International Relations Date: 12 November 2019

Page 1 of 4

Global Citizenship Kwame Anthony Appiah

Kwame Appiah (2007) presents his interpretation of cosmopolitanism by intertwining two strands

that, from his point of view, are the basic ideas of the concept. On one hand, every human being

matters and all people have the responsibility to care for one another. On the other hand, he believes

that we must recognise that not all people have to be the same, for the world to be in order and that

we should accept our differences. He argues the second idea to be what distinguishes his

interpretation of cosmopolitanism from other forms of universalist philosophy (p. 2377)1. He refers

to it as a “double stranded-tradition”, meaning that the idea behind the concept is both universality

and also respecting difference (p. 2379). In his attempt to interpret the concept of cosmopolitanism,

Appiah draws on some of the ideas by Diogenes, who was the first person to claim that he was a

citizen of the world – a cosmopolitan (p. 2375).

The main argument in his article concerns the question of a global government. He argues that

cosmopolitans would reject a global government based on the idea that a global government cannot

include and respect all our differences as human beings. By this he means that, if we are to respect

our differences as human beings, we need to accept that “different communities are entitled to live

according to different standards, because human beings can flourish in many different forms of

society” (Appiah, 2007, p. 2377). He thus argues, that a global government would not be able to

embrace all these different forms. Finally, he states that the need for the cosmopolitan spirit is now

more than ever due to the increasing globalised world we are a part of (p. 2379).

The defence of liberal cosmopolitanism that is laid out by Appiah seems to give a sympathetic solution

to how all nationalities can live peacefully in a globalised world. However, it seems that this idea is

more valid in theory than in practice (Brock, 2014). The idea behind the concept of cosmopolitanism

is, in basic terms, that one attempts to understand and accept differences beyond local or national

communities. Being truly cosmopolitan would thus mean completely accepting our differences and

1 (page number) refers to the Journal “Global Citizenship” by Kwame Anthony Appiah throughout this paper.

Theorising Politics and International Relations Date: 12 November 2019

Page 2 of 4

still welcoming all human kind as we are bound together across species. Based on this, one might

argue genuine cosmopolitanism to be a rare thing to encounter (Douthat, 2016).

Citizens of the modern globalised world that we live in today have come a long way, in terms of

viewing all human kind as equal. However, one rarely meets another human being that is truly

comfortable with real difference and who meets forms of life completely different from one’s own

with openness and accept. For human kind to truly inherit the cosmopolitan spirit, we would have to

find a way to set aside our previous experiences in life, when we encounter with different forms of

life, as these shape our view of the world in some way and may complicate the process of interacting

with an open mind-set with other people. Appiah does not take a critical stance on this and seems to

believe that we are capable of interacting with the unknown without bias.

When speaking of globalisation, Appiah mentions how important culture is for cosmopolitans,

because culture is important for people. In relation to this, he mentions that one should respect

culture, however, if people are treated badly in the name of culture, one should not be tolerant of it

(p. 2379). This argument is interesting to place in relation with globalisation and the modern world.

Cosmopolitans welcome diversity of culture, race, religion and nationality. Today, one could argue

that cosmopolitanism has experienced a setback due to recent events in the world society Such

events have created an intense anti-immigrant belief in the western world where cosmopolitanism

has flourished the most. These events have led to a more nationalistic public view and the election

of conservative parties (The South African Civil Society Information Service, 2012). Cosmopolitanism

is not an alternative to nationalism, but should instead be seen as a complement to it, and several

cosmopolitans identify themselves as conservatives (p. 2377). Still, these trends in our modern world

seem to support the previously made claim, that people’s views and backgrounds influence how we

encounter the unknown.

The aspect of globalisation in Appiah’s paper reflects the time in which the paper was written. He

mentions how globalisation has made the ancient ideas of cosmopolitanism relevant and then gives

examples of globalisation such as the possibilities of communication, sharing information and how

we affect one another (pp. 2378-2379). In contrast, Immanuel Kant (1795) wrote about cosmopolitan

Theorising Politics and International Relations Date: 12 November 2019

Page 3 of 4

conditions in his three definitive articles of a perpetual peace in a society completely different from

how we know society today. Kant saw the aim of cosmopolitan conditions as to end war between

states and in that way create perpetual peace (Kant, 1795, p. 142). Despite writing about

cosmopolitanism in highly different times, Appiah and Kant share their overall view on the concept.

Kant defines cosmopolitanism as “the matrix within which all the original capacities of the human

race may develop” (Kant, 1724-1804; 1991, p. 51), which corresponds with Appiah (2010) defining it

as “some form of commitment to the universality of concern for all human beings” (cited in Johnson,

2010). They both believe that all human beings belong to a single community, even though they differ

in their approaches when reaching this claim. Appiah’s ideas are based on sociability whereas Kant’s

approach is based on the universality of moral principles (Anker, 1999).

In conclusion, Appiah’s defence of cosmopolitanism presents attitudes that one should store and

remember. His view on cosmopolitanism may seem idealistic to some extent, but nonetheless, it

provides us with knowledge of a world society in which, we as citizens in a globalised world, are able

to live without conflict, and thus should strive to reach a society of this kind. His thoughts may help

humanise globalisation and push us towards a time where globalisation is truly a symbol of freedom

and opportunity for most people.

Wordcount: 1.027 words

Theorising Politics and International Relations Date: 12 November 2019

Page 4 of 4

Bibliography Appiah, K. (2007). Global Citizenship, 6th ed. Fordham Law Review, 75 (5), 2375-2392. Brock, G. (2014), Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism: Critiques, Defenses, Reconceptualisations, Oxford University Press, 331pp., Available from: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/cosmopolitanism-versus-non-cosmopolitanism-critiques-defenses- reconceptualisations/ [Accessed 10 November 2019]. Douthat, R. (2016). The Myth of Cosmopolitanism. The New York Times, 2 July. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/opinion/sunday/the-myth-of-cosmopolitanism.html [Accessed 8 November 2019]. Johnson, W. (2010). A Conversation with Kwame Anthony Appiah. Mandala Journal. 2009-2010. Available from http://mandala.uga.edu/cosmo/convo-kwame-cosmo.php [Accessed 10 November 2019]. Kant, I. (1724-1804; 1991); Reiss, H., Kant: Political Writings, 2th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kant, I. (1795; 2016); Smith, M.C., Perpetual Peace – A Philosophical Essay. London. George Allen & Unwin LTD. The South African Civil Society Information Service. (2012). What is Cosmopolitanism and Is It Under Threat? The South African Civil Society Information Service, 22 February. Available from http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/1214 [Accessed 11 November 2019]. Van den Anker, C. (2000). The role of globalization in arguments for cosmopolitanism. Acta Politica, 35(1): 5–36.