We the Cosmopolitans W C e the osmopolitans Moral and Existential Conditions of Being Human K Edited By Lisette Josephides and Alexandra Hall First published in 2014 by Berghahn Books www.berghahnbooks.com ©2014 Lisette Josephides and Alexandra Hall All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data We the cosmopolitans: moral and existential conditions of being human / edited by Lisette Josephides and Alexandra Hall. pages cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-78238-276-8 (hardback: alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-78238-277-5 (ebook) 1. Cosmopolitanism--Case studies. 2. Culture and globalization--Case studies. I. Josephides, Lisette. JZ1308.W42 2014 306--dc23 2013042950 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Printed on acid-free paper ISBN: 978-1-78238-276-8 hardback ISBN: 978-1-78238-277-5 ebook C ontents Preface vii Introduction: We the Cosmopolitans: Framing the Debate 1 Lisette Josephides Chapter 1 Citizens of Everything: The Aporetics of Cosmopolitanism 29 Ronald Stade Chapter 2 The Capacities of Anyone: Accommodating the Universal Human Subject as Value and in Space 48 Nigel Rapport Chapter 3 Cosmopolitan Morality in the British Immigration and Asylum System 68 Alexandra Hall Chapter 4 Experiences of Pain: A Gateway to Cosmopolitan Subjectivity? 90 Anne Sigfrid Grønseth Chapter 5 Cosmopolitanism as Welcoming the Other and Imperilling the Self: Ethics and Early Encounters between Lyons Missionaries and West African Rulers 111 Marc Schiltz Chapter 6 The Cartoon Controversy and the Possibility of Cosmopolitanism 135 Thomas Hylland Eriksen Conclusion 156 Alexandra Hall Notes on Contributors 171 Index 173 p refaCe This volume is theoretically experimental. It takes a distinct approach to cosmopolitanism, placing it within a context of existentialism and embedded within ongoing projects of human sociality. Its attitude is deliberately and challengingly universalist. Chapters by leading anthropologists explore what cosmopolitanism means in the context of everyday life, viewing it variously as an aspect of kindness and empathy, as tolerance, hospitality and openness, as a defining feature of pan-human individuality. The chapters thus advance an existential critique of abstract globalization discourse, turning to cosmopolitanism as a political and moral project with important lived effects. The book as a whole exemplifies a new trend to rediscover the philosophical anthropology tradition and use this as a key to re-describe certain kinds of social anthropological problems. While each chapter has a strong individual position, together these positions are complementary. As editors we discussed at length the division of labour in the writing of the Introduction and the Conclusion. We envisaged that the Introduction would begin with a backward glance at cosmopolitanism – its history, its provocations and potential – but with the main concern of outlining how cosmopolitanism speaks to the concerns arising from existentialism and the entailment of being human. The Conclusion, on the other hand, would draw out the synergies and complementary themes of the chapters in more detail, relating their distinct positions to some broader ethical and political issues. These well-laid schemes did not win over one reader, who suggested that we should consider reversing the Introduction and the Conclusion. The current Introduction, the reader commented, looked more like a complex and searching conclusion, while the Conclusion looked more like a comprehensive introduction, clearer about what is holding the book together; that is, an interest in reintroducing universal human, ‘moral and existential’ themes into the centre of anthropological and ethnographic discussion. The Introduction, on the other hand, cast out for further perspectives and dialogues, thus making it a more satisfying ‘view beyond the book’ once the chapters were read. viii | Preface We tried to envisage these two chapters reversed but in the end decided to leave it to the reader. Reader, please feel free to begin with the Conclusion and end with the Introduction. And let us know which order is more satisfying. We would like to thank our contributors and the editorial team at Berghahn, and the anonymous reader whose supportive and thoughtful comments gave us the final boost. Lisette Josephides Alex Hall Introduction W C e the osmopolitans Framing the Debate Lisette Josephides K Introduction In , Vasily Grossman’s epic Second World War novel set in the Soviet Life and Fate Union, he introduces a character known as the ‘holy innocent’. Following his re- fusal to work on the building of the crematoria in the concentration camp in which he was held, the holy innocent is executed, but manages to leave behind a manifesto on what it is to be human. He singles out kindness as the quality that is most truly human: an everyday, private, thoughtless, senseless, unwitnessed, even stupid kindness, exemplified in the love and pity in the heart of ordinary people for any living thing (Grossman 2006: 393). Identified as ‘powerful only while it is powerless’, kindness is located outside any system of social and religious good (ibid.: 392–93), and this is the secret of its invincibility (ibid.: 394). Human his- tory, Grossman’s character concludes, is not the battle of good trying to overcome evil; it is a battle ‘fought by a great evil struggling’ – ultimately unsuccessfully – ‘to crush a small kernel of human kindness’ (ibid.: 394). Instead of obliterating this kernel that defied evil, the flames of the crematoria had strengthened it. Of course, the man died, but with his human spirit intact. The personal and non-institutional character of kindness as a defining human quality is echoed in discussions by Derrida and Ricoeur. They link forgiveness – a ‘crazy act’ that should not be conditional on repentance – to freedom from the sovereignty of the state (Derrida 2001), and find it in ‘gestures incapable of being transformed into institutions’ (Ricoeur 2004: 458). Thus forgiveness designates