We've just seen how Appiah says that Cosmopolitans “celebrates hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation that comes of new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs. It rejoices in mongrelization (dubious origin) and fears the absolutism of the Pure”*1. Anthony Appiah’s Cosmopolitans think human variety matters because people are entitled to the options they need to shape their lives in partnership with others. We can also view “Cosmopolitans” as similar to the trend in Globalization which is most controversial subject of our time. “All distances in time and space are shrinking. Man now reaches overnight, by places, places which formerly took weeks and months of travel” (Heidegger 1950, 165). The compression of space presupposes rapid-fire forms of technology development shifts in our experiences of territory depend on concomitant changes in the temporality of human action. High-speed technology only represents the tip of the iceberg, however. The linking together and expanding of social activities across borders is predicated on the possibility of relatively fast flows and movements of people, information, capital, and goods. We will now present two philosophers who Appiah would consider to have the vision of “Cosmopolitans” as well. Our first “Cosmopolitans” figure is Karl Marx. In Marx's account, the imperatives of capitalist production inevitably drove the bourgeoisie to “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere.” The juggernaut of industrial capitalism constituted the most basic source of technologies resulting in the annihilation of space, helping to pave the way for “intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations,” in contrast to a narrow-minded provincialism that had plagued humanity for untold eons (Marx 1848, 476).*3 Despite their ills as instruments of capitalist exploitation, new technologies that increased possibilities...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document