The Truth of Others: A Cosmopolitan Approach

The "cosmopolitanization of reality" is, contrary to conspiracy theories of various sorts, an unforeseen social consequence of actions directed at other results in a context of global interdependence and its attendant risks. These cosmopolitan side effects, often undesired and mostly unintended, frustrate the equation of the nation-state with national society and create new transnational forms of living and communicating, new ascriptions and responsibilities, new ways in which groups and individuals see themselves and others. The result, at the level of opinion, is or could be a realistic cosmopolitanism or cosmopolitan realism—as distinct from cosmopolitan idealism (and distinct also from universalism, relativism, and multiculturalism). Realistic cosmopolitanism, considered apart from any philosophical prehistory, responds to a fundamental question about what I have called "second modernity."¹ How ought societies to handle "otherness" and "boundaries" during the present crisis of global interdependency?

To answer that question, it is necessary, first, to distinguish the various ways in which societies handle otherness now—universalism, relativism, ethnicism, nationalism, cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, and so on—and then relate each of these alternatives to the social formations of premodern, modern, and postmodern times. What we will learn in the process is that each alternative is guided by a set of contradictory impulses. Universalism, for example, obligates respect for others as a matter of principle, but, for that very reason, arouses no curiosity about, or respect for, the otherness of others. On the contrary, universalism sacrifices the specificity of others to a global equality that denies the historical context of its own emergence and interests. Relativism and contextualism are likewise self-contradictory: stress on the context and relativity of particular standpoints has its source in an impulse to recognize the otherness of others. But, conceived and practiced in absolute terms, that recognition is transformed into a claim that perspectives cannot be compared—a claim that amounts to irremediable mutual ignorance.

From these observations it follows that realistic cosmopolitanism should be understood, fleshed out, and practiced in conscious relation to universalism, contextualism, nationalism, transnationalism, and other current approaches to otherness. The cosmopolitan vision shares with these a combination of semantic elements that, at the same time, serves to differentiate it from all other approaches. Realistic cosmopolitanism presupposes a universalist minimum that includes a number of inviolable substantive norms. The principle that women or children should not be sold or enslaved, the principle that everyone should be free to speak about God or one's government without being tortured or threatened with death, are so self-evident that no violation should meet with cosmopolitan tolerance. There can be talk of "cosmopolitan common sense" when there are good reasons to assume that large majorities would accept such minimum universalist norms.²

Cosmopolitanism, if it is realistic, also will accept a number of universalist procedural norms of the kind that make it possible to deal with otherness across frontiers. Realistic cosmopolitanism must thus confront the painful question of its own limits: should recognition of the other's freedom apply equally to despots and democrats, predators and their prey? Realistic cosmopolitans, in other words, must come to terms with the idea that, in making respect for the other the heart of their program, cosmopolitanism produces enemies who can be checked only by force. The contradiction must be embraced that, in order to protect one's basic principles (the defense of civil rights and difference), it may in some circumstances be necessary to violate them.

As for nationalism, a realistic cosmopolitan will take its continuing existence as a given but will work to develop cosmopolitan variations on the nation-state, national society, and patriotism. Without the stability that comes with national organization and feeling, cosmopolitanism can lose itself in an idealist neverland.

The Two Faces of Universalism

How the Western world should handle the otherness of others is not a new question. There are striking resemblances between the terms of discussion today—exemplified by such books as Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) and Francis Fukuyama's The End of History (1989)—and the terms...