From Totalitarianism to Cosmopolitanism: Issues of identity in a Global Culture in Kawyne Anthony Appiah’s “Cosmopolitan Patriots” and Jura Souranta and Tere Vaden’s “Wikiwolrd”

Both Suoranta and Vaden in their e-book “Wikiworld” and Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his article “Cosmopolitan Patriots envision a different world from the one we live in today. Both argue for a uniquely different future of our world grounded on cultural pluralism and shared culture. While Appiah’s sees a world connected by a common culture grounded on cultural hybridization, Suoranta and Vaden see a culture grounded on a shared technological culture. The similarities between these two visions of the world abound and the differences are plenty as well. But what both, intentionally or unintentionally, miss to mention seems more important.

Similarities

            Appiah sees a future world in “which each local form of human life [is] the result of long-term and persistent processes of cultural hybridization” (619). Appiah is arguing that “patriotism” and “cosmopolitanism” do not have to be mutually exclusive but can be combined, hence the title of his article. The essence of Appiah’s argument is that no culture is created alone by itself but, as history has shown us, cultures are created and eliminated by annexation, colonization, etc. So to him the concept of cosmopolitanism makes perfect sense.

Appiah celebrates the fact that “that there are different local human ways of being” (621), and this is at the core of cosmopolitanism. Appiah emphasizes the fact that “human cultural difference is actively desirable” (621). For him cosmopolitanism does not mean that every culture will become part of a global cosmopolitan culture. He agrees that some cultural backlash might occur, and this is perfectly fine as long as those cultures meet “certain general ethical constraints as long, in particular, as political institutions respect basic human rights” (621). In making this comment, Appiah urges us to pay attention to those “political institutions” (621) that do not respect human dignity and reflect on how culture was/is created in those places.[1] For Appiah culture making and culture elimination are not mutually exclusive, but part of the same cultural cycle:

. . . as forms of culture disappear, new forms are created, and they are created locally, which means they have exactly the regional inflections that the cosmopolitan celebrates. The disappearance of old cultural forms is consistent with a rich variety of forms of human life, just because new cultural forms, which differ from each other, are being created all the time as well. (619)

                Suoranta and Vaden see a similar view of the world in “Wikiworld”. For them the one cultural constant today, and in the future, is technology (or to put it more simplistic, the internet). For them the one constant among all the young people all around the world are ICT’s, or information and communication technologies. For them ICT’s promises to “deliver digital information to any place at any time” (Suorante and Vaden 54). This digital revolution has the potential to create a shared culture, like Appiah’s cosmopolitanism, around ICT’s. In Souranta and Vaden’s own words “[t]his is the great democratic potential of digital technology” (54).

            For Suoranta and Vaden “it is crucial to grasp the importance of focusing on the use and development of technology that responds to the actual needs of the people” (183), but people’s needs are never the same and are different for everyone. This is where ICT’s come in. If we entertain the idea that “everyone is a rooted cosmopolitan, attached to a home of one's own, with its own cultural particularities, but taking pleasure from the presence of other, different places that are home to other, different people” (Appiah 618) then I would argue ICT’s come into play by fostering these relationships between different people of different cultures. The overarching similarity between these two concepts of the world is that both see the world as widely interconnected. Both seem to announce a different world order coming in the near future. While one (Wikiworld) seems more possible than the other, both nevertheless hark to a semi-utopia of sorts.

           

            Further similarities arise when identity comes into the picture. Both pieces of work seem to agree that a broad global culture will inevitably change the way individuals think of themselves, their place in the world, and their relationship with those around them.  

            In Chapter 2 of Wikiworld titled “Digital Literacy and Political Economy” the Souranta and Vaden argue that in a consumerist, competitive society “individual is no longer the autonomous subject of enlightenment, but rather a heteronomous postmodern chameleon and nomad, rearranging herself and her identity according to the situation, always slipping from the pincers of totalizing systems” (34-35). This is more obvious in the realm of ICT’s where individuals can opt-out of their cultural identity. How does re-arranging one’s identity lead to the end of totalitarianism? The concept of the “heteronomous postmodern chameleon” sounds a lot like the cosmopolitan patriot, whose identity is not created by her mother country but can be re-arranged and take on different colors. Old pre-digital society had a totalizing effect, at least in those un-capitalistic political institutions, and an individuals identity was nothing  more than a product of that society. But now, at least according to the authors, an individual’s identity will never be totalizing and concrete, but a mixture. Souranta and Vaden comment on how “the centralized subject of totalitarianism and authoritarianism is replaced by a multitude of voices generated by the immateriality of work in the information age” (36). The information age does not just replace totalitarianism, but also has the power to re-adjust the identities of those individuals internally colonized in capitalistic societies.

Cheryl A. McLean in her digital literacy study titled ““A Space Called Home: An Immigrant Adolescent’s Digital Literacy Practices” argues that an “individuals' identities come out of the active negotiation of a range of Discourses and literacy practices across cultures and contexts” (14), In other words, cultural identity is tied up with a whole host of different contextual discourses and practices, much like the concept of cosmopolitanism, or to a larger extent Wikiworld. Mclean argues that all these discourses and practices are being “used by young persons to create transnational linkages and reinvent and position their national identities” (15). I introduce McLean here to specify how Souranta and Vaden’s theory of cultural identity is congruent with hers.

Both concepts of identity focus in how an external factor (capitalist economy and digital literacies) can changed an individual’s perception of herself in relation to others. It is important to showcase what factors change and mold society as well as the individual. For example, if “reality contains a virtual aspect that connects the seemingly solid everyday objects to a necessary but invisible web of connections, influxions, and investments” (Souranta and Vaden 35), then that virtual aspect of society has to be accounted for. Who are the major players in this virtual aspect of society? Who has a stake in this virtual reality? And so on. Souranta and Vaden state that this is a “necessary” connection since we live in a consumerist world and society. But does “necessary” connote “negative?  What are the human factors involved in this connection to this necessary reality? By connecting ourselves to this virtual reality we are conforming our identity to an outer mechanism. Similarly, the digital literacy practices

have forced Zeek to modify, adapt, and conform her language use. However, in so doing, some core aspects of her voice and identities are silenced. When individuals silence or confine their language of intimacy, the practice brings with it another layer of conflict: guilt and resistance associated with the use of the master discourse. (17).

The master discourse here of course is English, but this concept of the master discourse can also be applied to that virtual reality mentioned above. Whether its ICT’s or a lingua franca, digital literacy practices force you to mold your identity for different circumstances.

           

Differences

The main difference between Appiah’s cosmopolitanism and the concept of the Wikiworld is that the concept of the Wikiworld is grounded on current cultural reality. By this I mean that Appiah’s concept of cosmopolitanism strays too far into the utopian realm. He does not seems to realize that not everyone will have the need, or desire, to be part a global cosmopolitan culture, especially those internally colonized and he also refuses to see how other facets that define our culture (besides nationhood), will play a part in a global culture.

A case in point put forward by Simon Ortiz in his narrative “Our Homeland, a National Sacrifice Area”. Simon Ortiz comments on how the West was won at the expense of the Native American nation. For Ortiz “Otherness” means hybridization, and hybridization for him has negative connotations, as does homogenization. This is where Appiah and Ortiz are in conflict. Take for example Appiah’s view of culture making form the above quoted paragraph.

             

We can sense that Appiah does not relate cultural elimination as negative or bad as long as it helps create new cultures (in other words, homogenization) that foster cosmopolitan ideals. By focusing on homogenization through a cosmopolitan prism, Appiah overlooks the deeper problem of internal colonization and cultural subjugation. Ortiz makes the dangers of homogenization explicitly clear. Ortiz acknowledges that he cannot describe his feeling of “otherness”, but that it is a sensation nonetheless (338). The sad irony is that the U.S., at least in the narrative, has not come to terms with the internal colonization going on: “Government bureaucrats / said Indians were insensitive / to U.S. heritage” (339). Clearly for Ortiz culture homogenization is not congruent with a “rich variety . . . of human life (Appiah 619), on the contrary it is consistent with cultural purging.

            Having just argued that culture making is not in of itself a uniquely positive thing, let us now turn our attention to Appiah’s concept of common culture and Ortiz’s relation to it. In his article Appiah makes the point that “recognizing that we in America are not centered on a national common culture is [. . .]consistent with recognizing that (with, no doubt, a few exceptions) American citizens do have a common culture (628). While it is true that Americans do not have a common culture, it does not necessarily follow that because of this American are sharing a non-existing common culture. It is those “few exceptions” (Appiah 628) that make an American common culture impossible. First of all, those few exceptions will always exists and will continue to resist a common American culture. The Native Americans in Ortiz’s narrative are an example of those resistors and exceptions; they are the “national sacrifice” embedded in the title of his work.

           

The above example of Native Americans showcases how not everyone fits into Appiah’s concept of cosmopolitanism. Furthermore, Appiah celebrates the fact that “that there are different local human ways of being” (621), and this is at the core of cosmopolitanism. Appiah emphasizes the fact that “human cultural difference is actively desirable” (621). For him cosmopolitanism does not mean that every culture will become part of a global cosmopolitan culture. He agrees that some cultural backlash might occur, and this is perfectly fine as long as those cultures meet “certain general ethical constraints as long, in particular, as political institutions respect basic human rights” (621). In making this comment, Appiah urges us to pay attention to those “political institutions” that do not respect human dignity and reflect on how culture was/is created in those places (621)

What are those political institutions that do not respect human dignity? Who are they? How are they created? And who (which states) sustain these political institutions? Appiah completely breezes by this concept and does not delve deeper into this problem. Can it be possible that those Western cosmopolitans are sustaining those inhuman political institutions by arguing for a global culture?

           

Suoranta and Vaden know very well that the subjugation and elimination of cultures should be accepted in the process of producing a global culture. In chapter 6 titled “Stages of Freedom” the authors start off the chapter strongly:

Behind the veil of a multitude of resistances and critiques, we should see the shape of certain "unmoved movers" (proton kinun). Capitalism is one of them; the particularities of the fight of developing countries against prohibitive tolls and tariffs, of the fight of Indian rice farmers against RiceTec and its patents, of the fight against privatization of water, of the fight against liberating markets by armed force, constitute, in fact, a generality: the generality of a capitalist mode of production. And do not even the current ethnic conflicts point to the same: the decline and destruction of local cultures is a continuation of the colonisation that swallowed Finland in the 13th century and many other "peripheries" a lot later. These are not a series of isolated aggressions, but a direct consequence of a sustained Western impulse for trade and conquest.

In other words, the cultural subjugation, elimination, and blending (however you slice it) in the name of a global culture (in this example, Western capitalism) is nothing new. And I believe by pointing to colonization and Western capitalism the authors are warning us that the drive towards a global culture has dire consequences, and we should be careful of jumping on the global culture wagon. The Western world has been at the forefront of at every attempt of a global culture in history. It is interesting how both cosmopolitanism and the Wikiworld are Western concepts, or at least driven by Western concepts.

            The Wikiworld is driven by ICT’s which are products of Western capitalism. So is this idea of a Wikiworld another globalized Western product being sold (or outsourced) to the rest of the world, like capitalism? If I am reading Suoranta and Vaden correctly, the correct answer is yes, but no. Yes, the Wikiworld driven by consumers of ICT’s all over the globe is becoming globalized. But of course it will never become a global phenomenon because the global corporations who produce ICT’s will not allow it. Suoranta and Vaden ask “Is not the technological control of the globe one with a specific model of society, namely Western capitalism?” (152). Yes and that is why a truly global technological culture, like the Wikiworld, will never be fully global in scale, because as noted earlier it is the drive to create a global culture that is preventing such a global culture from coming to fruition. In the process of creating a global culture other cultures have to be subjugated and eliminated, and in the process an under or counterculture is created, thereby hindering the global culture process itself.

            The main reason why a Western global culture undermines it own existence is because “the West sees the rest of the world as a resource, as a natural producer of commodities” (Suoranta and Vaden 152). The most problematic aspect about this is that “the last in the long chain of commodities is catastrophe, and the accompanying catastrophe aid[s] industry” (Suoranta and Vaden 152). In other words, the West is crating the ultimate decline of the west, along with the decline of the rest of the world. By seeing the rest of the world as a producer of commodities we are inedvedtedly creating the misery and poverty present in the third world. To put it more succinctly:

Misery is reproduced as symbolic source, a necessary fuel for the Western moral and sentimental balance. We are the consumers of this spectacle, and the whole West feeds like cannibals on catastrophe mediated by news broadcasting in their cynicaltone and our humanitarian help in a moralistic mode. Baudrillard insists that we are just as dependent on this drug, produced by the developing countries, as other drugs. (Baudrillard 1995, 84-85.) The irony is that global capitalism is strong, dynamic and perverse enough to both produce the drugs it needs and to outsource the misery to the others. (152)

This is the main difference between Appiah’s cosmopolitanism and Suoranta and Vaden’s Wikiworld. That is to say that the Wikiworld is consciously aware of the economic processes imbedded in the world, and sees itself as part-and-parcel of that world (or at least sees that it’s place in the world will be unique). Appiah refuses to see or recognize that a global culture will never be possible, because cosmopolitanism, Wikiworld, global culture, etc, leads to cultural subjugation. More importantly, he does not realize that it is the Western world that creates and tolerates those political institutions or nations that do not respect basic human rights and do not meet “certain general ethical constraints” (621).

           

Sourranta and Vaden mention one concept that will most likely become part of the global culture in the future:

If and when the new racism of the West is characterised by economic divisions, securing the stability of the existing division, it is good to pay attention to how information societies are protected from those seeking a better living.

This new racism is nothing new. Although it initially pointed to culture coded as racism. For example, when a culture privileges one language over another the creation and practice of what Ronald Schmidt in his article “Racialization and Language Policy: The Case of the USA” has quoted as “New Racism” (154), or racism coded as culture is created. Under New Racism “specific cultural forms have come to signify racialized identities, particularly where traditional biologically-based racist attributions have become socially and politically disreputable” (154). By systematically and culturally privileging one language over another, in a multi-ethnic melting-pot society such as America, the assimilationists (those against language policy) are perpetuating an “unjust social inequality between different ethnolinguistic groups that are equally American” (Schmidt 154). Furthermore, the concept of equal treatment under the law is completely diminished when a state privileges one language in a society that is essentially multilingual (Schmidt 154). This brings us to an important point, that is that language just like literacy can be utilized as a hierarchicalagent in a society. Furtehrmore, Souranta and Vaden argue that economic divisions will soon be under the banner of New Racism as well.

           

By placing greater importance on one language and literacy, or one economic level over another we are justifying racism and cultural prejudice, or at the very least acknowledging linguistic, social, and cultural stratification are unequal processes. By seeking an English-only policy and favoring a Western-only literacy (or accepting the Great Divide theory) we are homogenizing language and/or literacy. And soon income levels as well.

            In the process of hierarchizing languages and literacies a society might gain a common culture, such as an American common culture. By prioritizing a language and form of literacy as superior than others a culture will undoubtedly become defined as common. In other words, by hierarchizing we are establishing what is culturally relevant and what is not. While this process can be advantageous in purporting a national unified image abroad, it can also lead to some disadvantages in a culture. For example, by defining what is culturally relevant a culture might be further alienating those internally colonized and furthermore, it might also lose that cultural openness that makes it attractive to foreigners and immigrants alike. Souranta and Vaden are pointing out that if we are not careful our perpetration of Western values abroad will lead to New Racism under economic terms.

           

Works Cited

Appiah, Kwayne Anthony. “Cosmopolitan Patriots.” Critical Inquiry 23.3 (1997): 617-629.

McLean, Cheryl A. “A Space Called Home: An Immigrant Adolescent’s Digital Literacy Practices.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 54.1 (2010): 13-22.

Schmidt, Ronald Sr. “Racialization and Language Policy: The Case of the USA.” Multilingua 21 (2002): 141-161.

Souranta, Juha and Tere Vaden. Wikiworld: Political Economy of Digital Literacy, and the Promise of Participator Media. Tampere, Finland: Paulo Freire Research Center, 2008.

---

[1] What strikes as important in Appiah’s concept, and where I think he missed a golden opportunity for insightful research, is that Appiah seems to connotate that those “political institutions” (621) that do not respect human dignity are non-Western. As Suoranta and Vaden showcase, that is not necessarily the case. This interesting, if not mind-boggling, point will be highlighted further in the differences section.