Heller

1

Greydi Heller
Professor Kumar
English 101 034 ITIS
Monday, October 12, 2015

“ We are One ”
Kwame Anthony Appiah was born in London, raised in Ghana and educated at
Cambridge University. He became Laurence S. Rockefeller University, Professor of
Philosophy and faculty member of the universal central of human values at Princeton, he is currently living in New York City. Appiah’s personal and professional experiences make him highly qualified to talk about Cosmopolitanism in “Making Conversations”, where he gives an interesting twist to the original concept of cosmopolitanism.
According to Appiah, we do not have to choose sides between nationalists and hardcore cosmopolitanism. He believes that the position worth defending may be called partial cosmopolitanism. In other words we do not need to go to the right or left, we can stay in between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. Agreeing ,that as citizen of the world we need to develop habits of coexistence,it’s a responsibility that we have to one another even if we are not closely related or similar to each. Appia, makes it very clear saying that cosmopolitanism is not the name of the solution it’s the challenge for every human being to get along with each other .We can better get along with others by getting to know our differences, and our similarities by using a simple tool

Heller

2

which is the conversation. I agree with Appiah’s argument, I like the idea of partial cosmopolitanism. I’ve always believed that finding balance in our societies is the key to a peaceful world.Conversation is the first step to connecting with others; I will also add that time and respect are very important to find balance in our societies as well.Because the world is not going to change in a blink of an eye,we have to be patient, and we have to respect other beliefs, values, cultures, sexualities, not just accepting them but also respecting them.
Every human being is different from one another, some of us like the peace and quiet of the small town, while others like the noise and rush of the city. Some go for the simple things in life, others, on the other hand, prefer more expensive and sophisticated things. This ’s what makes our world interesting; this world would be ordinary if everyone would like, think, act, or believe in the same things.However, because we are so different at times, we go to the extreme opposite side, to try to prove that what we think, do, or believe is the only truth. Dividing the world between them and us, between the local and the international, between the right and the left, between the rich and the poor, between your beliefs and my beliefs.As Appiah states,
“People are different, the cosmopolitan knows, and there is much to learn from our difference because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring. We neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life” (Appiah 70).Appiah is saying that everyone is different and unique in their own way. Differences are good and can lead to more discoveries and challenges, we have to learn to find a balance between our difference.

Heller

3

How do we find the balance in our societies if we know that all cultures have their similarities and differences, and in most cases these differences are so different that it is hard to connect to one another? .According to Appiah, there are some people like Hitter and Stanli that, had gone too far with patriotism, and others on the other hand had gone too far in favor of cosmopolitanism like Marquis de Marabeua .Being easy target of ridicule. As Thomas Carley Scottish essayist and historian 1795-1881, called him “ Friend of men, and enemy of almost every man he had to do with”.
Meaning that Mirabeau was fair to the world but unfair to his own family. Appiah’s point of view is not to choose sides.As he states, “Fortunately we need to take sides neither with the nationals who abandons all foreign nor with the hard - core cosmopolitan who regards her friends and fellow citizen with icy impartiality
…” (Appiah 70 ) .He continues saying that the position worth defending might be called partial cosmopolitanism. In others words, Appia’s believes that we can stay in between cosmopolitanism and patriotism to have a balance. The main idea is understanding that we are different and learn to respect others values even if we don't agree with them.
As per Appiah,s argument , partial Cosmopolitanism is the way to connect our societies using conversation as our first step. As he writes, “we need to develop habits of coexistence: conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association and conversation in its modern sense too” (Appiah 71).The essence of Appiah’s argument is that if we use communication as its real meaning, we’ll be able to connect with others. We can also use the modern way of communications, like the social network

Heller

4

which is a good tool if we use it the right way.Sending a good message, sharing a good idea to others, getting to know others. Our challenge is to connect with others human beings and to learn to share our world
If Hitler and Stanli were alive how would we approach and convince them that we do not need to go too far with patriotism? Or how would we tell Marquis de
Mirabeau, that we do not need to go too far with cosmopolitanism?.Well, we might not be able to change everyone’s mind at once but we can start by changing our own.
Apphia mentions, that in his hometown Kumasi, Capital of Ghana, there are people from all over the world. He grew up knowing that we need one another to live.Consumers need the producer; the employer needs the employee, the local needs the international and vice versa.Who would have thought that Cuba’s government and
The United States’s government were going to have any agreement?If we look at their relationship a few years back, they were enemies. I am not sure how they got into an agreement, but it is obvious that communication played a good role in their agreement. Maybe their first attend to communicate did not make any progress what so ever. Nor the second or the third attend, but as time went by they slowly advanced each time. My point is that communication, time, respect and compromise were needed from both parties to have a settlement.It doesn't mean that Cuba’s government or The United States government have changed who they are; it means that they have found a balance in between their differences.Let’s also take the example that Appiah mentions about one of the passages of George Eliot’s Daniel
Deronda.Where he tells us, that Deronda was raised in England as a Christian

Heller

5

gentleman. When Deronda discovered his Jewish ancestry as an adult, Deronda declares,“I want to be an English man, but I want to understand others point of view…” (Apphia 71). Appiah observes, that Deronda is not rejection any human being despite the differences. We as citizen of the inverse should follow the make believe character of Deronda,Knowing that we are different but we can get along, learning to accept our differences.
Accepting our differences, using conversation, not going to the extreme, respecting others values and beliefs will help us to have fewer conflicts. If we disrespect others rights or disrespect other cultures and values, we’ll have millions of battles. Where innocent lives will be destroyed and taken away. Either we solve our problems wisely, or we keep digging our future to disaster, wars, and death. Michelle
Obama, Current firs lady of Unites Stated once said, that the key to fighting obesity is to teach our future generations how to eat right. I will say, that the key to a peaceful world is teaching our future generations habits of coexistences. Teaching them how to get along with each others.
Why the need to belong to a single society, when we can belong to a whole world?.