The trouble with Cosmopolitanism

[narcasse]

In the midst of my reading today I suspect I’ve hit something of a revelation as to why modern Cosmopolitanism comes across as just so utterly unpalatable nine tenths of the time. And funnily enough for once it may have very little to do with the actual content.


Having indulged in Kant’s Idea For A Universal History With A Cosmopolitan Purpose as some after dinner reading in the “Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought” edition, what’s really struck me beyond the bizarre comment in the introduction that “Kant, at least in English speaking countries, is not generally considered to be a political philosopher of note” is that Kant is actually very readable. Not because the text or ideas are any simpler than what’s currently published, which in fact they aren’t at all but because of the way they’re conveyed which is really quite charming. Idea For A Universal History With A Cosmopolitan Purpose is milder than Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, granted and contains little by way of caustic aside which really was one of the highlights of Perpetual Peace but it’s still informative and quite lovely as an idle read. Mostly this may be because of a distinct lack of presumed moral or intellectual arrogance in the writing as well as far less pretension at the elucidating of a particular issue. Kant seems to have set down what he thought and then proceeded to talk out his explanations of specific key points entirely in the knowledge that he might not at all be headed or even acknowledged while being entirely aware that he might also in fact be proven wrong. It takes a certain panaché to do that really; to stand by the courage of your convictions enough to set them down in text but also to be able to step back quite absently and remark that well, you could in fact be wrong and actually mean it. And it’s that attitude that modern theorists harping on about the same ideologies just can’t seem to match. In fact I’d go so far as to accuse them of an intellectual cowardice in the way they present their work since plenty of articles are written with an awful smugness about them as if the authors presume that their employing the language of intellectual or moral superiority will somehow absolve them of the necessity of dealing with disagreement.

Too many articles written by current theorists seem to begin sensibly enough and then degenerate into attempting to beat the reader over the head with the presumed ‘righteousness’ of their expressed opinion. In a sense, rather than discussing or presenting an idea, what they’re in fact doing is preaching it to the point where using coercive tactics seems to be far more favoured than presenting a viable standpoint. What they seem to do is fall into is a sort of ‘moral mongrelism’ to borrow a phrase from something which may or may not be John Howard, where they advocate lots of lovely, pretty, sparkly ideas which everyone should follow because they’re lovely, pretty and sparkly and then go on to bludgeon the reader with every coercive prompt they can come up with in an attempt to make them agree. Because seemingly those ideas aren’t enough alone to support themselves and promote their adoption. It’s actually really strange and not unlike evangelism of the worst sort where you’re told to agree because it’s the good and correct thing to do on one hand but then also because otherwise you’re evidently a moron. It’s a sort of intellectual bullying really and honestly seems to be a rather daft idea to employ, especially coming from people who purport to understand the vagaries of human nature. Because while reason can be appealed to, being clobbered over the head with an idea and told that you must agree with it or be some sort of ignoramus really doesn’t seem to be the best way to win friends and influence people. It also opens up the distinct possibility that the author isn’t quite as convinced of the worth of their own ideas as they’d like to pretend, particularly if they have to force people to agree rather than let them agree or not as they’re inclined to.

If the idea you’re advocating really is as wholesome and worthwhile as you think it is then surely by the very virtue of it being correct and noble, people will eventually come round to your way of thinking. Left at that, more often than not either there will be agreement or sensible discourse around which a refinement of ideas or further explanation of particular points can be built. It’s when the author doesn’t appear all that convinced that their ideas will stand the process of this reasoning or the reasoning on which said ideas were initially built that there’s easily room for their dismissal. If the writer doesn’t believe in their own cause then what possible reason could anybody else have to believe in it? The theorist who publishes an article full of admonishments and petty insults really does nothing more than proclaim to the world that they don’t trust in their own rationale and thus have to attempt to cajole and threaten others into agreement. And alas this seems to be the prevent attitude in many articles today, articles which may as a result be ignored no matter the valid points they may in fact contain. Thus from Kant there may in fact be learnt a lesson but perhaps not the one he may have intended. Having stood by the fruits of his philosophical rationale without the need for such defences, his ideas that have stood the test of time and are still continually being advocated and redefined. Though of course having written so lovingly of Discord and her virtues, that probably can’t have hurt the matter either.

Comments

[kintail.livejournal.com]

If the idea you’re advocating really is as wholesome and worthwhile as you think it is then surely by the very virtue of it being correct and noble, people will eventually come round to your way of thinking.

Oh, if only, though. But people, even well educated people, aren't taught to judge new ideas so rationally anymore (if they ever really truly were), and most people's brains just don't seemed to be wired that way. They don't respond to an idea based on if it is rational, they respond to ideas which are presented in such a way as to make them feel better about themselves based on how they choose to respond to the idea.

Meanwhile, the power of propaganda and advertising and marketing techniques has been proven, and there's so much of that out there, that anything that doesn't use those techniques is likely to get drowned out, or simply forgotten before it can take root.

Yugi had me reading The Social Animal from the library recently, and one chapter had a lot of interesting stuff about how people become convinced of various ideas, and what works to most effectively go about changing their opinions and attitudes. Interesting, and depressing. Good book, though.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

I seem to have had an uncharacteristic bout of optimism about humanity there somehow. But you’re absolutely right; emotive arguments or at least the presentation of arguments in such a way that allows the audience to feel intellectually or morally superior by agreeing with them really do win people over. Though interestingly enough the case here is that some of those later articles don’t so much as ‘let the reader in’ on the big secret but rather tell them outright that they’re a moron for not agreeing with it because they get to the former part if they get to it at all which is significantly unbalanced rhetoric.

And agreed on the propaganda aspect. If you brand your unnecessary product as a ‘luxury’ item and then market it in such a way that consumers feel sophisticated etc for using it then they’ll willingly buy something that they don’t honestly need. Though I have one particular product in mind in that case things like the Rolex sponsorship of golf publicity falls into that category as a really good example too; all they do is show a few golfers wearing Rolex watches but these are championship golfers so the public infers a certain success associated with the product. These are successful, moderately athletic men who excel in their chosen passion and the Rolex brand absorbs some of that status, they’re also slightly older rather conservatively dressed men engaging in a socially acceptable, rather dignified sport which really targets the demographic that Rolex are going for.

Thank you for that book recommendation too. Considering what it’s about I could probably see my way to having an inter-library loan authorised on the pretext that it’s looking at ways of actually triggering change in the hegemonic dialogue. I should really mail you some articles actually. They’re discourse theory ones but there are some good points about the construction of the accepted ‘common knowledge’ among other things.

[7veilsphaedra.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a form of the Apollo Syndrome, but within a more abstracted environment. This is where the Dictatorship model works really well.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

That’s really interesting, thank you for that link. And that does seem to be the case where every current theorists it trying to make their ideas heard over the rest.
I could have really done with that Apollo Syndrome information during one business game scenario I was involved in because it was a horrific mess because nobody wanted to be the designated coordinator of group efforts, presumably because then they’d be held responsible for failure, but everyone wanted to lead and wouldn’t actually listen to the group coordinator as a result.

[7veilsphaedra.livejournal.com]

Business games? It seems from an observational standpoint, your team served its purpose well, highlighting a place where things broke down so you could avoid it in a RL scenario.

I think anyone who has had to fulfil certain responsibilities within a group framework runs into something like this from time to time. It's interesting to see it rear its ugly head with one's personal behaviour, too.

It strikes me that it's just a side-effect of objective consciousness, so the more empirically oriented a person's mind works, the more vulnerable they would be to this tendency. So the strong individuals in a situation like that would be the ones who are good at unifying disparate elements.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

That was probably the point but it was rather annoying over the however many weeks we had to go through it. And yes, emotive arguments really do tend to cause an awful lot of trouble because they can’t be reasoned with since it’s something so personal that there’s no chance of evincing anything like the necessary dispassion to be able to set that aside and get the job done. Either extreme isn’t helpful though because once you get to a certain point of disconnect between your emotions and your actions then you lose the ability to connect with your audience on some level anyway, unless you’re just a really good actor. And even then there’s a point at which I’m reasonably convinced that people will be able to tell anyway.

[pikacheeka.livejournal.com]

I always found it tedious when people come up with an ideal of social/moral change and push it upon others so vehemently it's as if they don't even have faith in it themselves. And then those who just throw an idea out and sort of wait are those who end up being listened to. It also doesn't help that people tend to ignore anyone who is all too full of defenses and insults simply out of spite.

So I agree.

And we study Kant as a political philosopher if that matters.