“ Rootless cosmopolitans” was the
belittling label that Stalinists applied to Jewish intellectuals during the
Soviet purges; and although the American academy is neither Stalinist nor anti-
Semitic, there ahs for the past
twenty years been a good deal of
argument between the enthusiasts for roots and the defenders of
cosmopolitanism. Writers such as Harvard’s Michael Sandal and the London School
of Economics’ John Gray have contrasted the
rootless condition of cosmopolitan liberalism with the rootedness of
traditional societies elsewhere in the world and of our own society at various
times in the past, invariably to the disadvantage of liberalism.
Secptics have thought the contrast was
overdone, and historically minded skeptics
Have pointed out that Alexis de Tocqueville
and John Stuart Mill would have been deeply astonished to be told that a
concern for community was incompatible with a concern for individuality. If
asked whether they wanted us to have deep attachments- to our friends,
families, towns or villages , resigns, and nations, with their particular histories
and quirks- or whether they wanted us to pursue our individual intimations of
the good life, drawing on the resources of the whole world and the whole of
human culture, they would certainly have answered “both” .
The Ethics of identity offers a defense of
the “rooted cosmopolitanism” that Anthony Appian thinks that liberals are
really committed to. It does a great a great deal more than that, but its
central theme is that no sane person supposes that a commitment to liberal
individualism implies that we are to construct our lives of absolutely nothing,
any more than a sane person supposes that poetic originality requires that the
poet should abjure the use of all known languages when she sets out to write.
Conversely, the liberal individualist is cosmopolitan to the extern that she
thinks that we can find the ingredients for an interesting life in more than
one place, more than one culture and that a decent respect for what we have one
place, more than one culture, and that a decent respect for what we have
inherited is consent with a wish to do something novel with it.
“cosmopolitanism” is in many ways a
slightly inapt term to cover everything that is at stake; one need to think of
oneself as a citizen of the entire world in any literal sense to believe that
what people should do with their lives should not be dictated- morally,
logically or physically- by where, and into what family, ethnos, or nation,
they were born. Nor does the fact that one thinks that different persons
families, cultures, and nations can learn from one another imply that such
lessons should be imposed by brute force upon the unwilling. Still,
cosmopolitanism in by no means a wholly inapt term in a world of contending
nationalism, where it is far from easy to persuade either citizens or their
leaders that nations have much to learn
from one another.
Nobody is better placed than Anthony Appiah
to make the case for rooted cosmopolitanism. His father, Joe Appiah, was a
leading figure in the independence movement that saw the former Gold Coast
colony become Ghana in 1957; within a few years his father was in jail along
with most of President Nkrumah’s former allies. Anthony Appiah’s mother, Peggy
Cripps, is the daughter of the famously austere sir Stafford Cripps- a
barrister like his son-in-law jow and the Labour Bertrand Russell. Anthony
Appiah is the child of aristocratic radicals and, like Russell; he acquired not
only the habit of intellectual independence but an enviable intellectual
elegance into the bargain.
He was a child in Ghana, a teenager at an
English boarding school, an English boarding school, an undergraduate and
graduate student at Cambridge. His career thereafter has been in the United
States; at Cornell, Duke, Harvard, and Princeton. In short, he is a man of
multiple identities; by nationality Ghanian and British, and an American
citizen, by profession not only a philosopher but a novelist: he is more
literally an African-American than most people to whom that label is applied
but politically much less inclined to identify with the label- or any other
label- than many of his colleagues in Afro- American Studies. He is also gay.
If anyone should have something interesting to say about identity, it is he.
5.
It can be inferred from the passage that
A.
John Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville had great
concern for the society.
B.
Both John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville
had great concern for the individual
C.
Both 1 and 2
D.
Neither 1 nor 2
6.
The author is primarily trying to discuss
A.
His review of a particular book
B.
The idea of rooted cosmopolitanism.
C.
His notion of cosmopolitanism
D.
The ethics of identity.
7.
Cosmopolitanism, as per the author ,is
A.
To some extent an inappropriate them.
B.
A degrading term for individual liberalists
A.
A and B
B.
Only B
C.
Neither A nor B
D.
Only A
8.
What is the central theme of “The Ethics of
identity?”
A.
Our commitment to liberal individualism does not
imply that our lives will resolve around a vacuum.
B.
Poetic originality requires the creation of a
new language.
C.
Either 1 or 2
D.
Neither 1 nor 4
9.
The author believes that
A.
Anthony Appiah is an interesting personality.
B.
Anthony Appiah is well- placed to write on
identity.
C.
Anthony Appiah was responsible for popularizing
the idea of cosmopolitanism
D.
Rooted cosmopolitans was an idea made hugely
popular by the Stalinists
Answer:
5.
C “….
They would certainly have answered “both”. Please refer back to the last few
lines of the second paragraph.
6.
A The
opening lines of the third paragraph, along with the fact that the words are
italicized amply support the idea.
7.
D
Please read the fourth paragraph to answer the question.
8.
A “….
But its central theme is need that no sane person supposes that a commitment to
liberal individualism implies that we are to construct our lives out of
absolutely nothing…”
9.
B Refer
to the last line of the last paragraph.
No comments:
Post a Comment