Literature across Cultures
In a class I took in the Spring 09, we did some cross-readings of American Literature and African literaure. And most importantly we dealt with how now one can talk about people as citizens of the world as borders have less and les relevance. This led me to choose a Topic for my paper that would be a reflection of my thoughts about the idea of Globalization and Cosmopolitanism as not necessarily how positivists would like to describe them because the reality is that we are living in fenced world as I discuss on the topic "Cosmopolitanism, the Idea of Global Citizenship and Nationalism: The Crossroad of Identity Crisis".
Cosmopolitanism or the idea of global citizenship that would allow people to look at themselves as citizens of the world rather than limiting themselves to their countries of origin reinforces the concept of globalization that wills to transform the world into a planetary village. The world we are living in is cosmopolite only in its constituents that is people come from many places in a way that countries are not just made up of their original citizens, rather they are a web or a conglomerate of individuals from all around the world. This reality seems to support the ideal of globalization mentioned above that would according to Steger (2003) create some “interconnections and flows that would make many of the current existing borders irrelevant.” Yet, realistically, borders are far from being inexistent as foreigners or immigrants are always reminded of their countries of origin or simply that that they are not one of them. In a way that one can posit that we are not globalized, we are living a fenced world where even when we migrate we feel out of place. In fact, developed countries, the global North that represents a major destination for migrants from poor countries—also euphemistically referred to as developing countries—contradicts the ideals of globalization in a way that the idea of a globalized citizenship is illusive as Western host countries set boundaries between themselves and foreign immigrants who find themselves double trapped, caught between cultures and sometimes unable to reach out for home that becomes as Pr. Deo (2009 Class talk) says “no longer accessible.” The contradictions of globalization are depicted by Diawara (2003) through the African immigrant experience in France who are always asked their documents—identity—. Cohen (1997) through the concept of diaspora investigates the negative reactions to the growth of diasporas and the so called dangers of multiculturalism that trigger Western countries to prone assimilation as the only way for immigrants to be accepted. Muller (2008) also portrays immigrants attitudes to shape their identities accordingly in their new host countries, while Ba (1981) deals with the conflictual relationships between the rigid African traditions and modernity within the same African environment that also impact on how one negotiates or identifies with the two.
In this broad topic such as “Identity”, what this paper closely examines hence is the contradictions between the ideals of a harmonious cosmopolite world and nationalism as belligerent ideals that affect identities in a way that migrants especially, moving across borders find themselves double-outsiders unfit in their new host countries as well as in their own homelands making them hybrid individuals floating between cultures. The paper also examines the clash of identities that happens within the same ancestral African homes when imported or imperialistic modern values challenge the so said conservative forces of tradition in a feud. Then we proceed with the ways and means to avoid these identitiy crises and to have a cosmopolitan identity conversant with many spheres of cultures or societies and that does not necessarily equate with one group being phagocytosed by another dominant group. This would imply a willingness to give and receive, an openmindedness to diversity, to multiculturalism which represent as Kymlica (2007) says the more truly modern.
The ideals of cosmopolitanism are fueled by globalization, a phenomenon that seeks to create a more harmonious worldwide social relations as the cornerstone of what Steger (2003) labels planetarity. The theory implies therefore that immigrants from the global South who migrate to the Western hemisphere would still have the feeling of being at home after leaving home as world citizens. Yet the theory does not coincide with the harsh reality of a world of separation and discrimination. This has been illustrated by Diawara (2003) in his depiction of the African immigrants' experience in France where they are being discriminated against. This lead him (Diawara) to wonder “why the police are at the door of the plane to meet people coming from Mali?” and to point out that he has “never seen them do that to planes coming from America”. This situation is not only specific to Malian immigrants but to Africans as a whole because Europeans do not look at Africans the same way they look at Americans.
Diawara demonstrates that the African immigrants in Europe are aware of that double standard. Therefore Assuming once identity as African bears consequences of being looked down or harassed. Diawara again ridicules that reality by showing how he “lies” about his identity pretending to be African-American because “[he] didn't want tell his Malian identity” and in doing so he feels more under control and respected as he illustrates it through the cabdriver's attention to him as an “American” an image he contrasts with the West African that he says in the eye of the European “is that of an unwanted illegal immigrant called les sans-papiers [the undocumented or illegal alien]”. Yet even though, Diawara looks at this identity denial as a game it also describes a malaise from immigrants who are left no choice other than to hide behind a fake identity to avoid discrimination. This reminds of Gatsby's situation and his rejection by the old aristocracy that led him to live a life of facade to meet the corrupt social norms already defined and that in its turn strained the American Dream. Diawara also shows the irony behind using an African American identity by showing that African Americans and Africans together do not have fair treatment in America. They are are both lumped in the same bag as a black threat: “little do the Amadou Diallos know that the black man in America bears the curse of Cain, and that they, too, are considered black men.” It is this xenophobia, racism and nationalism that turn the great ideals of cosmopolitanism saturnine (gloomy) as boundaries are set between races or ethnic groups and contrasts drawn between the nationally genuine and the foreign or “other” (nationalism), which gainsays the ideals of a planetary and cosmopolitan world village.
European states defines what it means to belong and what is coterminous with European-ness from which everything else is identified and classifies everything including the “other”. Identity thus is, in that sense, a structured representation that achieves its positive only by discriminating the other. It produces hence a Manichean set of opposites that contradicts the aspiration for a world citizenship. Yet immigrants despite their foreign-ness come to their host countries with a desire to assimilate with the culture and their new environment. As Muller posits (2008) “immigrants (...) usually arrive with a willingness to fit into their new country and reshape their identities accordingly”. This assimilation can be seen in the way Diawara as an African depicts France and how he likes some of its ways of life: “Paris is my favorite city in the world, I love the cafes, the cuisine and the big boulevards. They make me feel good as if they were made for me”. The problem however is when the effort from immigrants to assimilate comes only one way and that there is no effort from the host countries to understand anything about them. This creates the feeling among immigrants that they are abandoning part of themselves, their identity for people who do not want to acknowledge their sacrifice. As Diawara signals this dilemma “I don't know why I care about Paris. Sometimes I feel Paris does not care about me” (non-reciprocity). Cohen (1997) points out the consequences that arise when a minority group feels that it is making efforts to fit in while there is no effort from the host countries, mostly European countries that look at multiculturalism as threat, which causes from minority groups “an angry, even self destructive separatism, an assertion of group pride at the expense of practical goals, often replaced the old desire for legal equality. Minority no longer looked to be admitted in the club; instead they insisted on changing the rules.” This is why as depicted by Diawara (2003) Malians in France hang on to their culture as Diawara's cousin pointed to him to go “tell French authorities to stop meddling in their affairs, that polygamy and female circumcision were long standing customs they had been inherited from their parents and their parents' parents” before being more challenging to the French authority by pointing that “our people will never abandon polygamy and our daughters will always be circumcised” to show the conflictual relationship between immigrants and host countries. This reality is summed up by Diawara as “desire for cultural purism—from france—and defense of inalienable cultural rights—from immigrants.
However, Malian immigrants even though they defend their identity as from the African homeland, it is impossible not to adopt aspect of the culture of the environment they are living in. Therefore they become hybrid individual imbued with different cultures that make their return to the homeland difficult. once back they are regarded almost as “Europeans” in Africa. Diawara illustrate this complexity through his own experience going back to Mali: “I begin to tire of the social roles expected of me (...) I do not dress according to tradition, in embroidered boubous befitting someone with my age. People do not see me at the mosque during prayer time (...) Why keep coming back to my home only to get bored? It must be that Bamako is in my blood, something I cannot get rid of. ” Therefore the identity of the immigrant is complex as in the host countries he is regarded as “alien” while at home he can no longer meet the social roles expected of him. Hence the question where is home? This feeling of loss in the homeland is also due to nationalism from Africans who also practice the same form of discrimination as in host countries. Ba (1981) depicts the dangers of African nationalism in times of globalization.
So long a Letter by Ba (1981) is interesting in our cross-reading as contrary to the We Won't Budge (2003) that deals with African immigrants in Europe, it invesigates the opposite situation where it is European values that meet African customs.
Both Ramatoulaye and Aissatou are the prototypes of educated Africans who have bought into the values of the Western world and as such they begin to look at the African tradition from a different and more critical perspective whereas the uneducated and conservative African counterparts, such as Aunt Nabou, only have one lens to appreciate the African tradition. Ramatoulay and Aissatou can be regarded as hybrids that are conscious of the the culture they have been raised in yet they are also imbued with the European culture. This is what makes Ramatoulaye feel betrayed by Modou Fall taking a second wife after “thirty five years of married life” whereas the traditional woman would look at polygamy as normal and not as a “betrayal”.
Because of nationalism, the coexistence between the imported Western values and the traditional African customs become conflictual just as they are in Europe. Aunt Nabou represents the guardian of tradition and next to the influence of Western imperialism adopts the attitude of a “colonized”—to use Fanon's term—as she feels that her values were being threatened. As fanon (1965) remarks “the phenomenon of resistance observed in the colonized must be related to an attitude of counter-assimilation, of maintenance of a cultural, hence national originality”. Yet Ba (1981) points out at the dangers of such attitude of nationalism or nationalism authenticity by portraying the lives of Ramatoulaye and Aissatou all shattered by a traditional way of life reluctant to change and influence. Ba clearly depicts the dangers of rigid traditions in an ever changing world by showing that even little Nabou who was used as a weapon was also a victim of tradition that made her lose her education on the ground that “a woman does not need too much education” and denied her the right and joy to be with her family and to later choose her own husband. But in the Senegalese traditional society that decision is for the family to take. The tradition gives aunt Nabou the right to claim little nabou as a means to an evil end. It is this clash of identity in the midst of cultural feud that led Aissatou to migrate to America as an individual oppressed by tradition and seeking freedom and hope for a better life.
If African immigrants can complain about their treatments abroad by Europeans, they also replicate the same discriminatory treatment against members of the ir own diaspora. Indeed, in Ba (1981) the case of Jacqueline from Ivory Coast and how the Senegalese population makes her feel that she is not one of them calling her “gnac” show that even we as Africans discriminate among ourselves, which led Ba to remark that “Africa is diverse and divided. The same country can change its character and outlook several times over from North to South or from East to West”. The desire of immigrants to assimilate in their host countries, their persecution and their clinging to their culture as a counter reaction can also be compared to Jacqueline attempt to become Senegalese but who “the mockery checked all desire to co-operate”. Yet Ba (1981) also illustrates that when Western and traditional ideologies meet there should not always be conflict. Ramatoulaye through the praise of her teacher when she was in school says the aims of her Western headmistress were “to lift us out of the bog of tradition, superstition and custom, to make us appreciate a multitude of civilizations without renouncing our own, to raise our vision of the world, cultivate our personalities, strengthen our qualities, to make up for our inadequacies” and most importantly “to develop universal moral values in us”. This shows that if we do not demonize the “other” we indeed can create a mor harmonious cosmopolitan world.
To make cosmopolitanism and globalism a reality rather than just ideals we must must first redefines tradition and modernity as not antagonistic but complementary ideologies. Each side should also be open to change as Ba (1981) leads the way in that perspective: “much dismantling is needed to introduce modernity within our tradition”. Therefore there should not be any fear that modernity and tradition are threats to each other and cannot coexist. Daba's husband, Abou finds no problem cooking and helping his wife in the kitchen even though that is not usually something we see in the traditional Senegalese culture where the kitchen is a female domain. This signals that culture should not be static it should follow the natural course of change so that it is not just about what ancestors did but also what we should do in this modern era where our effort should be put together for a common goal.
Kymlica (2007) advises that European countries need “to acknowledge minorities and to treat them as enduring and constituent element of the country rather than aberrations”. This should hold true for the treatment of immigrants in the North despite their cultural differences as “the accommodation of ethnic diversity is not only consistent with, but in fact a precondition for, the maintenance of a legitimate international order”. He also denounces that “the idea of a centralized, unitary, and homogeneous state is increasingly described as anachronism” to show that we are living in a world where our destiny is bound together and our differences instead of driving us apart should bind us together. This is what Kymlica also labels a “difference-friendly approach” to diversity.
Nationalism contradicts the ideals of a cosmopolite world where people live in harmony despite their diversity. It is the refusal to open up to multiculturalism that causes identity crises in the relationship between the modern North and the traditional South. Indeed, African immigrants coming to Europe are given no other choice than to assimilate as their cultures are looked at as incompatible with the Western values. Yet in Africa the defense of tradition over modernity and nationalism have worsened the relationship with the West and even with members of the diaspora as Africa is itself not united and their traditions various. As Diawara (2003) suggest “it's only after we have all entered modernity, that we can begin to combat the evil within”. Yet the reality is we cannot avoid entering Modernity, whether we are African or European. For cosmopolitanism to be effective it does not mean that one party has to give up its identity or culture for another, it means being ready to complement one's own identity and culture with another without any feeling of subjugation or loss. This is what Ba (1981) expressed as cultural complementarity by saying that the traditional witch doctor and the modern doctor should be able to work together for better result and for the sake of mankind. Indeed if the traditional doctor faces problem of dosage, the modern has already solved that issue, the same way the traditional doctor has discovered the mystery of plants. This illustrate that in the world we are living, our destiny is interdependent and it is this interdependence that should make people feel at home wherever they may be in the globe by redefining tradition and modernity as not necessarily exclusive. Our identity then should not just be defined as from what it is not compared to the “other” rather it should be defined from the perspective of what we have in common as the essence that should drive us together in order to create a fluid progressive cosmopolitan identity that would allow people to belong nowhere and everywhere.
References:
Muller, Jerry Z. “Us and Them.” Foreign Affairs (March 2008).
Ba, Mariama. So Long a Letter. African Writers Series, 1981.
Steger, Manfred B. Globalization: A Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP, 2003.
Kymlica, W. Multiculturalism Odesseys. Oxford: OUP, 2007.
Fanon, F. “Algeria Unveiled.” NY: Monthly Reviews, 1965
Cosmopolitanism or the idea of global citizenship that would allow people to look at themselves as citizens of the world rather than limiting themselves to their countries of origin reinforces the concept of globalization that wills to transform the world into a planetary village. The world we are living in is cosmopolite only in its constituents that is people come from many places in a way that countries are not just made up of their original citizens, rather they are a web or a conglomerate of individuals from all around the world. This reality seems to support the ideal of globalization mentioned above that would according to Steger (2003) create some “interconnections and flows that would make many of the current existing borders irrelevant.” Yet, realistically, borders are far from being inexistent as foreigners or immigrants are always reminded of their countries of origin or simply that that they are not one of them. In a way that one can posit that we are not globalized, we are living a fenced world where even when we migrate we feel out of place. In fact, developed countries, the global North that represents a major destination for migrants from poor countries—also euphemistically referred to as developing countries—contradicts the ideals of globalization in a way that the idea of a globalized citizenship is illusive as Western host countries set boundaries between themselves and foreign immigrants who find themselves double trapped, caught between cultures and sometimes unable to reach out for home that becomes as Pr. Deo (2009 Class talk) says “no longer accessible.” The contradictions of globalization are depicted by Diawara (2003) through the African immigrant experience in France who are always asked their documents—identity—. Cohen (1997) through the concept of diaspora investigates the negative reactions to the growth of diasporas and the so called dangers of multiculturalism that trigger Western countries to prone assimilation as the only way for immigrants to be accepted. Muller (2008) also portrays immigrants attitudes to shape their identities accordingly in their new host countries, while Ba (1981) deals with the conflictual relationships between the rigid African traditions and modernity within the same African environment that also impact on how one negotiates or identifies with the two.
In this broad topic such as “Identity”, what this paper closely examines hence is the contradictions between the ideals of a harmonious cosmopolite world and nationalism as belligerent ideals that affect identities in a way that migrants especially, moving across borders find themselves double-outsiders unfit in their new host countries as well as in their own homelands making them hybrid individuals floating between cultures. The paper also examines the clash of identities that happens within the same ancestral African homes when imported or imperialistic modern values challenge the so said conservative forces of tradition in a feud. Then we proceed with the ways and means to avoid these identitiy crises and to have a cosmopolitan identity conversant with many spheres of cultures or societies and that does not necessarily equate with one group being phagocytosed by another dominant group. This would imply a willingness to give and receive, an openmindedness to diversity, to multiculturalism which represent as Kymlica (2007) says the more truly modern.
The ideals of cosmopolitanism are fueled by globalization, a phenomenon that seeks to create a more harmonious worldwide social relations as the cornerstone of what Steger (2003) labels planetarity. The theory implies therefore that immigrants from the global South who migrate to the Western hemisphere would still have the feeling of being at home after leaving home as world citizens. Yet the theory does not coincide with the harsh reality of a world of separation and discrimination. This has been illustrated by Diawara (2003) in his depiction of the African immigrants' experience in France where they are being discriminated against. This lead him (Diawara) to wonder “why the police are at the door of the plane to meet people coming from Mali?” and to point out that he has “never seen them do that to planes coming from America”. This situation is not only specific to Malian immigrants but to Africans as a whole because Europeans do not look at Africans the same way they look at Americans.
Diawara demonstrates that the African immigrants in Europe are aware of that double standard. Therefore Assuming once identity as African bears consequences of being looked down or harassed. Diawara again ridicules that reality by showing how he “lies” about his identity pretending to be African-American because “[he] didn't want tell his Malian identity” and in doing so he feels more under control and respected as he illustrates it through the cabdriver's attention to him as an “American” an image he contrasts with the West African that he says in the eye of the European “is that of an unwanted illegal immigrant called les sans-papiers [the undocumented or illegal alien]”. Yet even though, Diawara looks at this identity denial as a game it also describes a malaise from immigrants who are left no choice other than to hide behind a fake identity to avoid discrimination. This reminds of Gatsby's situation and his rejection by the old aristocracy that led him to live a life of facade to meet the corrupt social norms already defined and that in its turn strained the American Dream. Diawara also shows the irony behind using an African American identity by showing that African Americans and Africans together do not have fair treatment in America. They are are both lumped in the same bag as a black threat: “little do the Amadou Diallos know that the black man in America bears the curse of Cain, and that they, too, are considered black men.” It is this xenophobia, racism and nationalism that turn the great ideals of cosmopolitanism saturnine (gloomy) as boundaries are set between races or ethnic groups and contrasts drawn between the nationally genuine and the foreign or “other” (nationalism), which gainsays the ideals of a planetary and cosmopolitan world village.
European states defines what it means to belong and what is coterminous with European-ness from which everything else is identified and classifies everything including the “other”. Identity thus is, in that sense, a structured representation that achieves its positive only by discriminating the other. It produces hence a Manichean set of opposites that contradicts the aspiration for a world citizenship. Yet immigrants despite their foreign-ness come to their host countries with a desire to assimilate with the culture and their new environment. As Muller posits (2008) “immigrants (...) usually arrive with a willingness to fit into their new country and reshape their identities accordingly”. This assimilation can be seen in the way Diawara as an African depicts France and how he likes some of its ways of life: “Paris is my favorite city in the world, I love the cafes, the cuisine and the big boulevards. They make me feel good as if they were made for me”. The problem however is when the effort from immigrants to assimilate comes only one way and that there is no effort from the host countries to understand anything about them. This creates the feeling among immigrants that they are abandoning part of themselves, their identity for people who do not want to acknowledge their sacrifice. As Diawara signals this dilemma “I don't know why I care about Paris. Sometimes I feel Paris does not care about me” (non-reciprocity). Cohen (1997) points out the consequences that arise when a minority group feels that it is making efforts to fit in while there is no effort from the host countries, mostly European countries that look at multiculturalism as threat, which causes from minority groups “an angry, even self destructive separatism, an assertion of group pride at the expense of practical goals, often replaced the old desire for legal equality. Minority no longer looked to be admitted in the club; instead they insisted on changing the rules.” This is why as depicted by Diawara (2003) Malians in France hang on to their culture as Diawara's cousin pointed to him to go “tell French authorities to stop meddling in their affairs, that polygamy and female circumcision were long standing customs they had been inherited from their parents and their parents' parents” before being more challenging to the French authority by pointing that “our people will never abandon polygamy and our daughters will always be circumcised” to show the conflictual relationship between immigrants and host countries. This reality is summed up by Diawara as “desire for cultural purism—from france—and defense of inalienable cultural rights—from immigrants.
However, Malian immigrants even though they defend their identity as from the African homeland, it is impossible not to adopt aspect of the culture of the environment they are living in. Therefore they become hybrid individual imbued with different cultures that make their return to the homeland difficult. once back they are regarded almost as “Europeans” in Africa. Diawara illustrate this complexity through his own experience going back to Mali: “I begin to tire of the social roles expected of me (...) I do not dress according to tradition, in embroidered boubous befitting someone with my age. People do not see me at the mosque during prayer time (...) Why keep coming back to my home only to get bored? It must be that Bamako is in my blood, something I cannot get rid of. ” Therefore the identity of the immigrant is complex as in the host countries he is regarded as “alien” while at home he can no longer meet the social roles expected of him. Hence the question where is home? This feeling of loss in the homeland is also due to nationalism from Africans who also practice the same form of discrimination as in host countries. Ba (1981) depicts the dangers of African nationalism in times of globalization.
So long a Letter by Ba (1981) is interesting in our cross-reading as contrary to the We Won't Budge (2003) that deals with African immigrants in Europe, it invesigates the opposite situation where it is European values that meet African customs.
Both Ramatoulaye and Aissatou are the prototypes of educated Africans who have bought into the values of the Western world and as such they begin to look at the African tradition from a different and more critical perspective whereas the uneducated and conservative African counterparts, such as Aunt Nabou, only have one lens to appreciate the African tradition. Ramatoulay and Aissatou can be regarded as hybrids that are conscious of the the culture they have been raised in yet they are also imbued with the European culture. This is what makes Ramatoulaye feel betrayed by Modou Fall taking a second wife after “thirty five years of married life” whereas the traditional woman would look at polygamy as normal and not as a “betrayal”.
Because of nationalism, the coexistence between the imported Western values and the traditional African customs become conflictual just as they are in Europe. Aunt Nabou represents the guardian of tradition and next to the influence of Western imperialism adopts the attitude of a “colonized”—to use Fanon's term—as she feels that her values were being threatened. As fanon (1965) remarks “the phenomenon of resistance observed in the colonized must be related to an attitude of counter-assimilation, of maintenance of a cultural, hence national originality”. Yet Ba (1981) points out at the dangers of such attitude of nationalism or nationalism authenticity by portraying the lives of Ramatoulaye and Aissatou all shattered by a traditional way of life reluctant to change and influence. Ba clearly depicts the dangers of rigid traditions in an ever changing world by showing that even little Nabou who was used as a weapon was also a victim of tradition that made her lose her education on the ground that “a woman does not need too much education” and denied her the right and joy to be with her family and to later choose her own husband. But in the Senegalese traditional society that decision is for the family to take. The tradition gives aunt Nabou the right to claim little nabou as a means to an evil end. It is this clash of identity in the midst of cultural feud that led Aissatou to migrate to America as an individual oppressed by tradition and seeking freedom and hope for a better life.
If African immigrants can complain about their treatments abroad by Europeans, they also replicate the same discriminatory treatment against members of the ir own diaspora. Indeed, in Ba (1981) the case of Jacqueline from Ivory Coast and how the Senegalese population makes her feel that she is not one of them calling her “gnac” show that even we as Africans discriminate among ourselves, which led Ba to remark that “Africa is diverse and divided. The same country can change its character and outlook several times over from North to South or from East to West”. The desire of immigrants to assimilate in their host countries, their persecution and their clinging to their culture as a counter reaction can also be compared to Jacqueline attempt to become Senegalese but who “the mockery checked all desire to co-operate”. Yet Ba (1981) also illustrates that when Western and traditional ideologies meet there should not always be conflict. Ramatoulaye through the praise of her teacher when she was in school says the aims of her Western headmistress were “to lift us out of the bog of tradition, superstition and custom, to make us appreciate a multitude of civilizations without renouncing our own, to raise our vision of the world, cultivate our personalities, strengthen our qualities, to make up for our inadequacies” and most importantly “to develop universal moral values in us”. This shows that if we do not demonize the “other” we indeed can create a mor harmonious cosmopolitan world.
To make cosmopolitanism and globalism a reality rather than just ideals we must must first redefines tradition and modernity as not antagonistic but complementary ideologies. Each side should also be open to change as Ba (1981) leads the way in that perspective: “much dismantling is needed to introduce modernity within our tradition”. Therefore there should not be any fear that modernity and tradition are threats to each other and cannot coexist. Daba's husband, Abou finds no problem cooking and helping his wife in the kitchen even though that is not usually something we see in the traditional Senegalese culture where the kitchen is a female domain. This signals that culture should not be static it should follow the natural course of change so that it is not just about what ancestors did but also what we should do in this modern era where our effort should be put together for a common goal.
Kymlica (2007) advises that European countries need “to acknowledge minorities and to treat them as enduring and constituent element of the country rather than aberrations”. This should hold true for the treatment of immigrants in the North despite their cultural differences as “the accommodation of ethnic diversity is not only consistent with, but in fact a precondition for, the maintenance of a legitimate international order”. He also denounces that “the idea of a centralized, unitary, and homogeneous state is increasingly described as anachronism” to show that we are living in a world where our destiny is bound together and our differences instead of driving us apart should bind us together. This is what Kymlica also labels a “difference-friendly approach” to diversity.
Nationalism contradicts the ideals of a cosmopolite world where people live in harmony despite their diversity. It is the refusal to open up to multiculturalism that causes identity crises in the relationship between the modern North and the traditional South. Indeed, African immigrants coming to Europe are given no other choice than to assimilate as their cultures are looked at as incompatible with the Western values. Yet in Africa the defense of tradition over modernity and nationalism have worsened the relationship with the West and even with members of the diaspora as Africa is itself not united and their traditions various. As Diawara (2003) suggest “it's only after we have all entered modernity, that we can begin to combat the evil within”. Yet the reality is we cannot avoid entering Modernity, whether we are African or European. For cosmopolitanism to be effective it does not mean that one party has to give up its identity or culture for another, it means being ready to complement one's own identity and culture with another without any feeling of subjugation or loss. This is what Ba (1981) expressed as cultural complementarity by saying that the traditional witch doctor and the modern doctor should be able to work together for better result and for the sake of mankind. Indeed if the traditional doctor faces problem of dosage, the modern has already solved that issue, the same way the traditional doctor has discovered the mystery of plants. This illustrate that in the world we are living, our destiny is interdependent and it is this interdependence that should make people feel at home wherever they may be in the globe by redefining tradition and modernity as not necessarily exclusive. Our identity then should not just be defined as from what it is not compared to the “other” rather it should be defined from the perspective of what we have in common as the essence that should drive us together in order to create a fluid progressive cosmopolitan identity that would allow people to belong nowhere and everywhere.
References:
Muller, Jerry Z. “Us and Them.” Foreign Affairs (March 2008).
Ba, Mariama. So Long a Letter. African Writers Series, 1981.
Steger, Manfred B. Globalization: A Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP, 2003.
Kymlica, W. Multiculturalism Odesseys. Oxford: OUP, 2007.
Fanon, F. “Algeria Unveiled.” NY: Monthly Reviews, 1965
Comments
Post a Comment