What Does the Comparative Do for Cosmopolitanism?

Abstract

A conventional definition of cosmopolitanism stressesrelationships to a plurality of cultures understood as distinctive entities. (And the more the better; cosmopolitans should ideally be foxes rather than hedgehogs.) But furthermore cosmopolitanism in a stricter sense includes a stance toward diversity itself, toward the coexistence of cultures in the individual experience…. It is an intellectual and aesthetic stance of openness toward divergent cultural experiences. (Hannerz 239)In the foundation of comparative literature as a distinctive discipline, cosmopolitanism was valued for its “exoticism”—namely, the feeling of being “a citizen ‘of every nation,’ not to belong to one's ‘native country’” (Texte 79), which in (French) literature translated as the openness toward other (northern European) literatures (xi).Defining cosmopolitanism in relation to national loyalties, multilingualism, and mobility overlooks the fact that the cosmopolitan is much older than the nation and that not all multilingual abilities and mobilities are accepted as cosmopolitan, especially when they lack “sophistication.” Since I have partially discussed these issues elsewhere, I will not pursue them here but will restrict myself to Hannah Arendt's future-oriented concept of cosmopolitanism as global citizenship. My aim is to stress the elitism in many theories of cosmopolitanism and to show how comparative literature can challenge this elitism by looking at “hidden traditions.” To do so, I will draw on two essays by Arendt—“The Jew as Pariah: A Hidden Tradition” and “Karl Jaspers: Citizen of the World?” As for the first essay, I will introduceGypsynext toJew, the latter being Arendt's exclusive interest despite the implications of her use of the concept of the pariah. In the second essay, Arendt discusses acting qua human, the rights granted by membership in a (cosmo)polis, and what “citizen of the world” (cosmopolitan?) means in relation to the public space, and she stresses the value of communication, with the living and the dead. Furthermore, Arendt differentiates between cosmopolitan and European. I argue that postwar European integration challenges in unexpected ways Arendt's view both on rights as linked to nationality and on citizenship in a cosmopolitan polity.