Introduction 3of the exterior being,” thereby galvanizing a sense of personal iden-
tity.^2 The Other thus assumes a metaphysical role, representing an
object of “infinite distance” from the self.^3 The act of engaging with
the Other in constructive dialogue and attempting to “bridge” the
interstice that lies between it and oneself therefore requires the indi-
vidual to transcend the confines of selfhood. This is an enterprise
that for Levinas yields substantial ethical and metaphysical value—
what he ca lls “the surpassing of the subjective.”^4 In this book, I argue
that, to varying degrees, each writer employs formal techniques that
situate the reader in positions of overt self-awareness vis- à -vis the
protagonists, so as to replicate the transcendent encounter with the
Otherness that Levinas describes.
DEFINING “COSMOPOLITANISM”
Defining cosmopolitanism is a particularly challenging task. This is
largely because the body of theoretical work with which the term is
associated is broad in scope and highly interdisciplinary, making the
concept appear almost impracticably nebulous. What is more, its very
epistemological elusiveness appears to be an inherent and indispens-
able characteristic of cosmopolitan thought itself. To be sure, we can
identify a number of vague traits and preoccupations that distinguish
cosmopolitanism from other areas of thought. Indeed, almost all the
major scholars who have written on the subject in recent years have
recognized that cosmopolitanism is closely associated with certain
strategies of viewing and appreciating the world. As Sheldon Pollock
writes, it involves practices of inhabiting “multiple places at once, of
being different beings simultaneously, of seeing the larger picture ste-
reoscopically with the smaller.”^5 For David Held, the cosmopolitan
must wield the ability to “mediate traditions [... and] stand outside
a singular location (the location of one’s birth, land, upbringing).”^6
More simply, Kwame Anthony Appiah defines the cosmopolitan sen-
sibility as “an interest in the practices and beliefs that lend [... human
lives] significance.”^7 This is a definition that appears to place more
weight upon the individual’s need for a sense of curiosity for the mul-
tiplicity of human existence and a desire to explore the rich diversity
associated with the term “humanity.”