10 Materiality and the Modern Cosmopolitan Novel
the cosmopolitan project to gain any real traction, he argues, this
“superf icially rooted cosmopolitanism” needs to be entirely reconsti-
tuted and interfaced with the tangible points of contact that connect
us all to each other (especially through globalized markets) and the
environment.^29 Thus it has chiefly been Harvey’s theoretical inter-
vention that has inspired me to address what Ross Posnock calls
“cosmopolitanism’s neglected egalitarian dimension” and to postu-
late the idea that egalitarianism inhabits a central role in cosmopol-
itan thought.^30
However, Bryan S. Turner’s work has also been inf luential in this
regard, particularly his argument that cosmopolitanism demands
mutual respect that can only be realized by material equality.^31
Without “some degree of social equality,” he writes, “there can be
no ethical community, and hence a system of rights and obligations
cannot function.”^32 A number of scholars from a variety of disci-
plines echo Turner’s and Harvey’s assertions. Among these, perhaps
the most well known are Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, who
in their influential sociological work, The Spirit Level, conclude
that antisocial and repressive behavior, such as racism and sexism,
“stem from the way in which inequality gives rise to individual and
institutional discrimination.”^33 “In more unequal societies,” they
maintain, “more people are oriented towards dominance; in more
egalitarian societies, more people are oriented towards inclusiveness
and empathy.”^34 This argument is specially relevant to this study
because, as Kendall, Woodward, and Zkrbis observe, social inclu-
siveness is one of the principal traits of the cosmopolitan sensibil-
ity. “Cosmopolitanism,” they argue, “asks social actors radically to
expand their circles of belonging and inclusion.”^35 In a move that
further complements Wilkinson and Pickett’s analysis, they also
insist that only egalitarian material conditions can bring into being
the “fairer, more equitable and de-hierarchized global culture that
cosmopolitanism promises.”^36
While illuminating this aspect of the field brings us closer to gar-
nering a more comprehensive appreciation of cosmopolitan thought,
there still remain some theoretical concerns and reservations that
need to be addressed. Ackbar Abbas, for example, asks whether,
given that “the cosmopolitan attitude” is predominantly expounded