Epilogue: Possibilities and

Limitations

I

shall begin this epilogue by repeating a note of caution sounded
at the outset, that the field of cosmopolitan thought can neither
be exclusively defined as an aesthetic stance nor as a human-
istic sociopolitical position. It is both of these and more. Indeed,
I have demonstrated that the broad theoretical scope associated
with the field can be competently retained and applied in a single,
unified study without significant loss of cohesion or clarity. In the
last chapter, for instance, I describe certain cosmopolitan tenden-
cies that are revealed not only in Philip Roth’s subversive handling
of ethnic identity (what could be labeled “aesthetic” concerns), but
also in his more sociopolitically conscious critiques of neoliberal
free-market capitalism. More examples present themselves when we
draw comparisons across the chapters, with Caryl Phillips’s subver-
sion of “home” in A Distant Shore offering a stark contrast to the
Foucauldian materiality observed in J. M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the
Barbarians. I believe this variety of subject and theme has been an
asset rather than a detriment to this book in that it has allowed me
to display the range of interpretive possibilities that cosmopolitan
theory presents for literary criticism.
Nonetheless, there were certain aspects and themes within the
broad field of cosmopolitan thought that were appealed to per-
sistently throughout the entire study, particularly those involving
self-reflexivity and a critical cosmopolitan vision. More important,
however, has been the revelation that cosmopolitan thought, in all
its eclecticism and variety, can be approached and applied in con-
junction with a materially grounded framework. To recapitulate,
I have discussed how three contemporary writers from different