12 Materiality and the Modern Cosmopolitan Novel
aggressive interventionism should not detract from its inherent uni-
versal viability, but should make us more vigilant that the concept is
not corrupted. Blaming cosmopolitanism for causing or exacerbating
military interventionism is therefore a categorical mistake because it
faults the universal values that underpin the concept rather than the
interests that cynically appropriate it for self gain.
In the discussion that follows I apply the term “cosmopolitanism”
in a variety of ways: in the aesthetic sense of attitude and cultural
preoccupation, but also in a manner more geared toward the socio-
political. To reiterate a point made earlier, I submit that this is jus-
tified because cosmopolitan thought is multifaceted and therefore
permits engagements with a number of different spheres (culture,
aesthetics, politics, etc.) without compromising its theoretical integ-
rity. Nonetheless, I argue from the position that, regardless of which
area of cosmopolitan thought is being appealed to during the discus-
sion, the concept itself has an underlying set of values that inform or
give flavor to all its permutations and possible incarnations. As dem-
onstrated above, the values of inclusiveness, egalitarianism, eclecti-
cism, and individual agency are among the most readily identified
and persistently recognized. However, in spite of, or perhaps because
of, the broad scope and wide-ranging applicability of cosmopolitan-
ism, it has been necessary to employ a methodological framework
that establishes parameters conducive to critical analysis. Indeed, as
iterated above, part of this framework comes in the form of a mate-
rial methodology.
DEFINING “MATERIALIST ONTOLOGY”
Given that the words “material” and “ontology” have often been
used in academia with little theoretical discrimination or apparent
justification (with the latter in particular being subject to abuse in
recent years), I now offer an account of the capacity in which the
terms will be employed. In the chapters that follow, the term “ontol-
ogy” is used as sparingly as possible, and I often opt for using two
or more less terminologically loaded words in its place when refer-
ence to its full philosophical significance is not necessarily required.
When it is deployed, it is to signify the concept of existence and