Cosmopolitan Vision of Home, Subjectivity 67be seen in the forms of address by which the residents know Mrs and
Mr Anderson. By having the two figures addressed by the occupants
as “Mum” and “Dad,” Phillips conspicuously decouples the signifi-
ers from their traditional association with blood bonds and suggests
their applicability to all relationships of care, even those between
strangers. Such a generous and inclusive orientation to the stranger
(who is treated not with “tolerance,” but with cosmopolitan con-
viviality) resonates with Jacques Derrida’s project of articulating a
new, cosmopolitan form of hospitality. This is one that is not condi-
tioned or regulated by rigid etiquette or mores but, rather, guided by
a spirit of convivial inclusion. In his much-lauded work on the sub-
ject, Derrida argues that to live up to its promise, hospitality “must
not pay a debt, or be governed by a duty: it is gracious, and ‘must’
not open itself to the guest [... ], either ‘conforming to duty’ or even,
to use the Kantian distinction again, ‘out of duty.’’^93 This emphasis
on the stranger in the definition of hospitality also complements
the more theoretically explicit attempts by Kendall, Woodward, and
Skrbis to define cosmopolitan values. For Kendall, Woodward, and
Skrbis, cosmopolitanism constitutes a “new type of social solidarity;
one where strangers are recognized and incorporated, where one’s
own assumptions and stories are comparable to all others, and where
a variety of dimensions of social statuses are opened up, instead of
closed off.”^94
However, the apparently unconditional hospitality the “family”
shows Solomon is placed under strain when the house is vandalized
by a local group of xenophobic youths, an action that intimidates the
other residents. Although “Mum” and Dad” still accord Solomon
the same degree of hospitality, we observe a conspicuous change in
their attitude that signals the presence of fear. This fear is subtly con-
veyed when Mr Anderson attempts to “explain” to Solomon why the
vandals had targeted the house. Crucially, the rationale Anderson
evokes in doing this is one that appeals to a notion of space. “You
see, Solomon,” he explains, “this isn’t a very big Island and we don’t
have that much room” (p. 289). Such an exclusive conception of
space, with its primary motivation of fear and paranoia of the other,
clearly contrasts with the inclusive conviviality of the boundless
space of “home” that Solomon praises earlier in the narrative. But