6 Materiality and the Modern Cosmopolitan Novel
(Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Crimea, and Hungary) and explained with
a certain degree of pride their tribe’s “unique” method for making a
secure knot to tie their horses. Tim smiled as he explained that each
horseman had told him how to tie exactly the same knot.^14
To return to the task of refining our definition of cosmopoli-
tanism, it seems important to keep in mind that the field’s theo-
retical flexibility or “openness” has seen it draw criticism, and for
a variety of reasons. One recurring reservation voiced by a number
of scholars is that cosmopolitan discourse is at times detached from
social and political concerns and realities. This is a point of criticism
that Berthold Schoene raises in his recent book, The Cosmopolitan
Novel. For Schoene, a disappointing number of theorists writing in
the field today (and this goes for literary scholars that employ cos-
mopolitan theory in their work) display a “strikingly na ï ve lack of
political purpose [... and] commitment.”^15 Although this is the type
of criticism that prompted the current materially oriented study into
cosmopolitan literature (and Schoene certainly does make a valid
argument), I contend that the political commitment he calls for
cannot be applied uniformly to all areas within the field. This is
because there are certain areas for which the charge of political com-
placency would be incongruous. To explain, my approach has been
to regard cosmopolitan thought as being divided into two categories
of theoretical orientation. The first is what could be labeled the “aes-
thetic” orientation—involving those works that have enthusiastically
embraced the aesthetic priorities of cosmopolitanism, with its appre-
ciation for individual creative expression and cultural eclecticism.
Although it is not uncommon for works of this kind to subscribe
to these priorities without paying heed to the other, more sociolog-
ically and politically focused concerns associated with the field, in
this book I follow the principle that in so doing they do not neces-
sarily shirk any would-be sociopolitical duties. Indeed, I consider
that those operating at the “aesthetic end” of the cosmopolitan field
do not have an obligation to engage with sociopolitical issues (even
those valued by cosmopolitan theory). This is because such issues
might simply be extraneous to the writers’ immediate concerns.
Amanda Anderson presents perhaps the most exemplary illustra-
tion of an aesthetically oriented approach to cosmopolitan thought.