Kant’s Cosmopolitan Right, Cultural Interaction and Indigenous Peoples
Timothy Waligore
Columbia University
## email not listed ##
Paper prepared for the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association
Washington, D.C. September 2005
Panel 1-20: Politicizing Indigeneity
Thursday, September 1, 2:00 PM
Abstract:
This paper looks at recent works by Jeremy Waldron and asks how useful Immanuel Kant’s
discussion of cosmopolitan right is for contemporary theorizing about cultural interaction and indigenous
peoples. Waldron uses Kant’s category of cosmopolitan right as a starting point for his own theorizing, but
diverges from the particulars of Kant’s analysis. Waldron says that the presuppositions of cosmopolitan
right should lead us to question contemporary identity politics, conceived of by Waldron as the presenting
of oneself and one's cultural preferences as non-negotiable to those with whom we now share the world. I
question whether Waldron has properly reconstructed Kant’s category of cosmopolitan right. If Waldron is
wrong about the presuppositions of cosmopolitan right, it undermines his ability to draw lessons from
cosmopolitan right for the discipline of politics at the domestic state level. I hold that the demands of
indigenous peoples can not be easily dismissed as involving a non-negotiable stance.
In section II, I maintain that the autonomy that Kant did actually recognize cuts against Waldron’s
claims about the spirit in which Kant approached cultural interaction. Kant’s cosmopolitan right was very
narrowly limited to conditions of universal hospitality. Visitors could not be turned away if this would
cause their death, but indigenous peoples could limit other interactions. Waldron exaggerates the
importance of the right to visit, while neglecting Kant’s qualification that visitors obtain consent.
In section III, I argue that Kant did place value on cultural autonomy. In his description of
cosmopolitan right, the free movement of travelers is potentially restricted as soon as indigenous peoples'
collective ways of life would be threatened.
In section IV, I argue that theories of cosmopolitan right should avoid the dark side of hospitality,
where the right to attempt commerce is confused with a right to commerce.
In section V, I discuss Waldron’s so-called “global proximity principle” and the “circumstances of
cosmopolitan right.” I argue that the category of cosmopolitan right is in danger of losing its usefulness and
coherence as we move away from the Kant’s specific claims and the balance it embodies.
In the final section of this paper, section VI, I discuss the link between cosmopolitan right and
contemporary issues surrounding indigenous peoples. Waldron’s supersession thesis says that after a
certain point, historic injustices are ‘superseded’ by changing circumstances, even circumstances that result
from injustice. I argue that adopting a strong version of supersession thesis poses dangers.
Waldron sees his discussion of the supersession thesis as animated by Kant’s proximity principle,
that we come to terms with those with whom we are now unavoidably side-by-side. Waldron also invokes a
global version of the proximity principle, which I argue may involve an additional implicit argument about
the ties that we are all bound to establish with each other. If so, Waldron is not simply saying ‘here we all
are’ but claiming that in some sense that cosmopolitan ties are necessary and were inevitable such that
indigenous peoples could not have rightfully hid from the world. I contend that remembrance of past
injustice cannot always be separated from rectification. In justifying his argument about the necessity of his
version of the supersession thesis, Waldron tells a story about historical inevitability that could in effect
justify past ‘wrongs.' Waldron's theory of cosmopolitan right then wrongfully scrubs from existence the
stains of injustice. He can no longer deny restitution while engaging in remembrance of past injustice. Such
are the potential pitfalls in adapting cosmopolitan right without maintaining Kant's anti-imperialist
sentiments.
1
Page 1 of 46 
Convention