PHI330: Cosmopolitanism

Fall 2006
Smith College

Student Questions on James Mill, Thomas Metcalf and Satyajit Ray’s film
of Rabindranath Tagore’s “The Home and the World”

1) Only at times did the authors speak of the greater English opinion
regarding England's colonization of India and I received mixed messages
when the topic was touched upon.  I am under the impression that the
English population accepted and approved of their country's stance at first
and then slowly began to question their position.  Is this accurate?

2) Did the wealthy of India, similar to Nikhil's character in the film,

complacently approve of some of what the British presence brought to
India, e.g. inexpensive market prices?

3) Metcalf seems to be stating that the English were hesitant to introduce

Christianity to the Indian population solely because it would not have been
well received.  I almost wonder if the English authorities at that point felt
colonialization and national strength and power were of more importance
than their perception of religion and god.  At the time this would have
been seen as blasphemous, but could it have been the case?

4) Sandip took on an antagonistic role in the film.  Bimala's relationship

with him was not only a disappointment in the end but a grave mistake.
Was Bimala's character representative of the mostly impressionable Indian
population? Were nationalists and activists like Sandip thinking to
narrowly? Was Nikhil in the right to act rationally and react to what the
English were contributing while combatting the clearly negative influences,
e.g. the deliberate attempts to separate Moslems from Hindus?

(Sarah Matari) 
1.(See p. 115, Mill,) Mill claims that because the Hindus' "laws and
institutions...are adapted to the very state of society which those who visit
them now behold," (ie., barbaric and highly uncivilized) we can deduce
that the Hindus never had a fall from civilized culture. Do you think this is
logical reasoning? What about adaptability? See also, Mill's footnote on p.
116 regarding the example, or anti-example of the fall of Rome. Is his
argument valid? Why or why not might the Hindus and Romans be alike or
different?

2.Throughout these articles we see a prevalent theme of fear on the part

of the British. Do you think it's possible to affect positive change in a
colony when your actions are motivated by such fear and lack of
comprehesion? How did this fear and discomfort of the british in India
(and Jamaica) possibly make them more cosmopolitan, if you think it did
at all? Refer to p. 55 in Metcalf: Do you think the steps the British took
following the uprisings reflect a greater understanding of themselves? How
important is this improvement [in self-comprehension] to becoming a
cosmopolitan individual?

3.What do you think about Metcalf's breakdown of Mill's theory (p. 31-32)?
Do you agree more with Mill, or with the revised view of happiness
corresponding more closely with utilitarianism (top of p. 57)? Which do
you think is more important, happiness for the greatest number or
happiness for the individual? Do these two views reflect different levels of
cosmopolitanism (ex. universal cosmopolitanism v. the popular
conception)?

4.Metcalf says on p. 32 that "Mill's object was not to condemn those whom
he saw as less advanced, but rather to make clear what had been done to
propel them forward." Do you think this is true? Did this strike you as Mill's
aim in the piece we read? Why or why not?

5.On p. 36-7 Metcalf mentions the reluctant religious tolerance of the

British despite their discomfort. Do you think this was cosmopolitan in a
way? What if it were reduced to an individual scale? Would this experience
help them become more cosmopolitan even if it wasn't an active decision
(re: first class discussion)? see also, Q.2

6.Mill states on p. 115 that the conquest of Hindustan was not an

extraordinarily violent or or bloody one. He says, "It substituted sovereigns
of one race to sovereigns of another, and mixed with the old inhabitants a
small portion of new; but it altered not the texture of society." Do you
think it's possible to introduce diverse people into an established culture
and have the native people remain unaffected?

7.Mill strikes down the Hindus' popular history as fantasy. How does their
history compare with the Bible, or the teaching of Mormonism? Aren't
those histories too, yet equally requiring faith in fantastic events? What do
you think about this?

8.On p. 127 Mill argues that because there is violence depicted in Hindu
panegyrics, they are a less civilized people. What do you think Mill is
saying about violence and civilization? Does he seem to be asserting that a
conflict-filled society is uncivilized? What about the United States?

9.Do you think there's a difference between a rebellion and a revolution? is

a rebellion just an attempt at revolution, or are revolutions rebellions with
a purpose? (see p.128, Mill)

10.On p. 131 Mill discusses that caste system. In Thomas Gossett's Race:
the History of an Idea in America, he compares the caste system (at
several points) to the polygenic theories of race common to Mill's
contemporaries. What do you think of this? Do you think the caste system
was really so much worse than social or racial persecution in Britain or
America?

(Christina Hoppe)
1. What is the importance of the husband's sexual attitudes with his wife.
Is that a form of liberalism?
My impression of the relationship dynamics was that the husband had
selfish and manipulative motives behind his attitude towards his wife. I am
aware that with nationalism, women are often viewed as needing
protection and sanctioning; therefore, the husband was not practicing this
extreme form of nationalism. Nevertheless, the husband takes a binary
position when it comes to thinking of tradition where he believes that
progress comes with modernity. In doing so, The husband fails to see
European cultural imperialistic notions.

2. My next set of questions relates to the failure of seeing European

cultural imperialism. In "Liberalism and Empire" Tomas Metcalf:
      "The campaign against sati, or widow burning, for instance, as we
shall see later, reinforced notions of Indian women as helpless victims of
religion"

When it comes to moral cosmopolitianism how does one not become a

cultural imperialist or assuming extreme relativism where a person would
hate to make judgements about another culture.

(Astride Charles)
I read about Mill’s hierarchy of civilization, with India near (although still below) Europe
in the Metcalf reading, but still wonder what led him to this conclusion.

Hindu Vedic tradition being so essentially oral, did Mills’ view of Hindu literature accept
verbal transmission as on par with written scripture?

Mill writes, “the term civilization was by him, as by most men, attached to no fixed and
definite assemblage of ideas” (110). How can he be so blind to the prejudices at work
behind such a term as “civilization?” The very categorization of “lowest states” in the
following sentence evidences his bias? Does he truly fancy himself cosmopolitan?

Mill declares that the entire Vedas could practically be “comprised in a few quarto pages
of print” (120). Does that make them less valuable? What are the implications of that
judgment?

Why does Mill constantly use the term “Hindustan,” even when discussing times before
the Common Era? Was the conception of a “Hindustan” not from the colonial era? And
when Mill refers to Hindustan, or India, what does he mean? What area is he referring to?

Mill consistently forces western models on what he sees. Is this fitting? Fair? In his
discussion of castes (131), is he sympathetic to the Vedic Varna, or does he insist on
applying the western notion of caste? Then he accuses the Brahmins of despotism (132).
But isn’t despotism political, not religious? And what of the Pope? Later, he compares
governments against the model (assumed superior) of the deliberative assembly in
Europe (141). Is he conscious of how ridiculous this is?

Mill writes, “the Saxon language forms the basis of the language in India” (139). Where
does this idea come from?

This treatise is focused on Hinduism. What of the Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, and other
religions in the region? Why does Mill confine this work to looking at Hinduism?

The piece ends with a warning about the despotism in this part of Asia. Where, apart
from his discussion of Hindu poetry (148) (which culminates in identifying the Hindu
disposition as one of “deceit & perfidy” (150)), is the flattery of India in Mill’s writing
that Metcalf spoke of?

(Lilith Dornhuber-deBellesiles)
1.  Is the desire to preserve aspects of one's culture ever okay?  Where do
we draw the line between cosmpolitanism and colonialism or cultural
preservationism?

2.  Is it ever possible to let go of your identity or social/cultural

background to become cosmopolitan?

3.  Does cosmopolitanism also mean accepting or tolerating colonialism

and globalization?

(Roxanne Stokes)
1)  How does the word, "polis," play into the word, "cosmopolitan"?  What
link does urban/big city have with a cosmopolitan?

2)  What constitutes a civilized society?  Who makes the rules?  Is there
more than one kind?

3)  What positives and negatives come along with civilization?  

4) How does Mill's biases affect his dialogue about India and
civilization?

(Emily Farquharson)
1. As I reflect on the film, I am particularly interested in determining
the extent to which the major characters might be thought of as
cosmopolitan individuals. This can essentially be thought of as an
exercise in teasing out my own intuitions about what cosmopolitanism
entails. Bimala is especially intriguing to me here, as she does
(apparently) exhibit many of the hallmarks of cosmopolitanism as it is
most commonly construed: she is (to some degree) aware of the major
political and social issues of the day, she is bilingual, she is
educated both in her own culture and in the culture of others. Perhaps
most strikingly, she is modern. There is a lot to say about all this,
but for the moment, my point is limited to the following. Although most
people would hesitate to classify Bimala as a *fully* cosmopolitan
woman, it's difficult to deny that she proves herself to be far from
provincial. However, when she is given the tools and the freedom with
which she might progress even further along the path to true worldliness
(ie, even when she is allowed to interact with whomever she wants, to
leave the house whenever she wants, etc.), she, to a pretty large
extent, fails. Take, for instance, her relationship with Sandip. She is
drawn to him and seems to see him as a symbol (and source) of
knowledge,
change, progress, and freedom, yet she lacks the experience to see him
for what he really is (none of these things), which ultimately means
that not only is she unable to reap the rewards of her status as a
modern/emancipated woman, but that she is in a sense *harmed* by that
status. This makes me wonder--how important are experience and context
to the notion of cosmopolitanism, and is it possible for a person to
*grow* in the manner presumably required by this cosmpolitanism, to
utilize the raw material with which she might expand her self and her
grasp on the world, without having first had the "right" kinds of
experiences (whatever that might mean) in her life? My hope is that it
*is* possible, but Bimala does, at any rate, seem quite crippled in this
respect. (Sorry if this question is convoluted--I could probably clarify
some points if necessary.)

2. Is it unreasonable to fear that in a lot of ways cosmopolitanism

seems like a very "white" notion? On a related note, what might be the
relationship between liberalism and cosmopolitanism? Clearly the notion
of liberalism can be and has been used as a tool for white/European
domination for centuries, as is evidenced by this week's readings, but
am I right to see some possible (and disturbing) connections between
liberalism and cosmopolitanism, especially where the idea of
universalism and questions of sameness/difference are concerned? My
thoughts on this are very undeveloped so far, but it's a topic I'd like
to explore.

3. This is related to both 1 & 2, but how does the notion of privilege
play into our definition of the cosmopolitan individual? If we say that
it *doesn't*, and that anybody in any set of circumstances can become
cosmopolitan, then the word seems to lose its meaning/purpose; on the
other hand, if we admit that there *is* a certain amount of privilege
involved in becoming cosmopolitan, then we have to deal with some
amount
of disappointment, don't we? After all, that's not what we really
*want*, is it? Actually, even here the term loses some meaning, for it
starts to stand for something other than what it purports to stand for,
as far as I understand.

(Emily Ellithorpe-Luker)
Ideologies of the Raj

1. If a nation is defined by a group of people, independent of some

geographical location, what is the common link? At what juncture does my
indentity overlap with yours? Race? Religion? Language? Education? And
who is being excluded?

2. [p. 29 "What shaped a ...on the basis of patronage and status.] Isn't
this idea inherently contradictory--to establish an institution of values
already deemed intrinsically superior to the set of values it intends to
reform?

3. Can nationalism and patriotism coexist? If nationalism is a culmination

of people wish a shared commonality, not necessarily the same
geographical borders, such as the British Empire aspires-- and the loyalty
belongs to a pride in that expanded or expanding nation. And patriotism is
a pride in one's country, country beig its political state, perhaps exclusive
to land. [p. 34 "It's outcome would be...India politically
independent...embodied an 'imperishable empire of our arts ... our laws"]
Given the concept of liberalism, does one adopt a nationalistic sentiment
at the mercy of a former? Are nationalism and patriotism mutually
exclusive?

4. [p.41] The Indian culture seems projected on a work of literature itself--

the people become characters of a story, elementsof a plot, their nature
stereotyped and rituals perverted-- to please popular imagination or foster
the 'benevolent' pursuit of British imperialism?

5. [p.48] Is nationalism marketable? Can it be preserved? If tradition

changes, to what is one;s loyalty obliged? With what nationalist sentiment
might the youth, for example, of a rising imperialist nation identify--the
ancient tradition that raised her or the modern values that shape her
future?

6. [64] Does liberal imperialism hinder the possible coexistence of

nationalism and cosmopolitanism? Or promote it? "to wean people
away...", to wean is ambiguous, is it the inability to expand one's
sentiment or the propensity towards other cultures wile maintaining a core
tie to one's own?
History of British India

1. If British Empire seeks to liberate India from oppressive structure isn't it

doing so through the very same mechanism-- to displace its values onto a
nation unwilling or perhaps unready to be reformed?

2. [p.144] "These accounts refuse themselves..."] Isn't te evaluation and

reevaluation of the Hindu progression a vicious cycle? And if so, doesn't
this make India merely vulnerable rather than 'deformed' ?

3. If Europe deems itself so superior, what is the criteria that ranks one
above another--isn't this a subjective perspective, unreliable, and itself a
potential victim of future reform?

4. [p.148 footnote] If to 10th - 12th the Hindus were a superior

civilization--what marked the shift? What changed the standard?

5. [p.151] "By conversing with Hindus of present day...]  Isn't present ay

Hindu a product of modernist reform, defaced by our own presupposition?
We are conversing with Hindus who we have already had conversaions
with--through the literature, fables, 'historical accounts', we've created out
of our own ideological assumptions? How can we have a 'practical
understanding' of ancient culture, if the lens through which we examine
the past is skewed and our capacity for intimacy with the past is limited by
our own place in the world?

The Home and the World

1. Does freedom, open eyes, change promote happiness? Or is suffering in

the dark better?

2. The promotion to get rid of foreign goods is counterintuitive--  the

people that belong to the nation and to which in turn, the nation belongs,
the poor,  whose lives depend on that bridge between their nation and
another, suffer--could it be that the preservation of one national sentiment
rests on its relationship with another's? If Swadeshi is for those who can
afford it, is nationalism also only for those who can afford it?

3.Who is more loyal, who is more nationalist, those trading to keep their
land theirs or those willing to sacrifice their land to reclaim the principle
behind it?

4. Is nationalism rooted in land? Who is more loyal--she who adapts to the

progression of change, like the traders, or she who refuses change to
preserved what might be lost?

5. When the young boy chooses to not take his exam for 'the Cause'--
must we thwart a future to preserve a past?

6. How does "my country is not mine because i was born there--i win it
by force" change the nature of a nationalist sentiment?

(Allison Kaylor)
  1. Briton’s liberal reform for India states that “human nature is the same
everywhere, and can be completely transformed…to become autonomous,
rational beings leading a life of conscious deliberation and choice.”  Yet,
implications of this reform led to a spreading of the concept of Indian
difference. Could the liberals wrong in their essential belief of such a
transformation or was it their methods of implementing such a
transformation that was wrong?

    2. Can providing an education in western learning and creating a public

sphere for codified law, unique to India, ever justify actions that also lead
to notions of Indian difference?
    
    3. Does or could the danger of “Indian barbarism” demand the help of
Briton if it involves transforming Indian culture to one that embodies the
arts, morals, literature and laws of another country?

    4. James Mill maintains that Hindus were never civilized and rejects
their proposed state of former elevation.  Does this suggest a huge
misunderstanding of India’s history since it is cast in comparison to other
culture’s histories?  Is it insulting to refer to India’s written past in as
“fables, more wild, inconsistent and hyperbolical”?

    5. In “The Home and the World” the scene with the local traders was
very intense.  It revealed the raw anger of the poor who were directly
affected by the boycott of foreign goods.  Did the call of nationalism
seem so contradictory from the beginning or did this have to be
explained or further explained by this scene?

(Julianne Siracusa)
Following Disraeli’s “new imperialism” British patriotism and national identity were
bound up in the idea of empire. Thus to be “British” was in some ways to be more than
just one who resides in Britain; it was to be global or possibly by modern standards
cosmopolitan. The idea of Britain was greater than the land itself. How was this idea
used to justify British imperialism or did it come after a British imperialist empire was
already established? What does it mean to construct a national identity grounded in a
multi-national or colonial experience? Is it still a national identity? Are the people living
in parts of the empire outside of Britain included in this identity or is it a British
imperialist identity solely for those physically residing in England?

In The History of British India Mill critiques India’s degree of civilization. What are the
criteria he uses to determine civilization and how does he arrive at them? He lists all of
the following: courtesy, urbanity, eloquence, poetry (111); fixed habitations, political
institutions, arts (113); religion, medicine and surgery as indicators of civilization
juxtaposed with rebellions, massacres, barbarity (128); famine, war, lack of roads (143);
and superstition. On what grounds does he base his assertions that India lacks or exhibits
any of these (especially medicine and the arts, both of which India has a great deal of)?
How does he undermine these categories throughout his discussion (ex both promoting
military skill and condemning warfare)? Mill also proposes a “ladder” of civilization or
“stages of social progress” (110). How is his critique of India’s relative civilization
merely a means of elevating and validating Britain’s? Also, for what purpose does Mill
consistently juxtapose the invading Islamic rulers with Hindu rulers? Why does he give
preference to the Mughals? How does he regard them as more or less civilized as Indians
or the British? Does this hierarchy exist to reinforce the idea of a history of external
sources invading and imposing civilization on India (and thus justify British rule)?

How does India shift from an uncivilized nation in the eyes of the British to a ground for
political and social experimentation? In what ways is India able to (or thought to be able
to or forced to be able to) support the laws and institutions idealized by British
Liberalism? How and why does India eventually shift from an “uncivilized” country in
need of British cultural intervention and improvement to a legal and political model to
which Britain aspired? What constrained Britain itself from following suit? Did the
liberalists hold India to a standard Britain itself had not achieved and in doing so cause
India to surpass England (in terms of a successful civilization as defined by the
liberalists)?

What kind of social/political contract exists between the people and the state and what are
the responsibilities of those in power toward those who are not in power? In the film,
Bimala says that Sandip’s means are justified because of the intended ends. Can a citizen
be expected or compelled to suffer at the hands of the state or other authorities for the
good of the nation? Conversely, Nikhil sees his duty as protecting the welfare of the poor
at both the present time and in the long term. He refused to engage in activities that abuse
the power that the educated wealthy class has over the farmers and villagers. Whose
approach is more humanitarian in the long run? Which promotes nationalism? Can either
be considered cosmopolitan? How is Nikhil’s attitude regarding his tenants contradictory
to his attitude toward Bimila? Why does he try to modernize one and not the other?

Nikhil (via the governess) causes Bimila to become an educated and cultured (by British
standards) woman. He is in part making her more cosmopolitan. Her modernity however
is artificially constructed and imposed upon her. At a few points in the film she fights
this external imposition and warns Nikhil of the consequences of her shift in character. I
see Bimila’s character as a metaphor for India and Nikhil (in part) for the British
liberalists. Nikhil is tyring to force Bimila to modernize via the arts, language and
literature in the manner prescribed by Mill in his History of British India. How does
Nikhil succeed (and succeed according to what standard)? Can a person be forced to
become “civilized” or must they proceed at their own pace? What happens after a period
of civilizing? How does the individual/country deal with the cultural disconnect between
the “civilized” and the “uncivilized”, between tradition and modernity (ex Bimila and her
sister in law)? What happens when the economic infrastructure does not modernize at the
same pace as social institutions or social ideas, as is the case with Sandip’s form of
Swadeshi and the peasant’s inability to function under it?

(Jo Leach)
James Mill

What does Mill's style and use of language, his general air in this piece,
reveal about his assumptions and ethnocentrism?

What does Mill mean by the "astronomical... sciences affording conclusive

evidence against the Hindus?"

What is the author's conception of a "High Civilization".

Was the age that is referred to as irrational (p 116) actually so in the way
that Mill means?

Are the criticisms of Indian/Hindu culture extended to apply to people in

general?

Though Mill claims to prove that Hindu culture is uncivilized, does he make
a valid claim for British rule?

Are the criticisms of the Caste system warranted?

What does "the application of knowledge... to the military art" signify

about a culture? What does Mill claim it sign fies?

Thomas R. Metcalf

How does the use of the term liberal differ within the context of this article
and our modern usage?

Does Metcalf's definition of the term seem reasonable for our

contemporary understanding?

Is "Knowledge of God" relevant to the elements of a Cosmopolitan model?

What is an ideal ruler? Would a cosmopolitan be an ideal ruler? Under

what definition of the term?

What comprised the British debate on Empire?

Satyajit Ray

What made the relationship of husband and wife portrayed in the film a
unique situation?

Why was it important that English culture be integrated into the

household?

Why was it that "Queen Bee" felt the need to follow strict conventions (not
leaving the house, etc) and yet immediately fell in love with another man
and defiled the man who gave her everything?

What might the nationalists who supported only Indian products be

compared to in our society?

Which character in the film is most Cosmopolitan?

(Joseph Alpern)