In the articles “Preface” and “The New Civil Rights” by Kenji Yoshino, the author talks about people altering themselves in order to be accepted by others, a concept he mentions called “covering”. According to Yoshino, covering is “to tone down a disfavored identity to fit into the mainstream” (Yoshino 552). This causes people to obtain both a “true self” and a “false self” in order to be accepted by the public. Yoshino believes that people should not live their lives uncomfortably and proposes a solution that could eliminate “covering”, The New Civil Rights. In the articles “Making Conversation” and “The Primacy of Practice” by Kwame Anthony Appiah, the author introduces a term that could be the idea to fix the separation between different groups and suggests the concept of “cosmopolitanism”, a complex, complicated way of getting use to one’s identity and a way to deal with the fear of change or “cultural otherness”. This paper will examine how Yoshino’s call for “The New Civil Rights” and Appiah’s concept of “Cosmopolitanism” supports each other and how both authors agree that “conversation” is important by focusing on their similarities for progressing towards social change that is beneficial for all of humanity. While both authors are talking about identity, what they are really exploring is the double conscious lives people live in order to be accepted. This is because the structure of the civil rights laws are geared towards certain groups and not to all of humanity and because many people are unfamiliar with different cultures and identities.
When discussing how humans can be brought together, both authors have different concepts that they propose. The concept that Yoshino introduces is “The New Civil Rights”. What this entails is that the civil rights laws, “must harness this universal impulse toward authenticity. That impulse should press us toward thinking of civil rights less in terms of groups than in terms of our common humanity” (Yoshino 555). According to Yoshino, the way how the civil rights laws are currently written steer the way how the public views other individuals. Throughout the article, Yoshino gives out examples of how “The New Civil Rights” should be written to cater to common humanity rather than groups by sharing how a civil court case was resolved. Yoshino talks about two court cases that show how the Supreme Court came to a consensus. In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court, “struck down a Texas statute that criminalized same-sex sodomy”, because they ruled that it, “violated the fundamental rights of all persons—straight, gay, or otherwise—to control our intimate sexual relations” (Yoshino 555). In the 2004 case of Tennessee v. Lane, when it the court was at fault for not providing accessibility for two paraplegic people, the Supreme Court, “ruled in favor of the minority group without framing its ruling in group-based equality rhetoric. Rather it held all persons—disabled or otherwise—have a ‘right of access to the courts,’ which had been denied in this case” (Yoshino 556). From these cases, what Yoshino highlights is how it was ruled by how the Supreme Court took into account that everyone’s rights were violated instead of categorizing gays and the paraplegic and only giving them special attention. For Yoshino’s concept of creating the new civil rights, the structure should follow the way how the Supreme Court did. In “The New Civil Rights” that Yoshino proposes, it acknowledges humanity as a whole instead of individuals categorized into groups based on how they identify themselves and what their cultural background is.
While Yoshino wants people to be recognized as one common group instead of a group of different cultures and identities, Appiah wants people to recognize the “commonalities” that all individuals possess rather than focusing on the differences. This is similar to Yoshino’s belief because it is Appiah's way of bringing people together. What he realizes is if you focus on the differences rather than the similarities, it will cause a divide. An example of when the author refers to the event of 9/11 and how it has caused a, “divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’” (Appiah 72). What Appiah acknowledges from this event of separation is that there was a difference in values, “this is what we take to be good; that is what they take to be good” (Appiah 72). People do not realize that their culture is different from the mainstream and they were brought up with different beliefs. As a result to this, Appiah suggests that people practice the concept, “cosmopolitanism”. The definition of “cosmopolitanism” as he says it is more complicated and complex than discussed. The author explains how a cosmopolitan person would understand the fact that everyone is different and it gives reason to explore their identity,
People are different, the cosmopolitan knows, and there is so much to learn from our differences. Because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring, we neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life. Whatever our obligations are to others (or theirs to us) they often have to go their own way. (Appiah 70)
What Appiah is saying that as a cosmopolitan, it is not sufficient enough to observe that someone is “different”. A cosmopolitan must take initiative to explore and learn about the “different” culture or identity the person has. By being informed of other cultures and identities, people are brought together. The only way to do so is to hold “conversation”.
Both authors have a strong urge for finding ways on how to bring different cultures and identities together. In order for their ideas of bringing people of all kinds together to work, they both believe people should partake in having “conversation”. Yoshino says that in order for the “The New Civil Rights” to successfully happen, “The goal is not to eliminate assimilations altogether, but to reduce it to the necessary minimum. This is what the reason-forcing conversation seeks to do” (Yoshino 556). By having conservation, people would not have to assimilate into the mainstream because simply talking about different kinds of cultures and identities would become a norm. If a conversation has the ability to reduce assimilation, then it should also reduce “covering” and the need to have a “true self” and a “false self”. Appiah believes as well that in order to use “cosmopolitanism” as a solution to bring cultures together, conversation must be the first step, “It begins with the simple idea that in the human community, as in national communities, we need to develop habits of coexistence: conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association” (Appiah 71). Appiah further on says, “We can live together without agreeing on what the values are that make it good to live to live together; we can agree about what to do in most cases, without agreeing about why is it right” (Appiah 74). What the author means is that having conversation won’t necessarily mean that people will come to a consensus or agree on certain things, but it will reveal that people share common ground with some values. What conversation will also do is further exploit others cultures and identities of people. While both authors are saying to have “conversation”, they do not necessarily mean to just share dialogue with other people. What they mean is people should not be oblivious to the fact that there are other individuals with different kinds of backgrounds and that they should “associate” or socialize themselves to become familiar.
The concepts by Yoshino and Appiah, respectively, “The New Civil Rights” and “Cosmopolitanism”, are ideas created that could possibly be the solution to eliminate equality and bring liberty to all kinds of people. What Yoshino observes about the current civil rights laws is how it is composed to distribute equality among everyone. While the current civil right laws have the ability to protect people based on the conditions they cannot change about themselves, what Yoshino concludes is that it does not protect people based on how people behave and would like to portray themselves. This basically creates an attack on individuals that have to hide their identities because it is not socially accepted by the mainstream public. What this reveals is that people are not as equal as they would like to think, creating a divide between the mainstream public and individuals that cover their true selves with a false identity. In response to this conflict, Yoshino creates a new civil rights model that will be based on providing individuals a sense of liberty instead of equality. The laws will be interpreted in a way that allows all humans to have the same rights and not because they belong to a group that they identify as. What idea Appiah proposes to create social change is “cosmopolitanism”. As Appiah mentions, cosmopolitanism is not a solution, but more of an idea on how to create social change. What Appiah recommends is in order to go about the concept of cosmopolitanism, engaging in “conversation” with others is the first step. What this allows is for people to feel comfortable and familiar with other cultures. Both authors agree that conversation plays a huge and can be a positive contributor to social change. Once people are familiar with other cultures and identities, it will eliminate the need for people to live double conscious lives and be able to live their true selves comfortably.