Interpreting Art: Cultural Identity and Historical Representation in the Works of Appiah and Oguibe

Kwame Anthony Appiah, in “The Case for Contamination” (often referred to under themes of cosmopolitanism), and Olu Oguibe, in “In the Heart of Darkness,” both address the misconceptions and distortions that arise when external entities attempt to define other people’s cultures and histories. Appiah critiques both globalism and anti-globalist movements in a conversational tone that fosters a personal connection to the issues at hand. He includes firsthand experiences and testimony from interviews to illustrate his arguments. In contrast, Oguibe’s paper adopts a more technical and scholarly tone, focusing on historicism and how the West, through the lens of “modernization,” tends to generalize and distort the diverse histories of other cultures. Oguibe critiques broad institutions like the United Nations and “The West” for their sweeping approaches to cultural identity.

Both writers emphasize that there can be no singular, definitive understanding of culture or history. Instead, these concepts require ongoing dialogue and debate to account for the multiplicity of truths and experiences inherent in every cultural identity.

Appiah appeals to his audience with an informed yet approachable tone, presenting a nuanced analysis of globalism from multiple perspectives. He uses first-person narration, logical reasoning, and select, meaningful evidence to support his points. Appiah’s goal is to highlight the positive aspects of globalism, especially its potential to foster cosmopolitanism—a framework in which diverse cultures coexist and engage in mutual understanding.

In presenting his case, Appiah uses the example of Sipho, a Zulu man, and his reaction to the American TV show Days of Our Lives. Sipho appreciates aspects of Western media, such as improved familial communication, but rejects others, like early teenage relationships, which conflict with his cultural values. This demonstrates Appiah’s argument that “cultural consumers are not dupes.” They actively choose which elements to accept or reject, showing that global influence does not equate to cultural erasure.

Despite this, Appiah ironically undercuts his own argument about cultural multiplicity by relying on a limited number of perspectives. While he asserts that cultures are internally diverse, he primarily offers one or two examples, which cannot represent the full spectrum of responses within a culture like the Zulu. Nonetheless, his example is effective in supporting his broader claim: that cultures are dynamic and continuously evolving.

Appiah challenges the view that globalism leads to cultural homogenization. He argues that traditions, often seen as fixed, were once innovations themselves. As such, preserving a culture does not mean maintaining every tradition unchanged. The imposition of selective traditions by outsiders—especially under the pretext of cultural preservation—is both arrogant and invalid, as it assumes an external party knows better than the individuals living within that culture.

He writes, “Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of a society can survive through these changes. Societies without change aren’t authentic; they’re just dead.” Global influences, then, are no less legitimate than internal developments.

Appiah also acknowledges the risks of globalism, particularly its entwinement with capitalism. He notes that while capitalism enables farmers to export goods and participate in global markets, it also creates economic volatility. Traditional crafts, such as kente cloth, become luxury commodities, often inaccessible to the communities that created them. This economic transformation reflects the broader consequences of integrating local economies into global systems.

Ultimately, Appiah’s vision of a cosmopolitan world embraces diversity and mutual respect. He cites New York City as an example of a multicultural society where varied religions and cultures coexist. In this system, cultures interact and debate, creating a global moral standard based on mutual respect. However, cosmopolitanism has its limits: it must reject radical intolerance, including practices that infringe on others’ freedoms, such as slavery or genocide.

Olu Oguibe’s work, meanwhile, addresses how culture is identified and history is defined—especially through the lens of colonialism. He focuses on how Western narratives have long distorted African identities, collapsing hundreds of cultures into a monolithic “Africa.” Colonialists emphasized the “otherness” of African societies to define their own identity as advanced and distinct. This created an oversimplified dichotomy of “us” versus “them,” erasing internal differences among African cultures.

Oguibe critiques this colonial legacy by highlighting how sub-Saharan Africa was isolated from “more advanced” Arab-influenced cultures and labeled simply as “African.” This imposed identity removed nuance and contributed to the West’s patronizing historical narrative.

To counter such distortions, Oguibe proposes a form of intellectual resistance akin to the checks and balances found in Appiah’s cosmopolitanism. He advocates for a “counter-distortion” process, which involves rewriting history through multiple, diverse sources. Oguibe takes a scholarly approach, but he is also sharply critical of Western academics who exhibit what he calls a “pseudo-scholarly interest in African life… immediately after colonialism.” He mocks their misguided fascination, noting that even recent outsider texts are often mild revisions of colonialist fictions.

Oguibe writes, “To undermine the idea of ‘The Africa’ is to exterminate a whole discursive and referential system.” In other words, challenging the foundational distortions of African identity risks dismantling the entire Western discourse around the continent. But that is exactly what he believes must be done for truth to emerge.

Like Appiah, Oguibe argues that a singular, authoritative history is impossible. History is an ongoing process of reinterpretation shaped by multiple perspectives. Appiah similarly believes that culture is an evolving construct, shaped by individual choices to continue or discard traditions. While globalism may exert influence, the agency lies with individuals and communities in choosing how they define themselves.

In conclusion, both Appiah and Oguibe argue that cultural identity and history are fluid, constructed through ongoing dialogue, critique, and lived experience. There is no final definition of culture or history—only a continual process of negotiation and revision. To ensure fairness and truth, the process of defining identity must be inclusive and open to multiple voices. Through cosmopolitanism and counter-narratives, Appiah and Oguibe present frameworks for resisting cultural distortion and embracing the complexity of human identity.