Commerce, Communication and Hospitality

In an article published in Politics and Ethics Review on the subject of colonialism and hospitality Peter Niesen makes some key claims concerning the interpretation of the meaning of hospitality in Kantian theory. In the discussion of the 3rd definitive article for perpetual peace where Kant limits cosmopolitan right to conditions of universal hospitality Niesen focuses specifically on a key aspect. Kant refers in this article on the right to be a guest and specifies this as the right "to present oneself for society" (Ak. 8: 358). Subsequently this presentation of oneself is further determined as "the conditions which make it possible to seek commerce with the old inhabitants" (Ak. 8: 358).

The seeking of commerce is clearly not equivalent to its attainment so Kant does not here speak of a right to commerce but only of a right to be able to attain it. Niesen understands this as "a communicative right", that is, a right to make "communicative offers". Somewhat oddly and partly by associating this with statements Kant makes at the conclusion of the Doctrine of Virtue concerning social intercourse (Ak. 6: 473) this communicative right is presented by Niesen in terms of a general right to free speech on Kant's part. More persuasive evidence for a connection between the statement in Perpetual Peace and a view of free speech rights are the references Niesen points to elsewhere in Kant's works. For example, in the introduction to the Doctrine of Right, in the context of discussing the "one innate right" to freedom Kant derives from it some authorizations which, he says, "are not really distinct from it" (Ak. 6: 237). Included amongst these are "such things as merely communicating his thoughts to them" (Ak. 6: 238).

As part of his concluding remarks concerning the relation of theory and practice in the right of a state Kant also arrives at the key importance of making publicly known one's opinions. Here Kant explicitly states that "freedom of the pen" is the sole means by which the people's right can be expressed in relation to a sovereign, an argument used there in response to Hobbes (Ak. 8: 304). Niesen lists these points alongside each other as part of a general argument in Kant for freedom of expression.

Without directly here attempting to engage Niesen's specific argument for a general argument for freedom of expression I did think it worth returning to the relationship between commerce and communication and what this might tell us about hospitality. If a right to seek commerce is to be understood in Niesen's sense, as a special kind of communicative right, then it follows that restriction on commerce is a form of restriction of communication. Despite this, it remains true that in the discussion of the third definitive article of perpetual peace that Kant remarks approvingly on the restrictions of commercial practice imposed on the Western powers by Japan and China. The reason for this is due to the colonialist policies of these powers, policies that Kant here clearly condemns.

The consideration of Kant's attitude towards these policies of China and Japan leads Niesen to argue for a distinction between commercial speech strictly speaking which covers "messages that are economic in intent" from a general commitment to free speech. So, despite the fact that Niesen initially interprets the reference to commerce in the treatment of the third definitive article as a communicative right he is nonetheless driven by the consideration of the examples of China and Japan to understand hospitality in such a way that restriction of commerce can be compatible with it even though commerce is the first referent Kant makes to help us understand hospitality.

Niesen is guided by the understanding that Kant is not committed in principle to unrestricted free trade and the approval voiced of the restrictive policies of Japan and China do make this clear. However it remains true on Niesen's account that we need to connect the treatment of commerce as a form of communication that is apparently open to restriction to two other elements of Kant's account. Firstly, to the provisional possession of the property of the earth (which should be, but is not by Niesen, connected to the state of nature between states) and to the injustice of colonialist adventures. If commerce as a communicative act is restricted by the latter it is nonetheless in some sense commended by the former. Further, someone who is washed up on the shores of a foreign place and not able to engage there in commerce due to restriction faces the prospect of death, the very prospect that should be ruled out by the right of hospitality. Niesen's restrictive understanding of commercial speech seems to raise serious problems for the consistency of Kant's view.

Without wishing to articulate a reading of hospitality that would commit Kant to a universal right of free trade it remains problematic in principle to endorse the restriction of trade Kant apparently allows when it is in conflict with a basic understanding of the right to hospitality. So a reading of the view of the trade policies of China and Japan that is not simply based, as Niesen's is, on a restrictive view of commercial speech, seems required.

Cosmopolitan Right (I)

Kant's third definitive article for perpetual peace concerns cosmopolitan right and, like the second definitive article, is expressed in one sentence. It reads: "Cosmopolitan right shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality" (Ak. 8: 357). It is the only one of the three definitive articles to immediately limit the conditions of the right it specifies and the nature of this limitation has proved controversial in subsequent treatments of Kant's topic.

Hospitality is defined here as "the right of a foreigner not to be treated with hostility because he has arrived on the land of another" (Ak. 8: 357-8). So the limitative right in question is treated in terms of a reference to the response of nations to individuals who are not citizens. However, even within the scope of the discussion in Perpetual Peace (not to mention the wider scope of the Doctrine of Right) this initial characterization is not sufficient to account for all of Kant's discussion. Despite this, it is worth treating this initial characterization and seeing the limits that are set to it.

The next point that follows from the initial characterization that foreigner's have a right not to be treated with hostility is an indication of the narrowness of this claim. Foreigners can certainly be turned away: this is not part of what is meant by treating with hostility. They cannot, however, be turned away if this means that doing so will lead to their destruction. Since this is the case there is here a certain sense of recognition of the right of refugees since, presumably, if turning them away will lead to their destruction then there would be two reasons why this would result. Either because they were not able to support themselves independently (economic reasons) or because doing so would result in them being the victims of attack or assault (broadly political reasons of personal safety).

Kant views the claim in question as one that does not encompass any right to be a guest. To be a guest would require some form of contract between the foreigner and those who he presented himself before. At this point it is also interesting that Kant is speaking here of the foreigner presenting themselves before individuals of the state they have arrived in, not of some responsibility of the government. So, although I just suggested a form of "refugee" status was being recognized, in the absence of specific reference to duties of the state, it appears this kind of right is one that is required of the individuals of the state to which the foreigner presents themselves or that this is the primary way Kant tends to think of the matter.

The foreigner has a right to visit only and this is described in terms of the right to present himself before society, which widens the area of his right beyond that of reference to particular individuals and does invoke some sense of a responsibility of the community to whom he is presented though again without reference to the state being given. The ground of the right of visitation is based on the claim that all human beings have a right to possession in common of the earth's surface, a surface which is intrinsically limited and on which we hence naturally find ourselves in proximity to each other.

After referring to this cosmopolitan right Kant next mentions the behaviour of those who are inhospitable, a discussion that has two parts, only one of which will be treated in this posting. This first part refers to the pirates of the Barbary Coast and the Arabian Bedouin, both of whom are regarded as robbers of others and hence as peoples who behave contrary to "natural right". This reference to "natural right" also implies that cosmopolitan right is a kind of right within the state of nature, a right one can claim of anyone else, which, if right, again makes clear it has no necessary reference to state or government conduct.

The right to hospitality is next indicated to be limited to conditions that make it possible to seek commerce with the inhabitants of a given area. This reference to commerce suggests that the right to hospitality is one in which the one allowed visitation rights is, by virtue of having been granted them, further allowed to request a right to buy and sell. This right evidently would provide those who are visiting with a means to establish a livelihood which may be one of the reasons for granting them the right to commerce. A further ground for this is suggested when Kant refers to the possibility of public law entering into the relations between different parts of the world so that finally the human race could come close to a "cosmopolitan constitution".

So the first part of the discussion begins by reference to an individual right held in relation to inhabitants of foreign countries not to be treated in a hostile manner. The second point that follows is that this entails a right to visit other areas and the third part is that this right of visitation includes a right to seek commerce (note only to seek this, not to have it granted). Hence the first part of the discussion at any rate is markedly narrower than rights claimed and granted widely within the contemporary world to individuals who are not citizens of a given area and in the contemporary world reference to governments is central whereas it appears to be missing from the first part of Kant's account. In the next posting I'll visit the second part of Kant's treatment of inhospitable conduct and how it involves a reference to governments.