The Agora: Hospitality, Nationalism, and the Ethics of Thanksgiving (Week 10, Part Two)

If you haven’t already, please read the first part of this piece published Saturday. 

Dear Readers—

On this day where many Americans celebrate our national day of Thanksgiving, ideas of forgiveness, kindness, and thankfulness are probably on our minds. Though our families may be spread across the globe, and our tables may feel less warm and welcoming than they usually do, today is a day where Americans—regardless of color, creed, or conviction—tend to think about and deal with issues relating to our lives, our families, and our communities. Building on the piece published last Saturday, today’s issue of The Agora will once again deal with the concept of hospitality. With 37 million Americans (including 11 million children) regularly going hungry in 2019--before the pandemic-- and with nearly 35 million Americans being faced with evictions as of this month, it may seem common sense that we should house, feed, and be hospitable to those who have no homes, no food, and not welcome anywhere. I explored the arguments in favor of this radical notion of hospitality in the first part of this piece, and in today’s Agora, I will probe  the forgotten side of the debate around hospitality—those who are against it. Without further ado, here is the second part of this edition of The Agora: 

Is it Right to be Hospitable?

Argument #2: It is not morally, practically, or legally right to be hospitable 

“We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.”As expressed by renowned philosopher Slavoj Žižek , the language of “unfreedom” is one that has been largely overlooked by the modern world. Our politics and our morality are kept in tight boxes, constrained by the society around us, and from there, our own super-egos. The political and moral traditions that we have to draw upon are extremely limited, and the positions we are encouraged to take are uninspiring, stale, and lack romance, revolution, or genuine inspiration. When one thinks of hospitality in this narrow modern framework, we imagine a soup kitchen, inviting a stranger into one’s house for a meal and a bed, or a social service that provides help for individuals in need. To many, these acts are pure of heart, and are the highest form of nobility. However, to some philosophers, and to certain strands of leftists and conservatives, the provision of hospitality is merely a way for us to assuage our guilt about the state of society, all while making it worse. 

One of the preeminent thinkers on this subject is the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, who distinguishes between two main kinds of hospitality, and from there goes on to claim that both are deeply problematic, and by definition flawed. His first proposed type of hospitality is known as “conditional hospitality” which is the form grounded in most laws and in most interpretations of modern Judeo-Christian hospitality. One of his classic examples is the right to asylum. Himself an asylum seeker at a young age, Derrida uses this example in his book Of Hospitality in order to show how all forms of conditional hospitality build barriers, define property lines, and create restriction.  When one attempts to seek asylum one must use the language of the nation, answer questions of the questioner, and meet the qualifications and gain the approval of the host. This process—and all other forms of conditional hospitality—create  and reinforce differences between “the host” and “the other,” making it clear that difference is good and that certain property is mine, while other property is yours. Though hospitality may help the other or the guest, through   this helping, the stranger is always reminded that they are not the helper, and that the house they are being helped in is nowhere close to being their own. Though this fact may not seem inherently bad to the modern liberal or conservative, what Derrida attempts to do here is to counteract and disprove the leftist argument in favor of Hospitality. Traditionally grounded in ideals such as equality, community, and free-association, after being faced with these facts, socialists and leftists (and those who may be sympathetic to their thinking) may begin to view hospitality as a concept which is at least slightly flawed. Otherness will always be pervasive in a society where hospitality is law, and property will always remain deeply entrenched in a land where individuals are encouraged to “donate” it away. 

The second form of hospitality which Derrida references is “unconditional hospitality” wherein “the giver” has no say over what “the other” receives or takes. This is a far more radical concept of hospitality than the conditional one, and solves the issues around property, identity, and self-worth which were presented in the first type. However, if nations and people adopted this concept of “unconditional hospitality” with no regard for either personal or private property (there is a major difference) how would the world function? “Home” would cease to be a concept in a world of “unconditional hospitality” and communities would be broken by a lack of social ties, rules, or understandings. Law would be meaningless, and property would cease to be owned by individuals, classes, or communities. We would not be a capitalist, communist, socialist, or even anarchist society, as society would be no more. Though unconditional hospitality is virtuous in its ideals, it is, as described, deeply flawed. Unconditional unwarranted invitation makes it impossible to differentiate between friend and foe, between enemy and patriot. On a global scale this would tear the world apart, and would hurt many more people than it would help. In Of Hospitality Derrida says: “How can we distinguish between a guest and a parasite? In principle, the difference is straightforward, but for that you need a law; hospitality, reception, the welcome offered, have to be submitted to a basic and limiting jurisdiction.” 

Given that Derrida—and our own reasoning—has proven that conditional hospitality creates immoral borders, and that unconditional hospitality creates chaos and destroys the concept of the home, what is the solution? What is a world without hospitality? 

There is, of course, no single view on this, but here a few: (1) A stateless, classless, moneyless society, owned and operated by and for the working class; (2) A corporatist society where the strong rise to the top, and are prohibited from helping the weak; (3) A society governed by the idea of mutual-aid, where assistance is provided to anyone always, but is lacking in restriction or personal thought; (4) A utopia where everyone’s needs are met always, and everyone is allocated everything they will ever need; (5) A dystopia where nobody has a thing, and death is behind every corner. 

While this discussion may seem highly theoretical, extremist, or even perhaps a little silly, given the myriad of crises the world faces currently, it is important to know and acknowledge the arguments for and against giving what we have to those who need it. It is important to see political views outside of the restricting Overton window of modern thought, and it is good to challenge our assumptions about immigration, nationalism, and the concept of helping, particularly on this national holiday.

We encourage you to adopt a stance towards hospitality that works for you and your community, drawing upon these arguments.  We are feeling great gratitude for you, dear Readers, today and every day. 

Stephen Dames is a senior at the High School of American Studies at Lehman College, located in New York City. He is passionate about the future of leftism in America, the role cultural forces play in political movements, and the intersection between youth activism and concrete political change. He believes strongly in the idea of local direct democracy and is an advocate for greater citizen (and youth) participation in government. As Co-Editor-In-Chief, Stephen hopes to expand the NGP into the realms of cultures and art, all while keeping true to the NGP's cross-partisan mission, which he so strongly believes in. Outside of NGP, Stephen works on local political campaigns, is a captain on his High School debate team, and enjoys listening to Steely Dan.