Although I believe identity politics '"produces limited but real empowerment for its participants," it is important to note that it contains significant problems: first, its essentialist tendency; second, its fixed _we-they_ binary position; third, its homogenization of diverse social oppression; fourth, its simplification of the complexity and paradox of being privileged and unprivileged; and fifth its ruling out of intersectional space of diverse forms of oppression in reality.

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitan discourse emphasizes the _cosmic belonging_ of all individual human beings as the ground of our hospitality, solidarity, justice and neighbor-love. Cosmopolitan discourse is about turning a _compassionate gaze_ onto others regardless of one's nationality and citizenship, origin of birth, religion, gender; race and ethnicity, sexuality, or ability

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitan discourse is in a way a response to the issue of solidarity. Although the precondition for solidarity can be a _community_, solidarity requires more intentional commitment and performance than does community.

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitan discourse...provides one with a _public gaze_ with which one can relate oneself to others differently.

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitanism emphasizes and is grounded in a _singular rationality between and among people

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitanism has offered me an ethical perspective and a conceptual framework with which to read the _signs of our times_ as a theologian and intellectual who has a public responsibility for constantly offering a way to engage in this rapidly changing public world.

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitanism is a radical affirmation of the idea of neighbor/enemy-love-as-self love... Cosmopolitanism is about a cosmic scope of justice and hospitality––another name for _love_.

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitanism promotes a sense of new _wetness as regarding every individual human being as a citizen of the cosmos. However, the _we-cosmic-citizens_ are not to promote the _we-less-in-sameness_, but rather the we-less-in-alterity_. Unlike the solidarity-in-sameness, cosmopolitan _solidarity-in-altering_ celebrates the singularity and difference of each individual human being while not denying the historical necessity of the strategic construction of _we_ to challenge the very sociopolitically imposed category

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitanism seeks a _we_ that does not rely on the exclusion of _others_ but, instead, recognizes and confirms each other as part of the planetary _we_. The cosmopolitan _we_ is not grounded in a monolithic sameness but in a constant altering and _ethical singularity_ of each individual human person regardless of one's national origin and belonging, religious affiliation, gender, race and ethnicity, class ability, or sexuality.

— Namsoon Kang

Cosmopolitanism starts from the _singular_ individual rather than the _faceless_ collective

— Namsoon Kang