We Need to Talk about Cosmopolitanism: The Challenge of Studying Openness towards Other People

Abstract

The cosmopolitan has re-emerged as a popular figure within the social sciences, primarily as a means of addressing (the potential for) new forms of experience and sociability in an increasingly mobile and interconnected world. Investigations into practical or everyday cosmopolitanism have been useful in grounding some of the more theoretical of these debates but problems remain in terms of both defining and operationalizing the concept. The first section of the paper briefly addresses some key theoretical debates. In the second section, attention is focused on methodological issues, with regard to both data collection and interpretation. In particular, I suggest a move beyond labelling people and practices as cosmopolitan and, instead, emphasize the contradictory and rhetorical aspects of these engagements, drawing on empirical data. In this way, the temporal, conditional and often fragile aspects of such ‘cosmopolitan’ practices can be foregrounded.

Imagining ‘non-nationality’: Cosmopolitanism as a source of identity and belonging

“…While this image is contested in the sociological literature on cosmopolitanism, the concept of openness to cultural difference remains widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the cosmopolitan -despite its analytical problems and normative undertones (Inglis, 2014;Skey, 2012;Skrbiš and Woodward, 2013). Moreover, cosmopolitan identity formation tends to be understood as an individual endeavour 'signified by the icons of singular personhood' (Pollock et al, 2000, p. 581).…”

“…Other similar conceptualizations define cosmopolitanism as a cultural repertoire and emphasize the situatedness of openness and its limitations in various ways (Hannerz, 2010;Lamont and Aksartova, 2002;Skey, 2012;Skrbiš and Woodward, 2013;Glick Schiller et al, 2011).…”

“…Argyrou (2015) goes as far as to suggest that cosmopolitanism is nowhere to be found, asserting that it is an idealization. This highlights the analytical problems with the concept and its empirical operationalization (Skey, 2012;Skrbiš and Woodward, 2013).…”

Transcultural Brokerage: The Role of Cosmopolitans in Bridging Structural and Cultural Holes

“…The second defining characteristics of cosmopolitanism-openness to other cultures-reflects an appreciation of "…people, places, and experiences from other cultures" (Szerszynski & Urry, 2002: 468) and is considered by many to be a core property of cosmopolitan disposition (Hannerz, 1990;Lee, 2015;Levy et al, 2007;Skrbis, Kendall, & Woodward, 2004;Skey, 2012;Skrbis & Woodward, 2007). Moreover, transcendence and openness can be enacted through a variety of transnational practices and activities such as keeping abreast of world news, consumption of many places and environments, networking and interacting across borders, and transnational mobility (including physical, imaginative, and virtual), among others (Beck, 2002;Szerszynski & Urry, 2002;.…”

The ideological work of the daily visual representations of nations

“…While we may be living in the ‘age of cosmopolitization’ (Beck : 9), characterised by interdependence and increased awareness and presence of difference, it is still unclear what this actually means for people, not least because the performance of cosmopolitan affinities and orientations remains structured by privilege, exclusion and exploitation (Millington ). Furthermore, as people ‘move between more (or less) cosmopolitan attitudes and perspectives’ (Skey : 476), cosmopolitan orientations and the performance of national identities become interwoven (Hanquinet and Savage ; Meuleman and Savage ).…”